Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landlords and residents urge caution after Lewisburg implements rental‑registration letters
Summary
At a Nov. 10 public hearing and during citizens input, multiple Lewisburg property owners and landlords opposed a newly implemented landlord registration that requires a $10 filing and warns of a $250 fine for noncompliance; staff said registration has begun and 35 landlords have been registered so far.
Dozens of landlords and Lewisburg residents used a Nov. 10 public hearing and the council's citizens input period to accuse the city of overreach after the city began implementing a landlord registration program.
Multiple speakers said the registration requirement appears redundant with public tax records and expressed fear that a modest $10 annual filing fee could be the first step toward higher fees or reclassification of rental properties as commercial, which they said could raise tax rates.
"It opens the door for future changes like raising the fee ... we might possibly just reclassify these rentals as commercial properties and taxes at a rate of 40% as opposed to 25%," said Chad Woodward, a rental property owner, during citizens input.
Several landlords described receiving mailed notices that they must list deeded properties and pay a $10 fee, and that failure to comply could result in a $250 fine. One resident said the letters made him feel "intimidated, threatened and discriminated against." Staff advised that a resident concerned about public disclosure could submit name and address on paper rather than speak aloud at the podium.
Speakers asked why the city needed a separate registration if tax records already identify owners. John and Andrea Derryberry and Rex Richardson urged the council to explain the long‑term plan for the list and whether the city intends to expand fees or regulatory authority over rentals. James Dugger urged caution, saying codes already allow staff to find properties and warning of a "snowball effect" from small policy changes.
City staff later reported that implementation is underway: planning and codes staff reported registering 35 landlords and sending 250 letters as part of the program. Council members and staff did not rescind the policy during the meeting; no amendments or votes to repeal were recorded.
The public record from the meeting shows the registration program is active and that many local landlords want clearer limits on how the information and fee will be used going forward. The city manager and planning staff remain the point of contact for follow‑up details about the program's scope, fee structure and enforcement plan.
The council proceeded with other business after the public comments. No formal action to change or delay the registration program was taken at the meeting.
