JANUARY 4, 2006

ATTENDANCE: Richard Booth, Chairman; Martin Bernard, Vice Chairman;
Maria Borges-Lopez, Akisha Cassermere (7:55 p.m.)
Marissa Lilliedahl (7:25 p.m.), Mary Geake, Ben Guerrero

STAFF: Elisabeth Youngerman, Director of Human Relations and Fair
Rent, Nilsa Martinez, Bi-lingual Secretary

OTHERS: Margaret Suib, Norwalk Fair Housing Officer;
Susan J. G. Zumph, Equity Residential; Kristin Hupfer, Riverview
Apartments and Equity Residential; JoAnn Esposito, Riverview tenant; Amanda Garcia, Michael Geake.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Booth called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.

1. Approval of the Minutes from the Previous Meeting - December 7, 2005

The corrections to the minutes are as follows:

Page 2, paragraph 7, line 3: please change “individual units. They have received...” to
“individual units without submetering. They have received...”

Page 2, paragraph 7, line 4: please change “Ms. Suib of the Fair Housing Advisory Committee, ...” to “Ms. Suib, the Fair Housing officer,...”

Page 2, paragraph 7, line 7: please change “everything is in addressed.” to “everything is
addressed.”

Page 3, paragraph 1, line 2: please change “supervising the basic material...” to
“supervising the Section on basic material...”

Page 4, paragraph 2, line 16: please change “ Marilyn Maitlan” to “ Marilyn Maitland”

Page 6, paragraph 1, line 2: please change “Fair Rent Commission” to “Norwalk Housing
Authority”.

Page 7, paragraph 8: please change section titled “The decisions are as follows:...” to
“The decisions are as follows:

Decision: Apt. A.

1. The landlord shall complete all repairs by December 31, 2005.
2. If the repairs are not completed by December 31, 2005, the rent is to be
escrowed with the Fair Rent Commission.
3. Effective January 1, 2006, all escrowed funds will be used for emergency
repairs.

Decision: Apt. B

1. The rent shall be set at $1.00 per month, beginning November 26, 2005.
2. Rent will not be escrowed.
3. The landlord shall complete all repairs by December 31, 2005.”

Page 8, paragraph 9, line 1: please change “MR. MARTIN MOVED...” to
“MR. BERNARD MOVED...”

** MR. BERNARD MOVED THAT THE DECEMBER 7, 2005 MINUTES BE
ACCEPTED AS CORRECTED.
** MS. GEAKE SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

2. Chairman’s Report

Chairman Booth announced that Mr. Patterson’s wife had died unexpectedly. He stated that the office has sent food basket. Chairman Booth suggested the Commission consider a donation to the education fund.

3. Director’s Report

Ms. Youngerman explained that Mr. Patterson’s statistics were missing from the report but the February report will include Mr. Patterson’s statistics. The number of complaints has continued in a steady flow, with 32 for the first six months of the year. The number of cases concerning Section 8 landlords has also been steady. Ms. Youngerman distributed copies of “Tenant Repair Problems” to the Commissioners. The Fair Rent office is distributing these to the various “out reach locations”. The office is also trying to work with the Housing Authority on this issue. The handout was prepared at the request of the Section 8 office. Ms. Youngerman reported that the Fair Rent office has a good relationship with the Section 8 intake officers, which frequently allows problems to be addressed early before they require attention by the Fair Rent Commission.

Ms. Youngerman stated that during December there were several families that were about to become homeless. These families were referred to Malta House, St. Luke’s and to the Norwalk Emergency Shelter.

Ms. Youngerman stated that there was an updated listing of the Commissioners in their information packet. Ms. Geake stated that her party affiliation was incorrect. She is a Democrat.

Ms. Youngerman suggested that the Commission review the open cases at this time. This was agreeable to all.

6. Review and discussion of open cases

7. Motion and Vote on open cases.

1532-05 Esposito, 93 Richards Avenue, #704. Complaint filed 10/03.

Hearing scheduled for tonight. No action recommended.

1533-05 D’Alessandro, 30 Morton Street, 2nd Floor. Complaint filed
10/05/05.

