A key point in the meeting revolved around the proposal to increase the capital improvement surcharge from 10% to 15% for the first year following completion of improvements. This suggestion raised concerns about tenants’ ability to shoulder the financial burden, especially in light of stagnant wage growth. Participants stressed the original intent of such surcharges was to benefit tenants, yet the practicality of a 15% increase was questioned. Concerns were voiced about whether tenants could manage such hikes without adequate wage increases, with one comment emphasizing that stagnant wages make absorbing such costs challenging.

In another discussion, the board considered broadening the definition of “capital improvement” to include enhancements that need only “add value” to a property rather than providing a direct benefit to tenants. This shift from the original requirement—where improvements had to offer a tangible benefit to tenants—sparked debate. The inclusion of “and/or” in the revised language suggested landlords might justify rent hikes for improvements that did not directly enhance tenant living conditions, causing unease about potential landlord advantages at tenant expense.

The proposal to redefine “hardship increase” also drew attention. The board suggested clarifying “just and fair return” for landlords as a return on equity 2.5% above the maximum local savings account interest rate. This precise definition aimed to reduce ambiguity, though it prompted concerns about the appropriateness of government involvement in ensuring landlord profitability.

The board further debated potential exemptions for single and two-family rental units from the rent control ordinance. Some participants questioned the rationale behind exempting smaller properties, arguing for equal treatment across all rental property types to ensure fairness. The conversation highlighted the need for data-driven decisions, urging a comprehensive understanding of the rental market dynamics in Highland Park.

Tenant protection measures, such as how complaints regarding harassment could be filed, were also scrutinized. A proposal to direct harassment complaints directly to municipal court instead of through the Bureau was discussed, with examples of harassment provided to emphasize the need for tenant rights clarity.

Concerns over the equitable application of rent control laws, particularly in smaller rental situations, were echoed during public comments. There was a call for more accessible language in ordinances to help community members understand their rights, alongside a critique of the proposed capital improvement surcharge increase. The board was urged to consider the entire rental stock comprehensively.