Committee advances overhaul of rental-license rules requiring local manager, tenant registry and higher fines

A committee meeting of the York City Council on April 23 advanced a proposed update to the city's rental licensing and property maintenance rules that would require owners who do not live locally to designate an authorized local manager, require licensed units to list permitted occupants, spell out compliance periods and raise civil penalties for repeat violations.

The ordinance sponsor, Councilwoman Buck, told the committee the changes aim to give city codes staff tools for faster response and to make landlords more accountable. "Their hands are tied sometimes," Buck said, referring to out-of-area owners. "We needed the input of what our folks need to give them the tools they need to do their job better."

The update would require an owner who does not live in the city to appoint a local representative who lives in the owner's county or a county contiguous to it and who can accept service and appear at hearings. It also adds a definition of "disruptive conduct" tied to enforcement against property owners for tenant behavior; establishes defined compliance periods (30 days for most violations, 48 hours for life-safety problems); and raises minimum fines for property-maintenance violations. Brett, from codes and permitting, said the changes were intended to remove ambiguity for magistrates and to make reinspections and penalties clearer. "A compliance period was always an administrative matter left up to our discretion," Brett said. "Now it's in the ordinance. You got 30 days to fix most violations; if it's a life-safety violation, 48 hours."

The proposal would also require that the names of permitted occupants be listed on each unit's license; staff said the city plans to build tenant-tracking fields into new software with Esri and in the interim to use OpenGov. Kim, the business administrator, said larger landlords with electronic tenant lists will find it easier to comply but that enforcement of updates between renewals remains a staff responsibility. Committee members pressed staff on privacy and public-records concerns; staff said tenant lists would not be published publicly and personal contact information (cell phones, addresses, emails) would be protected under right-to-know provisions.

Council members also discussed enforcement "teeth," including whether the city can withhold license renewal for unpaid fines and whether refuse pick-up can be used as leverage; staff said those options exist in related code sections and said they would clarify language in the penalty section. Committee members noted broader public-safety benefits: codes and emergency services said having occupant lists can aid search-and-rescue and coordination with aid agencies after an incident.

Committee members asked for implementation details to be returned with the ordinance, including how the tenant registry will be managed and how appeals will be scheduled; staff said appeals of property-maintenance orders will continue to go to the consolidated board of appeals and that hearings are scheduled as needed, typically within about a month. Committee members advanced the ordinance to the May 6 legislative agenda by voice vote.

The measure will next be considered by the full council on May 6, where further details about implementation, software support and penalty language are expected to be provided.