Withdrawal filed on December 15, 2005. Tenants have moved.
Recommended closing the case.

** MR. BERNARD MOVED FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE
CASE # 1533-05, D’ALESSANDRO, 30 MORTON STREET.
COMPLAINT FILED 10/05/05.
** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

1534-05 Morales, 25 Chapel Street, #c-1. Complaint filed 10/17/05.

Following meeting with landlord and tenant, situation appears to
be settling. Offer made/accepted 12/06/05. Hearing canceled.
12/15/05 Repair charge canceled. Recommended closing the case.

** MR. BERNARD MOVED FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE
CASE # 1234-05 MORALES, 25 CHAPEL STREET, #C-1. COMPLAINT
FILED 10/17/05.
** MS. GEAKE SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

1535-05 Olbrys, 93 Richards Avenue, #404. Complaint filed 10/14/05.
Memo from Corporation Counsel received. Discussion by Commission.

1536-05 Ramirez, 3 Oak Street, Complaint filed 10/20/05.

Upon re-inspection of the site, most of the repair work had been completed.
Following settlement with landlord and tenant, the hearing was canceled
on 12/07/05. Recommended closing the case.

** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ MOVED FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE CASE # 1536-05, RAMIREZ, 93 RICHARDS AVENUE, #404. COMPLAINT FILED 10/20/05.
** MR. BERNARD SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

1537-5 Santosh, 93 Richards Avenue, #402. Complaint filed 10/21/05.

Memo from Corporation Counsel received. Discussion by Commission.

1538-05 Pozzi, 93 Richards Avenue, #708. Complaint filed 10/21/05.

Memo from Corporation Counsel received. Discussion by Commission.

1539-05 Jeffreys, 11 Jefferson Street, #A. Complaint filed 10/25/05.

Rent to be placed in escrow. Waiting to hear from Housing Authority.
No action at this time.

1540-05 Wallace, 11 Jefferson Street, #B. Complaint filed 10/25/05.

Health Department condemned the site. Relocation benefits for
Tenants, being investigated. No action at this time.

Commissioner Lilliedhal arrived at 7:25 p.m.

1542-05 Barcenas, 7 Olean Street, #3. Complaint filed 10/28/05.

Many of the repairs completed. Repairs continuing as of January
3, 2006. No action at this time.

1544-05 Garcia, 93 Richards Avenue, #507. Complaint filed 11/14/05.

Received opinion from Corporation Counsel. Discussion by
Commissioners.

1545-05 Negash, 93 Richards Avenue, #503. Complaint filed 11/16/05.

Received opinion from Corporation Counsel. Discussion by
Commissioners.

1546-04 Melnikoff, 914 Foxboro Drive. Complaint filed 11/22/05.

Hearing scheduled for February 1, 2006. No action at this time.

1547-05 Easton, 36 Fairfield Avenue, # 3-B. Complaint filed 12/05/05.

Hearing scheduled for February 1, 2006. No action at this time.

NEW CASES

1548-05 Nunez, 33 Merwin Street, #2. Complaint filed 12/22/05.

Poor condition and possible lead paint claims. Recommendation to hear the case.

** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO HEAR CASE # 1548-05, NUNEZ, 33 MERWIN STREET, #2. COMPLAINT FILED 12/22/05.
** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

1549-05 Kinch, 10 Renzulli Road. Complaint field 12/23/05.

$150 rent increase & increase in security deposit. Recommendation
to hear the case.

** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ MOVED TO HEAR CASE # 1549-05, KINCH, 10
RENZULLI ROAD. COMPLAINT FIELD 12/23/05.
** MR. BERNARD SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

1550-05 Durkin, 200 Main Street. Complaint filed 12/14/05.

No heat, various repairs needed. Recommendation to hear case.

** MS. GEAKE MOVED TO HEAR CASE # 1550-05, DURKIN,
200 MAIN STREET. COMPLAINT FILED 12/14/05.
** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Booth called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. He explained that the hearing was being recorded by both a private secretarial service and a City transcriptionist.

Chairman Booth stated that the hearing would be conducted for:

CASE # 1532-05 (93 RICHARDS AVE.)

