Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parma council holds proposed rental-management locality ordinance after members request more data
Summary
Council’s public safety committee deferred Ordinance 62-25 after the building commissioner presented data showing a disproportionate share of violations tied to rentals managed outside Cuyahoga; councilmembers asked for more granular counts and Portage County data before a vote.
Parma City Council’s public safety committee voted to hold Ordinance 62-25, a proposed amendment to the city’s residential rental-properties code that would require rental management companies to be located in Cuyahoga County or an adjacent county.
Building Commissioner Dan told the committee the change was based on a multi‑year review of rental registrations and property-maintenance records. He said rentals comprised about 6.5% of the city’s housing stock in 2022 but accounted for roughly 32% of violations then; more recently rentals represent closer to 9.5% of housing stock while producing about 25% of violations. He also reported that rental properties managed from nonadjacent counties make up 13.7% of rental stock but generated roughly 23% of violation notices, and staff experience shows those managers are harder to get into compliance.
Several councilmembers — notably Councilman Kevin Kuzma and others on the committee — asked for additional detail before final action. Kuzma said he received the data late and asked whether the 174 properties identified were chronic, repeat violators or one‑off complaints and requested Portage County inclusion in the counts. The assistant law director and administration staff said the ordinance targets the management company’s location (not ownership) and cited precedent that the proposed local‑agent requirement had survived a similar legal review in a Cleveland case.
Members debated enforcement practicality, including whether inspectors should address only the complaint item or multiple violations they observe, how to validate an agent’s address on registration forms (and guard against PO box/false entries), and what remedies would follow if an agent misstates its location. Building staff and administration proposed additional on‑site reviews and further data sharing to help members assess the ordinance’s likely impact.
After discussion, the committee moved and approved a motion to hold Ordinance 62-25 so staff can supply the requested breakdowns and incorporate Portage County data. The item will return for further review at a future meeting.
The committee’s action was procedural: no final policy change to the codified ordinances was enacted at this meeting.
