Duluth staff propose tighter timelines, expanded citations for rental licensing enforcement

Duluth city staff told the City Council in a study session that they plan to tighten enforcement of the city—s long-term rental licensing rules, recommending a shorter compliance window for tenant-verified repairs, expanded use of administrative citations and increased reliance on reinspection and no-show fees.

The presentation by Deputy Chief John Otis, who oversees the Fire Department—s Life Safety Division, and Life Safety Supervisor Greg Smith described the division—s current inspection workload, recent staffing changes and proposed ordinance-level changes to speed compliance for habitability issues.

The proposal matters because about 40% of Duluth—s residential structures are licensed as long-term rentals; staff said the city currently holds nearly 5,500 licenses covering roughly 17,800 units and adds about 125 new licenses a year. Inspections occur on a three-year cycle and staff reported their inspection backlog fell from roughly three years after COVID layoffs to about eight months as of the presentation.

Staff described how enforcement already works and what would change. The office currently charges a $125 no-show fee and a $125 reinspection fee when landlords miss scheduled inspections or fail to complete ordered repairs. Administrative citation amounts discussed are tiered in a five-step series ($200, $400, $800, $1,600 and $2,000) with a 25% penalty for nonpayment after 10 days. Additional fees noted in the presentation include a $300 fee for licenses expired more than 30 days, a $625 reinstatement fee and a $500 unlicensed rental fee if a property is allowed to operate without a license.

Under the changes staff outlined, tenant-verified complaints that are confirmed on inspection would carry a $200 tenant-complaint fee and staff would give a maximum 14-day deadline for required repairs (timelines can vary by repair severity). If the work is not complete at reinspection, staff proposed moving the case into the administrative citation process and, ultimately, to license revocation and potential court action for persistent noncompliance. Otis and Smith said they are discussing the most effective fine schedule and possible court options with the city attorney—s office.

Council members asked staff for supporting data as they considered changes. Multiple councilors requested historical counts of assessments and citations, the number of $125 no-show and reinspection fees assessed over recent years, and the number of license revocations. Supervisor Smith said the office can pull the past three years of fee and citation data and offered to provide the requested breakdown to council.

Councilors and staff also discussed response timing for tenant complaints. Staff said tenant complaints are prioritized and usually inspected within about a week; life-safety or obvious life-safety issues (for example, heating failures in winter) are expedited immediately. Smith explained inspectors are assigned by district and attempts are made to fit tenant inspections into existing schedules, which can require rearranging other inspections.

Several councilors raised access and trust issues: they said some tenants do not report problems because they believe the city will not act quickly enough. Staff acknowledged outreach and website accessibility could be improved and that most tenant complaints are made by phone to the life safety office. Smith reiterated that confidentiality is maintained for complainants where practicable, though he cautioned single-occupant units can create obvious identification if a complaint is filed.

Council members asked about staffing. Smith said the city currently has five housing inspectors (up from three after earlier budget changes) and estimated a working model would call for six life-safety staff to cover the division—s full workload. Staff credited council support and previous budget additions with reducing the backlog.

Council discussion touched on equity and potential impacts on small "mom-and-pop" landlords if fines and timelines are tightened. Staff responded that fees are assessed primarily for landlords who fail to comply with correction orders, and that the goal is to use existing ordinance tools more consistently to hold noncompliant owners accountable.

Staff said they would return with ordinance language and a proposed fine schedule for council consideration. The council was also told an ordinance requiring landlords to post tenant complaint information on leases will be on a future agenda for a vote.

Staff identified the changes as part of a broader shift to a data-driven, tenant-responsive inspection approach: prioritize properties with repeated problems, tighten timeframes for correction, rely more on administrative citations when warranted, and expand education for landlords.

Ending: Staff provided several specific data points and committed to follow up. Supervisor Smith and Deputy Chief Otis said they would provide the requested fee and citation counts and the council was told staff will bring ordinance language and a proposed fine schedule back for formal consideration.