Chairman Booth then reviewed the procedure for conducting a hearing.

Following this, the tenant, Ms. JoAnn Esposito of 93 Richards Avenue, Unit 704, the representatives of the landlord, Ms. Kristin Hupfer, Riverview Apartment & Equity Residential and Ms. Susan Zumph from the Chicago offices of Equity Residential; Ms.
Margaret Suib, Norwalk Fair Housing Officer and Ms. Elisabeth Youngerman, Director of Fair Rent and Human Relations, all stood to be sworn in.

Chairman Booth asked if they:
• Solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God.
• All parties replied, “I do.”

Ms. Youngerman then reviewed the contents of the exhibit packet as follows:

1. Complaint. [1 page, two sides.]
1a. Rent Increase History (2001-2006) [2 single sided pages]
2. Lease Renewal (2005-2005)
2a. Lease Renewal Election.
2b. Resident Update Form.
3. Letter to Landlord from Tenant Notifying of non-acceptance of rent increase.
4. Copy of Page 9 of the 2001 Decision by Fair Rent Commission on Unit # 704.
5. Telefax cover sheet from Tenant.
5a. Lease 10/2004 thorough 9/2005 [2 single sided pages]
5b. Lease Renewal Notice, 2004.
6. Letter to Riverview Property Manager regarding filing of complaint.
7. Letter to Riverview Property Manager regarding Property Inspection Report.
8. Letter to Tenant regarding Property Inspection Report.
9. Property Inspection Report. [3 single sided pages]
10. Letter to Tenant regarding settlement offer.
11. Letter to Tenant regarding Notice of Hearing.
11a. Notice of Hearing.
12. Letter to Property Manager regarding Notice of Hearing.
12a. Notice of Hearing.
13. Letter to Tenant regarding Rent Level.
14. Letter from Attorney Zumph regarding additional information for hearing. [2 single sided pages]
14a. Riverview Water and Sewer Billing
14b. Rental Rate 2005 Comparison
14c. Tenant Rental Rates Comparison and history.
14d. Riverview Property Improvement 2000-2005
15. Faxed cover for Proposed 2005-2006 Lease Sample
15a. Proposed 2005-06 Lease. [2 single sided pages]
15b. Proposed utility addendum
16. Equity’s Photographs of Sample One Bedroom Unit and Premises.
17. Photographs of Unit 704 Taken by Fair Rent Commission Staff.
18. Exhibit for Respondent.

Ms. Youngerman stated that Exhibit 2, 2a and 2b are all part of the lease renewal. Exhibits 16 and 17 were single copies of photographs taken by both parties in booklets that were passed around to the Commission.

Chairman Booth asked the tenant if she had anything to add to the case that was not already included in the exhibits.

Ms. Esposito explained that the rent increase proposed by Equity was a $120 increase in addition to paying a utilities surcharge for water, sewer and garbage. Ms. Esposito explained that the total increase for her would be about $150 a month in her rent. It was written on previous leases that she was one of the original tenants of the apartment complex and that she would not have to pay utilities. When she received the bills, she was instructed to bring them to the office, which she did.

Ms. Esposito stated that the Exhibit 14b was incorrect as far as the rental rate increase. She referred to the second page of Exhibit 1a, which are her handwritten notes. She explained that she has lived in the building for over 15 years. She originally rented the one bedroom unit she now occupies for $925 a month. The increase in rent from $925 to $989 was actually an increase in her rent to $1,064, but Ms. Esposito had originally given a two-month security deposit when she moved into the building. Since Equity only requires a security deposit of one month’s rent, the additional amount was then pro-rated over the course of a year and deducted the amount from the rent. This resulted in a rent deduction of $75.00 a month from the $1,064 rent, which comes to $989. Therefore, Ms. Esposito explained, her rent increase was almost 15%, going from $925 to $1,064. The reason she paid $989 was because of the $75.00 deduction from the extra month’s security deposit.

The rent increased again, from $1,064 to $1,079. However that was not the actual rent increase. Ms. Esposito explained that she had been contacted by the office at that time and informed that a clerical error had been made and that there was interest due to her from the security deposit. This came to $684.00. Once again, Equity agreed to pro rate the interest over a twelve-month period, which came to $57.00 per month. From 10/03 to 10/04 her actual rent payment to Equity was $1,022.

