Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-06 RRC Minutes MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1989 3:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman White convened the meeting at 3:10 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present: Excused Absence: Commissioner Joe Abbondondola Commissioner Wanda Tucker Commissioner Jim Ainsworth Vice Chairman Joyce Wade-Maltais Chairman Randall White Also Present: Dave Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/Public Information Officer Rick Erwood, Hearing Officer Mary P. Frazier, Deputy City Clerk IV. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF THE PARK OWNER'S OPPOSITION TO THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF THE PETITION FOR HARDSHIP RENT INCREASE BY PALM DESERT MOBILE ESTATES. THE FOLLOWING IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MATTER: Key RW Rent Review Commission Chairman Randall White SRG Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk RE Rick Erwood, Hearing Officer JAB Commissioner Joe Abbondondola JA Commissioner Jim Ainsworth JWM Commissioner Joyce Wade-Maltais WT Commissioner Wanda Tucker DE Dave Erwin, City Attorney MPF Mary P. Frazier, Deputy City Clerk RW I'll call the meeting to order, and if we may, Mr. Erwin, do you have any comments concerning this memorandum. I think all of us have read it, and we pretty well understand what the issues are and what the position of the City Attorney's Office is. MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 6, 1989 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If you could just give us a brief overview, more for the audience which is here than for us. DE Okay, Mr. Chairman, if I may, and I'll try to go through it and paraphrase it and basically speak to the questions that are raised and what we consider to be the answers to those questions. Perhaps that might be the easiest way to accomplish this. Question number one deals with whether the Consumer Price Index increase is automatic under the ordinance. Our feeling is that it is in the sense that the landlord is entitled to this increase should he accomplish it or desire to accomplish it without the approval of the Rent Review Board. Question number two is can a hardship rent increase be considered at the same time that a CPI increase is sought to be imposed. Bottom line answer in this is yes also. The third question that is set forth in the memo is what, if any, is the legislative intent with respect to the granting of a CPI increase and a hardship increase at the same time. That basically would speak to the intent, I assume, of the City Council in attempting to provide some limitation on the increases as well as guaranteeing to the owner a just and a reasonable return. To the extent that the increases are treated together, it is anticipated that the increase given would include not only the hardship but the CPI increase at that same point in time. The fourth question which basically deals with the granting of a CPI increase following a hardship increase, our indication is that there is little guidance in the ordinance to help us with regards to that. I think there is some discretion with regard to the determination by this board. The idea in that interpretation is that it not lead to any unnecessary or unreasonable delay in the granting of any increase that should be determined. The fifth question deals with violation of due process and whether delays violate landowners due process rights. I think that is a factual circumstance in each case, and we find really no violation of the due process requirement with any of the delays that have occurred in this particular instance. The last question deals with whether in a hardship increase consideration whether the City should consider the capital improvements to be installed in the future. There appears to be little or no guidelines with regard to future expenditures, and I think that is somewhat discretionary with the Commission. RW Thank you, sir. I think it would be appropriate at this time, if we could, to have roll call. MPF Commissioner Abbondondola. JAB Present. MPF Commissioner Ainsworth. JA Present. MPF Commissioner Tucker - excused absence. Vice Chairman Wade-Maltais. 2 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 6, 1989 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JWM Present. MPF Chairman White. RW Present. Okay, now Commissioners, do we have any questions for the City Attorney of the report which has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office? No questions? I would like to at this point ask Mr. Erwood, the hearing officer, if he has any comments on what has been presented by the City Attorney's Office and then ask the Commissioners if there are any questions of Mr. Erwood. RE I have no comment on the memorandum submitted by the City Attorney. RW Thank you. Are there any questions of the hearing officer? Alright. We have also memorandums from Charles Prawdzik for the tenants and Hart, King and Coldren for the petitioner. Those have been reviewed by the Board and I'm certain that all the members of the Board have received copies of these. Is there anyone who has not received copies? Alright, I guess we all have it. Sir, we have not opened this to public hearing today. Are there any questions or comments concerning the other memorandums which were presented to the Commission? I'd like to ask a couple of questions concerning certain things, either of Mr. Erwood or Mr. Erwin. I