Council to rewrite resolution declaring Eddie Flores’ vacant rentals uninhabitable; item continued to Sept. 19

Council members discussed a draft resolution that would declare vacant rental properties owned by Eddie Flores uninhabitable because Flores does not hold a city rental license, and agreed to rewrite the measure and bring it back to the council on the 19th for formal action.

The issue matters because the draft, as written, could prevent utility reconnection and appear to make the properties permanently ineligible to be rented; council members asked staff and the city attorney to specify exactly why properties would be deemed uninhabitable and how the designation could be removed if a new, eligible owner brought a property up to code.

City Attorney: “WeTheyare uninhabitable because mister Flores does not have a license to rent property,” said the city attorney during the discussion, distinguishing a licensing-based finding from an uninhabitable finding tied to the physical condition of a structure. A council member pressed for specificity: “I just feel that if we are making these statements and taking these actions, we need to be very specific as to why,” the council member said.

During the discussion council members raised several implementation points rather than taking a final vote. Staff and the attorney said code enforcement would identify Floresvacant properties as uninhabitable on the basis that Flores lacks a rental license. Council members asked the resolution language to clarify that a sale to a new owner who is eligible for a license and who obtains the required inspections could allow reconnection of utilities and return the property to the rental market. One council member asked what would happen after 60 days for properties left without utilities; another emphasized the need to avoid language that would make a property "dead forever."

Council discussion also noted a licensing timeline mentioned in staff materials: a person denied a license remains ineligible for six months after the denial; the city attorney said Flores had appealed a denial to the board and that the appeal was denied. Council members and staff discussed the local inspection process, a "green tag" inspection status applied by code enforcement, and that a new owner would have to pass inspections and apply for a separate license for each property.

No final ordinance or resolution was adopted at the meeting. Instead the presiding official said the resolution would be revised to add the requested specificity and that the revised version would be returned to the council on the 19th so members could review the new language before voting. The item was continued for revision and reconsideration rather than approved or rejected.

The councilwill consider the rewritten resolution at the next meeting; staff said they would update the draft to make clear the reason properties are deemed uninhabitable (license ineligibility rather than physical condition) and to describe the conditions under which a property could be returned to habitability by a subsequent owner.

Clarifying details from the discussion: Flores was identified as the owner whose appeal of a license denial was previously denied by the board; a six-month ineligibility period after a denial was cited; council members requested explicit language about whether utility reconnection would be allowed if a new, eligible owner passed inspection and obtained a license.

What happened next: the council did not vote on the resolution and asked staff and the city attorney to rewrite the language and present the revised draft on the 19th for further action.