Her rent then increased from $1,022 to $1,210 during 2004-05. This was an out of pocket increase for Ms. Esposito of $188, which is another 15% increase. Currently, she has been paying $1,210 and her next increase will be to $1,330, with the addition of water, sewer and garbage surcharge. Added together, that is an increase of $150 per month.

Ms. Esposito explained that the tiles in her bathroom were cracked. She had one of the maintenance men inspect the area and that she had been told that the tiles could not be replaced because they were older and could not be matched.

The second complaint had to do with the windows in the bedroom. During the winter, the windows leak air badly and cause drafts. All of the appliances in the apartment are electric, including the heat. She stated that her electric bill has been between $95.00 and $98.00 for her one bedroom apartment. Ms. Esposito works during the day, so there is no one at home during the day. This is also the same case with the sliding glass doors in the living room.

After looking at Riverview Equity’s comparison of the rates, Ms. Esposito felt that the two buildings that were chosen for comparison are top of the line buildings. The appliances in Riverview are not brand new, and the buildings are older. Ms. Esposito did say that a new security system was installed but that the doors had been bent and were now broken. She also stated that Janelle was one of the most competent people that has been employed at Riverview by Equity. Ms. Esposito stated that when she sees problems in the building, she calls the office. She then recounted how on Thanksgiving night she discovered a major water leak in the garage. The issue was addressed then, but it has leaked again. The plaster is still missing from the area and there are puddles of water from the leaks. Because of this, Ms. Esposito did not feel that it should be compared to a top of the line apartment unit. She also pointed out that one of the buildings was a condominium.

Ms. Esposito stated that she understood that Equity was a major corporation and that because of that, they were able to make changes that the previous owner never could have made. She felt that it was unfair for her to be “brought up” to the rent rate that someone who is new to the building would be paying.

Ms. Cassermere arrived at 7:55 p.m.

Ms. Hupfer stated that she went back to the actual leases for reference when she was informed of this situation. She was not aware that Ms. Esposito was refunded a security deposit refund. Because of this, the actual leases in hand correlate to their records. Regarding the differences in the amounts paid, she pointed out that the lease states the rent. Chairman Booth asked her if she was denying Ms. Esposito’s statement. Ms. Hupfer stated that she had gone through the ledgers and that it did reflect the original second months security being refunded by pro-rating. However, she was not able to locate anything in regards to the error with the security deposit interest. She said that it was clear that interest was refunded on a yearly basis.

Ms. Esposito pointed out that there had been a number of people who had worked in the Riverview Equity office. Ms. Hupfer agreed.

Regarding the comparison of the various Norwalk properties, Ms. Hupfer stated that the property is not as new as Merrit River but it is similar in age to the Corset factory. She stated that the property was only 15 years old. She also stated that she appreciated Ms. Esposito’s honesty about how prompt the response is when issues arise. Ms. Hupfer stated that Riverview Equity had performed many of the repairs that Ms. Esposito asked for, including replacing her carpet in 2004, replaced the kitchen floor, hot water heater and refrigerator. After checking Ms. Esposito’s files, Ms. Hupfer stated that she did not find any paperwork in regard to the windows. Nothing was mentioned prior to Ms. Esposito’s signing her last lease. Ms. Hupfer assured the Commission that Riverview Equity had replaced numerous windows in the structure, but they do not conduct unit inspections. Now that the administration is aware of the problem, they will do their best to rectify it, and that also includes the tile floor in the bathroom. The security door is scheduled to be replaced this coming week-end.

Equity completely refurbished the hallways and added a fitness center. They also updated the exterior by adding lighting and security. Ms. Hupfer stated that the rents for unoccupied units during the last two years have been at the market prices. That is why Riverview Equity believes that to bring Ms. Esposito’s rent up to $1330 is fair. It is more than a 10% reduction from the market rate.

