¶21. Landlord further contends the court erred in upholding the Board’s authority to conduct a hearing before a single member. The City’s ordinance provides that the Board may “for purposes of expedition . .. designate one (1) or more of its members to sit as hearing officer(s) to hear and decide matters brought before the board.” Burlington Code of Ordinances § 18-64. Landlord relies on 24 V.S.A. § 5005(e)(4), which provides that “[i]n order to hear an appeal, a majority of the board must be present.” This case, however, did not involve an “appeal” to the Board from a decision by an “enforcing officer” as generally provided by the statute, but rather a first-instance security-deposit hearing specifically authorized by § 5005(b)(5), which provides that such hearings “shall be set and held by the board in the same manner as provided in subdivisions (1) through (4) of th[e] subsection,” none of which contains the majority requirement. The trial court here also noted the express legislative policy that § 5005 “shall be construed most favorably to municipalities, its intention being to give them the fullest and most complete powers possible.” Id.