Committee recommends against mayor's proposed ban on short-term rentals

The University Heights Building & Housing Committee voted July 16 to recommend that City Council reject a mayoral ordinance that would have prohibited short‑term rentals in the city.

Committee members said the city’s recently adopted registration and enforcement rules provide tools to address nuisance behavior and that a blanket ban could be unnecessary or counterproductive. Councilman King asked the law director how pending state legislation might affect the city’s authority to regulate short‑term rentals. Law Director Bill Bridal said the version of the bill discussed in committee — House Bill 109 — would prevent communities from adopting bans after the law’s effective date unless an ordinance was already in place before state passage. “As an iteration of the legislation before the state legislature would, ban communities from banning short term rentals, unless you had an ordinance on the books prior to the passage of the state,” Bridal said.

Housing staff and committee members described several reasons to retain a local registration and permitting system rather than replacing it with a ban. Housing Department staff member Miss Davis said some short‑term rental hosts screen guests carefully and provide housing for families visiting the nearby Cleveland Clinic or guests connected to university events. “He screens his tenants. I mean, he's very serious. ... The owner actually comes back to the property to inspect it because there's a deposit,” Miss Davis said, arguing that some hosts are on site more often than long‑term landlords.

Committee member Sherry Sacks cited examples of responsible short‑term rental use near John Carroll University and said regulation — not prohibition — can help the city direct the practice toward community needs. Committee chair moved that the committee recommend Council not approve the mayor’s ban; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.

The mayor’s proposed ordinance had not been assigned a number at the time of the meeting. Committee members noted the city already has an ordinance requiring registration, noise limits and possible penalties for unregistered activity; Bridal said the city’s existing ordinance would likely be grandfathered if the state law passes but might need minor amendments such as reducing an application fee to match a state‑allowed $25 cap (the committee noted the city’s current fee is $250).

The committee’s recommendation will go to City Council for consideration at an upcoming special meeting. The committee did not take additional formal steps on enforcement procedures but emphasized that current tools — registration, nuisance enforcement and the ability to revoke permits — are available while Council and staff monitor any state action.

The committee discussion and vote occurred during a special committee meeting to prepare recommendations for a forthcoming council session.