Chairman Booth asked Mr. Bernard to review Mr. Patterson’s report for the Commission. Commissioner Bernard did so. Commissioner Bernard asked Ms. Esposito how long the windows had been in this condition. She stated that they had been that way for as long as she had been in the single bedroom unit. She also added that she had spoken to Bill about the windows when she had him inspect the tiles in the bathroom. Commissioner Bernard stated that Mr. Patterson’s report mentioned mildew on the balcony, which is on the south east side of the building.

Ms. Hupfer stated that there is a 2006 capitol budget project for power washing the exterior of the building. Following that, the building will be repainted. When asked by Commissioner Bernard if anything was planned for the windows, Ms. Hupfer stated that it had not been brought to their attention until the complaint was filed. Chairman Booth asked why this had not been addressed before. Ms. Hupfer stated that they were planning on commencing the work on the exterior of the building in the spring.
When asked about the bathroom tiles, Ms. Hupfer replied that there was no record of the conversation Ms. Esposito had with Bill in the file and that when the problem with the kitchen floor developed, Riverview Equity had taken care of it. Chairman Booth asked Ms. Hupfer if it was Riverside’s intention to take care of all the items that appear on Mr. Patterson’s report within a 30-60 day time period. Ms. Hupfer explained that these types of repairs are ones that are performed on a normal basis. She did stated that she would prefer to wait to deal with the mildew, as it would be taken care of as part of the planned power wash and repainting of the building. Ms. Esposito stated that she would not mind waiting until the project commenced. Ms. Hupfer stated that if, for some reason, the project was delayed until the fall, Ms. Esposito’s deck would be power washed before then.

When Chairman Booth invited Ms. Esposito to ask any additional questions, she stated that she lived by herself and is totally self supporting. Her main concern centers on the rent increase, which she feels is harsh. While she understands about the market rates in Norwalk, the increments that she has already had makes this a hardship. She felt that she was being penalized for being one of the long time tenants and not paying the market rate.
She reiterated that Janelle was doing a great job, and that the company was very responsive when repairs were needed, but an increase of $150 was too much, in her estimation.

Commissioner Guerrero asked what the range would be for the additional water, sewage and garbage rate. Ms. Hupfer replied that it would be approximately $30.00 per month.

Commissioner Geake stated that she had located an ad for Riverview on Rent.com. She wanted to know if the quoted rents for one bedroom apartments of $1510 - $1700 would include the water, sewer and garbage fees. Ms. Hupfer answered no, it would not. Attorney Zumph stated that Rent.com was not a site that Equity pays for. Therefore what is in the ad may not be correct. Commissioner Geake pointed out that the ad does not state that the renter is responsible for the electric, and the utilities surcharge. Attorney Zumph stated that the utilities arrangement was very clearly stated in the lease.

Commissioner Geake was also curious regarding the lack of water meters. She wondered about when there is a water main break or leak, if the tenants pay for that. Ms. Hupfer explained that the amount of water consumption is tracked, so if there is a sharp increase, they notice it. Attorney Zumph stated that the corporate office does not charge back 100% of the water charges to the tenants, they only charge back 90%. The 10% is a threshold, to cover incidents such as a leak. She stated that when they charge for water, sewage and trash, they are only trying to recover a portion of the actual costs. In the past, Attorney Zumph explained, there have been times when pools have been drained due to maintenance and the corporate headquarters has adjusted so that the tenants do not pay for that. The corporate office has a program that tracks this and major variations are noted. This is to make sure that the residents are not being held accountable for something they had no control over.

Commissioner Geake also was curious about what happens if a tenant takes an extended vacation. She wanted to know if the utilities surcharge was pro-rated for that time. Attorney Zumph explained that the formula used was not designed to determine exactly how much water one unit was using. She also stated that this program was used nationally by Equity and that there were other properties in Connecticut that are not owned by Equity which use the same program. She also explained the intricacies of the program.

Commissioner Cassermere left at 8:15 p.m.

Attorney Zumph stated that Equity is interested in making a profit by renting the units at market rate, but they are not interested in making a profit on the utilities surcharges. She stated that other rental companies incorporate part of what they charge for utilities as profit.

