Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Registration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Allegan council tables second reading of rental-registration ordinance after public concerns
Summary
After a second reading and a brief public hearing on Ordinance 5-28 (rental registration), the City of Allegan City Council voted to table the ordinance for further review following resident comments and questions about enforcement and fee collection.
City of Allegan — The City Council opened a second reading and public hearing on Ordinance 5-28, which would amend Chapter 7 (Building Regulations), Article 2 (Rental Registration), before deciding to table the proposal for further work and stakeholder input.
City Manager Joel summarized the ordinance and cautioned council members that unpaid registration fees normally cannot be directly placed on property tax rolls. "We reached out to our city attorney and Mikaela reached out to the city of Kalamazoo, and we found out that that is not a thing," Joel said during his presentation, explaining enforcement options are limited to fines and municipal enforcement procedures rather than automatic tax assessments.
During the public hearing, Ryan Woods resident CJ Paluchek urged the council to consider the broader consequences of permitting development without stronger enforcement, alleging that developer Allen Edwin and management company Swan misrepresented budgets, failed to collect assessments, and left roads in disrepair. "These should have been actual figures instead of estimates," Paluchek said, citing road repair quotes that ranged from $110,000 to $288,045.
Property owner Ben Otis, who owns multiple downtown Allegan properties, told councilors he had submitted written comments and urged more stakeholder engagement to make the ordinance more effective at addressing problem owners.
After closing the hearing, a council member moved to table Ordinance 5-28 so members could have more time to review the proposed amendments and address concerns raised by property owners and stakeholders; the motion passed by voice vote.
What’s next: Council did not set a new date for reconsideration but directed staff to continue outreach with impacted stakeholders and to report back with clarifications on enforcement mechanisms and possible language revisions.
