Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City reports 417 rental properties registered; staff proposes fee mechanism to fund expanded inspection staffing and space
Summary
City staff reported that 417 rental properties (2,643 units) have registered under the new rental-registry ordinance; inspections have started and staff proposed a temporary 5% capital-assessment fee on certain permits to finance a 2,000-square-foot addition to inspection/fire-prevention office space and ongoing inspection capacity.
South Burlington staff updated the council on the city’s rental registry program, inspection work completed in the program’s first months, and a financing option for a modest office expansion to support the inspection team.
Staff reported that 417 properties representing 2,643 rental units have registered in the program to date. Of those units, staff said 762 are permanently affordable units and about 1,808 are conventional long‑term rental units. Short‑term rentals were split into two categories: 46 short‑term rental units paying the higher short‑term fee (owner‑occupied and non‑owner‑occupied distinctions apply) and an additional 27 owner‑occupied accessory‑short‑term arrangements.
“Shortly thereafter, about within a week or so, we submitted a very, rudimentary online way that you could, using a Microsoft form, register your property, to get the system going,” staff said. Inspections began in September; staff said they have completed on‑site inspections at 222 properties (753 units) with 975 separate inspection visits (follow‑ups explain the higher visit count), and they listed the most common violations: missing ground‑fault circuit interrupters near water sources, overdue heating/furnace inspections, missing or noncompliant smoke/CO alarms and missing handrails.
Staff described operational challenges: last‑minute appointment cancellations, difficulty sourcing contractors to make required repairs within short compliance windows, and occasional unpermitted changes of use (for example, bedrooms or accessory units added without zoning or building permits). Staff said many life‑safety violations have been corrected through the inspection process and highlighted some recent remediation work, such as removal of abandoned oil tanks.
To fund an approximately 2,000‑square‑foot addition to the fire‑prevention/inspection office that staff said is needed to support the inspection program, staff proposed a temporary 5% capital‑assessment fee on selected permits issued by the fire and building departments (construction, electrical and similar permits). Staff estimated that a 5% fee could generate roughly $70,000 per year and said they would propose the fee as a temporary mechanism and present a formal repayment/borrowing plan if council supported the concept.
Council members asked staff to prepare a fuller financial package and to continue exploring grants, and several councilors praised the inspection work that had already addressed life‑safety problems. Staff said they will return with a detailed financial plan and implementation timeline; no fee ordinance or vote was taken at the meeting.
Ending: Staff will return with a full financing and implementation proposal for the expanded inspection workspace and staffing, and the council asked staff to continue pursuing grants and to present a detailed impact analysis before any fee change is adopted.