Attorney Suib, the Norwalk Fair Housing Officer, was allowed to question the representatives from Riverview and Equity. She stated that the utility issue was a broader issue than this particular case. She also informed the Commission that as one who was familiar with the local real estate market, the Corset Factory and the Merrit complexes were not really comparable, since Merritt River is brand new and while the Corset Factory building is older than Riverview, it is in the process of becoming a condominium. The Commission, Attorney Suib stated, differentiates between a new rental and existing rental. Under the law, and under what the Commission sees, the rentals are whatever the market will bear. She stated that was not the case with the tenant.

Commissioner Cassermere returned to the meeting at 8:20 p.m.

Attorney Suib stated that despite the formula that Attorney Zumph explained, the electricity rate simply reflects the building’s usage, not that of the residents. Utilities in Connecticut are governed carefully. If individual tenants have their own electric meters, then they pay for their own usage. A building’s meter simply reflects the entire property’s usage. As far as Attorney Suib can determine, water, sewage and garbage are utility charges. She stated that Avalon Bay wanted to charge tenants for water usage and was told by the Department of Public Utilities Control (DPUC) that they needed to put in sub meters, which is what Avalon Bay ended up doing. The Norwalk City Housing Code and the Health Department require separate meters. She pointed out that if the Commission approved this type of utilities surcharge that would set the Commission at odds with both the Norwalk City Code and the Health Department.

Ms. Youngerman recapped the various emails sent out with the Corporation Counsel’s opinions and reviewed Ms. Esposito’s complaint. She also indicated that Ms. Esposito filed with the Commission in 2001 about her rent increase and that the Commission had ruled in favor of Ms. Esposito, limiting the rent increase to $100 at that time.

Ms. Lilliedhal left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.

Ms. Youngerman also explained that Exhibit 1A was a typed copy of Ms. Esposito’s handwritten notes, which are on the following page of the document. Ms. Youngerman noted that the utilities addendum has not been given to the long term tenants. Equity is now requiring all the tenants to pay for these utilities surcharges.

Ms. Lilliedhal returned to the meeting at 8:34 p.m.

Ms. Youngerman summed up her presentation by saying that the Commission needed to decide if the Equity process is reasonable and fair. She stated that the law is not clear on this issue.

Chairman Booth asked Attorney Zumph what would happen if he decided to rent an apartment, but refused to sign the utilities surcharge. Attorney Zumph stated that is the Equity’s policy. Chairman Booth also asked about the Fitness Center and whether everyone pays for it. Ms. Hupfer stated that everyone pays for the Fitness Center. Ms. Esposito commented that the Fitness Center was actually just a single room with two treadmills, one stairmaster, a stationary bike and various sets of weights, some of which have now gone missing.

Attorney Zumph stated that in the Avalon Bay case, put in the meters without telling the DPUC and that the DPUC only regulates the meters. Chairman Booth agreed, stating that the meters are used to make sure the tenant is not being defrauded.

Attorney Suib stated that a copy of a letter from the previous Director of the Fair Rent Office, Sonia Devitt, stated that the previous case had been dismissed because Equity withdrew the charges. Attorney Suib stated that, while what Equity is proposing is reasonably fair, the law states that the landlord must pay the bill if individual meters are not present.

Commissioner Bernard asked how the water bill is calculated when there is a lack of rain, in terms of landscapers, cleaning the parking lots, etc. Attorney Zumph stated that is what the ten percent operating cost covers. She reiterated that Equity is not interested in making a profit on utilities.

Ms. Esposito reminded everyone of the time that the sprinkler system broke. Attorney Zumph stated that there would be an increase in the water bill that would be abnormal and an alert would be issued to the property manager. Chairman Booth asked what it would cost to meter the entire building would be. Attorney Zumph stated that it would be in the six figures.

Commissioner Guerrero asked about the sewer rate and Attorney Zumph replied that it is on the property taxes. Attorney Suib commented that there is a difference in the sewer rate for residential versus commercial.

Commissioner Guerrero left the meeting at 8:52 p.m.

The sewer rate is calculated by the amount of frontage on the property.

Commissioner Geake asked what happens if someone challenges the water rates, etc.

Commissioner Guerrero returned to the meeting at 8:53 p.m.