understand that, and just referring to the memorandum which has been presented by the City Attorney's Office, I understand that the City Attorney has answered the first question in the affirmative that the CPI rent increases are "automatic". I believe that under the' statute as it is drafted that the verbiage which was used there was that it was "allowable", and that is probably a very similar term, we may be just getting into syntax. Is "allowable" the same as "automatic"? DE Technically not the same. I believe when we use the word "automatic", at least from my perspective, when we're using the word "automatic" our indication is that it does not have to come to this board for approval. And I believe that what's we mean by "automatic", which is probably more appropriately spoken of as being "allowable". RW You're not suggesting then that any increase would be automatic in the sense that the park owner would not have to do something to engage that increase. DE That is correct. He would have to do something. It does not automatically occur, or it does not occur without him taking some action. RW The other issue which I was a little concerned about was that it seemed there was some discussion in the memorandum particularly with reference to question number six that this demand for hardship increase may have been premature in that there had not yet been expenditures made, and I am concerned whether we need to refer this now to the hearing officer to make a determination on the factual issues or whether we should wait until there has been or there have been increases in expenditures. JWM Chairman, may I ask if there are some copies available. RW I'm sure we have an extra copy. DE From my perspective, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the potential expenditures to occur in the future, I believe this has been a part of the consideration by the hearing officer in the past, and there is a reference I believe in the guidelines to percentages of 3 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 6, 1989 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * future expenditures, that they can be considered. My own preference would be on a factual determination that it go back to the hearing officer for that determination. RW Just one other question. It's my understanding that, from the memorandum which has been presented, that it is possible to make a determination of both a hardship increase and the more or less automatic increase (CPI) simultaneously. DE That is correct. RW And if we were to refer this back to the hearing officer, then the hearing officer would take into account any increase which has already been made pursuant to the CPI index and the hardship request. Is that correct? DE I believe that would occur, yes. RW Commissioners, do you have any other questions, comments? Alright, at this time I would entertain any motions. JAB I have a question. I asked Mr. Phillips this last week. Today are we ruling on the fact that a hardship rent increase is allowable with a CPI increase? Is that the only issue right now that we are. . .? RW I think the issue before us is whether the landowner should be allowed to present evidence concerning the hardship increase and, in essence, the upshot of the whole thing is whether a hardship increase should be allowed after that. JAB But is has not been applied for? RW There has been an application. JAB There has been an application. And our ruling will have no bearing on that hardship increase? RW Not today. JAB Okay. RW Do I hear any motions concerning reference to the hearing officer or any other matters? JAB I would make a motion that the hardship rent increase is allowable in the same year as a CPI increase, one should not preclude the other. RW Alright, the motion is, as I understand it, to accept the interpretation by the City Attorney's Office that a CPI increase does not preclude the possibility of a hardship increase being considered by this board. Am I stating that correctly? JAB Correct. JWM I would second that. 4 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 6, 1989 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RW It has been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion concerning that? Any questions of either the City Attorney or the hearing officer? Alright, should we do this by roll call? SRG Voice vote is fine. RW Alright, voice vote. All in favor of the motion, say "AYE". NOTE: "AYES" from all Commissioners. RW All opposed (none) . Motion carries. RW At this point, then, we are left in the position of deciding when we have to bring this back again, if I'm not mistaken. Do we have to give notice to parties? SRG Correct me if I'm wrong. But does this not go back to the evidentiary hearing officer now? RW Yes. SRG So, it becomes administrative then for us to schedule a hearing. The Rent Review Commission will be notified of any findings that the hearing officer makes after that hearing. RW Okay, then we don't have to worry about setting a hearing date for the hearing officer. SRG No. And the tenants will be notified of any evidentiary hearing by mail. RW Okay. Are there any other issues that we need to bring before the Commission at this time? Any other business? City Clerk's Office, any business that we'd have to decide? V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Wade-Maltais, second by Abbondondola, and unanimous vote of the Commission, Chairman White adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, MARY P. ZIER, SECRETARY 5