Richmond Rent Board directs staff to revise Chapter 8 regulation amendments; returns item to Sept. 30 consent calendar

The Richmond Rent Board on Sept. 17 directed staff to revise proposed amendments to Chapter 8 of the board’s regulations and return the item to the consent calendar for the board’s special meeting on Sept. 30.

Executive Director Nicholas Traylor outlined four proposed changes to Chapter 8: (1) Regulation 8.01 would clarify that the petitioner bears the burden of proof, defined as the preponderance of the evidence; (2) Regulation 8.04 would limit preliminary review of petitions to procedural defects, describe what makes a petition unacceptable, and allow staff to administratively dismiss unacceptable petitions without prejudice if they are not corrected; (3) Regulation 8.22 would allow hearing examiners to issue decisions without a hearing when the record contains undisputed facts; and (4) Regulation 8.44 would extend the decision deadline for hearing examiners from 120 days to 150 days.

Traylor said the August 27 board direction asked staff to make the petition and hearings process clearer and more efficient and that the changes are intended to align the regulations more closely with the rent ordinance. "The amendment clarifies that the petitioner has the burden of proof and that the standard is the preponderance of evidence," Traylor said.

General Counsel Charles Ochinuga explained why one change removes subpoena power from hearing examiners: Section 11.100.060(e) of the rent ordinance reserves subpoena authority to the board. Ochinuga said that because the ordinance assigns subpoena power to the board, the regulations should not give that authority directly to hearing examiners. "That particular regulation appears to be in conflict with the rent ordinance," he said, citing Section 11.100.060(e).

Staff and board members discussed several technical edits and clarifications. Vice Chair Cher Cantor and others pointed to typographical and phrasing issues in the draft language (for example, replacing "an" with "the" and removing the phrase "or is otherwise exempt from rent control" where it created inconsistency). Board members and staff also debated where to locate a general rule about extending deadlines when notices are mailed; staff said they would create a standalone provision clarifying that any deadline triggered by a mailed notice will be extended by an additional five calendar days.

Hearing-unit staff described how the proposed changes would operate in practice. Under the draft, a petitioner who receives a notice of an unacceptable petition would generally have 10 business days to refile; staff noted an existing practice that adds five business days if the petitioner requests additional time and an additional five calendar days if the program mails the notice rather than sending it electronically. Miss Shaw (hearing-unit staff) confirmed that appeal deadlines are indicated on decision cover pages and that the program typically accepts appeals filed within 35 days (30 days plus five for mailed service), with the office taking a liberal approach to postmarking and electronic timestamps.

Board members asked for clarity about the reasons for extending the decision deadline from 120 to 150 days. Staff explained the extension was meant to allow time when preliminary review is limited to procedural issues and when hearing examiners are removed from initial review, so that a case may not be immediately ready for a hearing when it reaches an examiner’s desk. Allowing administrative decisions when facts are undisputed was presented as an offsetting efficiency measure.

After discussion about which edits were clerical and which were substantive, Vice Chair Cantor made a motion "to direct staff to revise the regulations with the edits discussed in this meeting and to bring it back on the consent calendar at the special meeting on September 30 for board approval." Board member Melvin Willis seconded. The board voted unanimously: Espinosa—yes; Hite—yes; Willis—yes; Vice Chair Cher Cantor—yes; Chair Tipton—yes.

The board did not adopt the amendments as final regulations on Sept. 17; instead it directed staff to return a revised draft on the consent calendar for the Sept. 30 meeting. Staff said the proposed changes have no fiscal impact and are intended as procedural clarifications to improve service delivery and alignment with the rent ordinance.

Clarifying details discussed at the meeting included: the petitioner’s burden of proof will be defined as preponderance of evidence; preliminary review will be limited to procedural defects (examples cited included missing signatures and jurisdictional errors); administrative dismissal without prejudice will be available when petitioners fail to correct unacceptable petitions within the required time; hearing examiners may issue decisions without a hearing if the record contains sufficient undisputed facts; and the timeline for hearing examiner decisions would change from 120 to 150 days. Staff also proposed a standalone rule to grant an additional five calendar days to deadlines when notices are mailed.

The board’s next step is for staff to return a revised draft of the Chapter 8 amendments on the consent calendar for the Sept. 30 special meeting. If approved on consent, the amendments would be adopted without further full-item debate; if substantive edits remain, staff and the board indicated they would re-agendize for a full discussion.