Attorney Zumph explained that it is an internal process and that it is Equity’s policy to provide the tenant with as much information as the tenant needs to know in order to answer the question.

Commissioner Geake also wanted to know whether a tenant who signs the utilities addendum would be agreeing to a set rate for utilities. Attorney Zumph said that the amount varies monthly. She stated that she felt that this was a fair way to do this. Attorney Suib remarked that in the utilities addendum states that a default on paying the utilities surcharge is a default on the lease. If this was only to share the actual costs in a fair manner, Ms. Suib stated, evicting a tenant for non-payment of the utilities surcharge contradicts that.

Mr. Geake stated that he was one of seven Commissioners on the Second Taxing District board and that according to Section 16 of the Connecticut State Statutes, it is not clear exactly what is permitted by law. The DPUC has said that while an apartment complex could be considered a utility under the law, the DPUC chooses not to regulate it. By not charging for exclusive use and exclusive access, it becomes unclear very quickly.

Ms. Garcia, who was representing her parents who are residents of Riverview but are not fluent in English, asked why the residents have to pay the utilities surcharge. Attorney Zumph stated that for those who are involved in the complaint and can’t pay simply can’t pay. She also stated that if the procedure is approved, the charges will only start today and that she would be happy to work out something with the Garcia family. There would be no late charges involved. If the Commission decided that the utilities surcharge is wrong, then Equity will not be charging the tenants a utilities surcharge or requiring the Utilities Addendum to be signed any more.

Commissioner Bernard stated that he felt with the way the process was set up it was discriminatory towards the long term tenants. Attorney Zumph replied that it was not intended to be discriminatory, but Equity wants everyone to be on the same scale. She stated that the Commission has the power to act with the force of a court and if they decide that Equity’s policies are unfair or illegal, Equity will accept that decision.

Ms. Youngerman stated that she had read the Utilities Addendum and there was nothing about what do with when the tenant had questions. Attorney Zumph agreed that it is not in the Addendum and that the lease language could be clearer. Equity is continually working on that because they want to be able to settle things without going to public hearings like this one. Equity wants to settle things with their tenants.

Commissioner Bernard asked if Equity pays their tenants the interest on their security deposits. Attorney Zumph stated that Equity does issue checks to the tenants.

Chairman Booth closed the public hearing at 9:20 p.m.

The Commission decided to take a five minute recess at this time.

Commissioners Cassermere and Lilliedhal left at 9:20 p.m.

8. DELIBERATIONS AND DECISIONS ON HEARING CASE

Commissioner Geake read the standards as outlined as the applied to Case No. 1532-05 - 93 Richards Avenue, Unit 704. After some discussion, she stated that Items A-J and L-M applied to the case. All the Commissioners agreed.

THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WERE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION:

