Columbus council holds hearing on proposed city rental registry, seeks input on fees, inspections and enforcement

Council member Nick Bankston opened a public hearing Oct. 25 on a draft proposal to create a Columbus rental registry, saying the measure is intended to improve safety, make it easier to contact responsible owners and reduce emergency displacements such as those at Sawyer Towers and Colonial Village.

"For many rental properties, we have no reliable way to get a hold of the owner or someone in charge should an emergency arise," Bankston said, adding that the city lacks reliable data on how many rental units exist and the condition of those units.

The registry as described by city staff would require annual registration for most residential rentals, a proposed fee of $40 per unit capped at $5,000 per property, and a three‑tiered inspection framework that focuses first on core mechanical and life‑safety systems such as HVAC, hot water and fire protection. For smaller owners with four units or fewer who have no outstanding code violations, staff described a potential affidavit pathway in lieu of a full inspection.

"We are trying to minimize costs. We're trying to make it as simple as possible for folks to comply," Scott Messer, director of the Department of Building and Zoning Services, told council. Messer said the registry is intended to create a localized contact for properties and to give the city advance notice about aging systems so the city can partner with owners before conditions force mass evacuations.

Deputy Director Hannah Jones of the Department of Development said the registry would include owner and local point‑of‑contact information, inspections carried out by licensed contractors for higher‑risk properties, and mechanisms for remediation plans and transfer disclosures when properties change hands.

"For properties that meet some very specific criteria — over 20 units, over 30 years old, and current or previous emergency code violations related to critical systems — there will be a requirement to do all of the inspections referenced and to also provide a remediation plan," Jones said. She described a temporary 60‑day registration option to allow an owner time to come into compliance and said existing enforcement tools — administrative fines, late fees and, when applicable, misdemeanor charges — would remain available.

Deputy City Attorney Laura Baker Morris confirmed that the city has legal grounding to adopt a registry under Ohio law but cautioned that "the devil is gonna be in the details," particularly about what registry fees can legally be used to pay for. Baker Morris told council that municipal fees must be commensurate with the services provided and that fee revenue may be used for maintaining the registry, inspections and related enforcement actions.

City staff outlined a possible timeline: write code and legislation over the coming months, hold a second hearing on draft legislative language in October or November, seek City Council consideration in November or December, and aim for implementation around June 2026.

Invited testimony at the hearing largely supported creating a registry with inspection components, while raising implementation concerns. Melissa Benson, senior managing attorney for Legal Aid of Southeast and Central Ohio, described dozens of tenant calls after the Christmas 2022 evacuation at Latitude 525 and said many tenants cannot find a responsive owner or local contact when repairs are needed.

"It should not take special knowledge and training in order for a tenant to identify the person they need to contact in order to request repairs for their home," Benson said, arguing a registry would reduce tenant fear of retaliation and improve enforcement.

Joe Gilligan, director of policy for the Franklin County Auditor, presented testimony from Auditor Michael Stinziano noting that state law (ORC 5323.02) requires a county rental registry but limits enforcement and penalties at the county level. Gilligan said the city proposal could "complement" the county registry by adding local inspection authority, stronger enforcement tools and tenant communication channels that the county statute does not permit.

Advocacy groups and service providers, including Kathy Levine of BRIDAL, Delna Grama and Rochelle Toth from The Ohio State University, Mary Mutegi of Campus — a neighborhood ministry, Tom Albanese of the Central Ohio Stable Housing Network, and Tamara Howard of YWCA Columbus, urged the council to adopt a registry with proactive inspections to prevent displacement and to connect families to rapid support when hazards were found.

Some landlords and industry representatives urged caution. Don Brunner, president of the Ohio Apartment Association and Columbus Apartment Association, called the proposal "white labeled as a rental registry" and said it duplicates county data, could impose large aggregate fees, and might create vague inspection obligations. Local landlords testified both in favor and against; several supported transparency while others warned that fees and inspection costs would be passed to tenants and could reduce affordability.

Other public commenters urged additional features: several speakers asked that the registry allow public access so prospective tenants can verify a property's registration status; Belinda Spinosi, a disability advocate, asked the council to include accessibility and "visitability" indicators in registry data; and Jordan McLaughlin urged disclosure of parent companies so repeat offenders cannot hide behind LLCs.

City staff said the technology plan envisions a public‑facing portal showing whether a property is in good standing, registration dates and inspection results, and the potential to link registry data to GIS layers and other city records. Messer and Jones said the city intends to work with the Franklin County Auditor to avoid unnecessary duplication and explore data sharing where legally permissible.

No ordinance number was introduced at the hearing. Bankston and staff repeatedly described the draft as a stakeholder‑driven proposal that will be revised; "there is no ordinance yet because we are continuing to work with community," Bankston said.

The hearing produced no formal votes. City staff said next steps include additional stakeholder engagement, drafting code language, and a second public hearing when the legislative language is available.

Ending

Council members and city staff said they will continue stakeholder meetings this fall and plan to present draft legislation for review before any final vote. City staff and community groups requested written feedback and said they will return with a more detailed legislative draft that specifies inspection scopes, fee usage, transfer requirements and enforcement mechanics.