Council aims to fix rental regulations, establish urban renewal agency
Councilors want to make it clear that violating the rental code is a criminal, not civil, matter. But landlords will likely be given more time to install fire escape windows.
The Laramie City Council is scheduled to establish an urban renewal authority tonight during its meeting. It’s also aiming to shore up language in its rental regulations that was deemed “unconstitutionally vague” by a district court judge earlier this year.
Both topics are up for their third and final reading tonight, as the current council gathers for its last regular meeting together; the winners of the 2022 general election will be seated in January, replacing a third of the municipality's highest body.
Also on the agenda tonight: approving employment contracts for the city attorney and city manager and voting to return to in-person meetings after more than two years of pandemic-era virtual meetings.
Laramie’s rental regulations start January 1 …
It’s been nearly one year since the Laramie City Council passed rental regulations, outlining health and safety standards for rental units, requiring registration by landlords, establishing a complaint process for tenants and delineating a process for bringing landlords into compliance.
On this last point, the rental regulations need some work before they can go into effect Jan. 1.
Shortly after the City Rental Housing Code was passed, a local landlord sued the city, arguing the city lacks the statutory authority to pass rental regulations and that the new standards, registration system and enforcement mechanism violate landlords’ constitutional rights. The city refuted Bell Leasing’s lawsuit on every point.
After a hearing in July, then-Albany County District Court Judge Tori Kricken ruled partially in favor of each side. Her ruling first stated unequivocally that the city has a legal right to pass rental regulations.
“The weight of authority favors a finding that municipalities, within the exercise of their statutorily granted authority, may enact rental housing codes,” Kricken writes in the order. “‘The general rule is that where a local law merely enlarges upon the provisions of a state statute by having stricter requirements than the statute, there is no conflict between the two where the legislature has not preempted regulation of the field.’”
But she also sided with the landlord when she found the specifics of the enforcement mechanism were worded too vaguely.
“The Court finds that the plain language of the Ordinance as written is unconstitutionally vague,” Kircken writes. “The Ordinance fails to clarify: whether any hearing before the municipal court would be civil or criminal in nature: what rules, trial procedure, and appellate procedure apply: and whether a failure to comply with the city manager’s notice and order is, itself, a per se violation.”
So the council is set to fix that “unconstitutionally vague” wording during its meeting tonight. Original Ordinance 2053 makes it clear that violation of the rental regulations is a criminal matter — in the same way traffic violations are criminal, not civil, matters — and that landlords can and will be punished by the court, not the city manager’s office, giving them a chance to defend themselves and answer charges before any fines are levied.
“This is not an effort to change anything of substance in the rental housing ordinance,” City Attorney Bob Southard said during a council meeting earlier this month.
The rental regulations fix is likely to pass. The City Rental Housing Code itself passed with a healthy 7-2 vote. And since then, one of the nay votes has changed his tune.
“I have been opposed to the rental housing code but have since reconsidered,” said Councilor Pat Gabriel, who voted against the rental regulations last January.
Speaking during a November council meeting, Gabriel explained that he had talked to more constituents in the months since his vote.
“They’ve really convinced me that, as a councilor, I need to be listening,” he said. “I (had) made a case earlier about state statute covering rental housing. But we heard, in the past, public comments about how cumbersome it can be for people to follow through on complaints with landowners — if you have to go through the state and hire an attorney and so on. It’s really important that we listen to everyone in our community.”
… but you might have to wait until 2025 for fire escape windows
The city council will also consider a resolution tonight exempting landlords from one provision of the City Rental Housing Code — for at least two more years.
Resolution 2022-73 answers some concerns raised by landlords — specifically about the availability of contractors — by altering the rental code’s implementation schedule. Most of the code — including its complaint system and enforcement mechanism — will still start Jan. 1, but the specific requirement to outfit rental units with egress (fire escape) windows would not be enforced in full until 2025.
The delay would allow landlords time to secure contractors, who are scarce right now, to install the windows.
“Staff believes that this two-year extension is a viable amount of time for owners to acquire the needed design, engineering, materials, contractors and permits to complete the installation of emergency escape in sleeping areas and meet the code,” the resolution’s cover sheet states.
Administratively, the resolution lets landlords register their rental units even if those units are not in compliance with the new fire escape requirements. Landlords must attest one of the following: their unit is in complete compliance, their unit is not in compliance but will be by 2025, or their unit is not in compliance and cannot be brought into compliance.
“Under the third circumstance above staff will be able to make contact with the owner, request the reason that the code can’t be met, inspect the property and work with the owner on alternative solutions (alternative solutions will have to be adopted in code),” states the cover sheet. “There is a chance that code can’t be met therefore making the unit(s) unable to be registered rental units. Staff will not consider cost as a reason that meeting the code is not possible.”
In other words, there might be workarounds for a rental unit that cannot physically be altered to include egress windows — but any workaround would have to be approved by the city council, and the dollar amount it costs the landlord to add those windows will be irrelevant to that consideration.
Urban renewal is also on the table
An urban renewal agency is a tool municipalities can use to identify and address “blighted” areas within the city — properties where buildings have fallen into disrepair or debris has been allowed to accumulate.
The council signaled its intention to establish such an urban renewal agency with a separate resolution earlier this year. The ordinance up for final reading tonight actually establishes the agency.
“This ordinance, very simply put, is establishing the group that will organize and run the urban renewal authority as it’s being set up and as it’s established for the community,” City Planner Derek Teini said during the ordinance’s first reading last month.
The council is likely to pass the ordinance tonight. While councilors have received some negative comments, the topic has not garnered much discussion during its first and second readings. The agenda for tonight’s meeting places the ordinance’s final reading in the “consent agenda” — meaning councilors could pass it alongside other routine actions without any debate or discussion.
If the agency is established tonight, it will function as one more advisory board for the council. Like the Board of Health or the Laramie Planning Commission, the Urban Renewal Agency would not be able to take action on its own. Rather, its five-member commission would bring recommendations to the council. The elected councilors would still have to sign off on every project plan and every agreement with developers.
Councilors and city staff have responded to misunderstandings about the agency in previous meetings. The city already has the ability to condemn properties; this ordinance does not grant them that power. And the reach of the city’s urban renewal authority extends to city limits and not beyond.