1. COMPLAINANT HAS BEEN A RESIDENT AT RIVERVIEW APARTMENTS FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 YEARS.
2. COMPLAINANT WAS A COMPLAINANT IN A 2001 CASE WITH THE NORWALK FAIR RENT COMMISSION CONTESTING A RENT INCREASE AT RIVERVIEW. AT THAT TIME, THE FAIR RENT COMMISSION IN ITS DECISION REDUCED THE PROPOSED RENT INCREASE.
3. COMPLAINANT HAS NEVER PAID UTILITY BILLS FOR WATER, SEWER AND GARBAGE EVEN THOUGHT THEY HAVE BEEN MAILED TO HER. SHE HAS BEEN ADVISED BY THE PROPERTY MANAGERS TO BRING HER BILLS TO THE OFFICE TO BE PAID BY THE OFFICE STAFF.
4. AT HER LEASE RENEWAL IN OCTOBER 2005, COMPLAINANT WAS ADVISED THAT THE RENT WOULD INCREASE BY $120, FROM $1210 PER MONTH TO $1330 PER MONTH. IN ADDITION, COMPLAINANT WAS ASKED TO SIGN A “UTILITIES ADDENDUM” TO THE LEASE REQUIRING HER TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL FEE FOR WATER, SEWER AND GARBAGE IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $30 PER MONTH.
5. DURING THE COMPLAINANT’S TENANCY, HER KITCHEN TILES AND THE LEAKING WINDOWS HAVE NOT BEEN FIXED.
6. THE RESPONDENT HAS AGREED TO DO ALL OF THE REPAIRS, EXCEPT POWER WASHING THE EXTERIOR) LISTED IN THE FAIR RENT COMMISSION’S INSPECTION REPORT WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION.
7. TENANT PROVIDED A HISTORY OF HER RENT INCREASES AT RIVERVIEW BEGINNING IN 2001 THROUGH THE PROPOSED RENT INCREASE IN OCTOBER 2005. PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2001, HER RENT WAS $925 PER MONTH, INCLUDING WATER, SEWER AND GARBAGE. THE PROPOSED INCREASE FOR OCTOBER 2005 IS $1330 PLUS UTILITIES INCLUDING THE UTILITY ADDENDUM CHARGE FOR WATER, SEWER AND GARBAGE.
8. COMPLAINANT PAYS FOR ELECTRICITY EVERY MONTH. HEAT IN THE APARTMENT UNIT IS ELECTRIC.
9. THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT GENERALLY, REPAIRS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN A TIMELY MANNER.
10. RESPONDENT DID NOT CORRECT THE CRACKED TILES IN COMPLAINANT’S BATHROOM BECAUSE MATCHING REPLACEMENT TILES WERE NOT AVAILABLE.
11. THE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH WATER LEAKS IN THE GARAGE AND THAT HER APARTMENT WAS NOT COMPARABLE IN AGE OR CONDITION TO THE APARTMENTS IN OTHER COMPLEXES CITED BY THE RESPONDENT.
12. THE ONLY TRUE COMPARABLES FOR COMPLAINANT’S APARTMENT ARE OTHER UNITS AT RIVERVIEW.
13. AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE UTILITY CHARGES IN THE UTILITY ADDENDUM INCLUDE THE WATER, SEWER AND GARBAGE COSTS. THESE CHARGES ARE BILLED TO MANAGEMENT AND PASSED ALONG TO TENANTS THROUGH A THIRD PARTY BILLING COMPANY BASED ON A USE CALCULATION FORMULA, ACCORDING TO SQUARE FEET AND NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS IN EACH UNIT.
14. DURING AND PRIOR TO THE HEARING SEVERAL PARTIES RAISED A QUESTION CONCERNING THE LEGALITY AND THE REASONABLENESS OF THE UTILITY CHARGE PROCEDURE. THE NORWALK FAIR HOUSING OFFICER, RESPONDENT’S CORPORATION COUNSEL, THE NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL, AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS AND FAIR RENT DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED MEMORANDA TO THE COMMISSION ON THIS ISSUE.

THE FOLLOWING DECISION WAS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION:

THE FAIR RENT COMMISSION FINDS:

1. THAT THE COMPLAINANT CONTINUES
PAYING HER CURRENT RENT OF $1210 UNTIL ALL REPAIRS ARE COMPLETED.
2. AFTER THE REPAIRS ARE COMPLETED, COMPLAINANT’S RENT MAY BE INCREASED BY $60 A MONTH TO $1270.
3. THE UTILITY ADDENDUM IS UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE AND SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED BY RESPONDENT AS A
CONDITION OF RENTAL.

** COMMISSIONER BERNARD MOVED TO APPROVE THE ABOVE
STATED DECISION REGARDING CASE NO. 1532-05 (95 RICHARDS
AVENUE).
** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH ONE OPPOSED (BOOTH).

** COMMISSIONER BERNARD MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THESE DECISIONS AND FINDINGS IF IN HIS OPINION; IT MEETS WITH THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION.

Chairman Booth stated that he felt the Vice Chair should also sign this particular decision. This was agreed to by all.

** COMMISSIONER BERNARD MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THESE DECISIONS AND FINDINGS IF IN THEIR OPINION, IT MEETS WITH THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION.
** MS. BORGES-LOPEZ SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMISSIONER’S POTPOURRI

There were no further comments from the Commissioners.

9. ADJOURNMENT

** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
** MS. GEAKE SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Services