Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb commissioners debate database versus mandatory rental registry
Summary
Commissioners asked legal staff whether a mandatory rental registry is permitted under Georgia law and weighed local alternatives such as capturing owner data from utility accounts, leases or business-license renewals while staff reports back on statutory limits and data availability.
At a special-call Ops meeting, DeKalb County commissioners debated whether to pursue a mandatory rental registry that would require owners to enroll or to instead build a comprehensive property-ownership database from existing local and public records.
Dan Baskerville, counsel with Dentons, summarized the legal constraint: "So, commissioner, the the state law on that is, pretty clear that what we cannot do is require people to, enroll in a rental registry." He said the county can, however, determine owner and tenant information through other available means and that the most comprehensive path to require registration would be a change in state law.
County legal staff (Mr. Welch) noted corporate entities doing business in Georgia already must have a registered agent on file with the secretary of state, but commissioners pressed whether the county could require that agent's contact information be provided to the county for enforcement and service purposes. "I think what I'm hearing in the nuance here is that you would like a requirement that that information be provided to the county," Mr. Welch said, and he agreed to check if current law would permit a county requirement to collect the registered-agent name.
Commissioners also discussed local, administrative options: utility-account openings often include lease copies that list owners; business-license renewals could be used for an opt-in data refresh; and county title and tax records provide ownership information. Several commissioners asked central staff to produce data showing how often code enforcement cannot reach owners to justify pursuing statutory change versus administrative solutions.
The committee directed legal and central staff to report back with: (1) whether the county can lawfully require registered-agent information or owner contact data without a state statute; (2) how much owner information can be pulled from utility accounts and business-license systems; and (3) counts of problem properties where owners were not reachable. No formal action was taken at the call; commissioners will consider the information when selecting final legislative priorities.
