University Heights committee moves to simplify rental-permit rules, separate registration from inspections and study tiered fees

The University Heights Building and Housing Committee on Dec. 16 considered revisions to rental-permit language intended to align revocation grounds across single-family and multi-family rules and to clarify how registrations, inspections and fees are handled.

Law Director Brad Bryan told the committee he had harmonized two ordinances, including changes to the criminal-offense section so that certain offenses would require three violations within the permit period before triggering revocation. "We had to clean up some of the language," Bryan said, explaining the aim of making enforcement consistent between one- and two-family units and apartments.

Housing Director Markell Davis raised a practical question about permit timing: whether a clause saying a permit issued before June 1 should run at least 12 months meant permits should follow the applicant's approval date or the city-wide June 1–May 31 cycle. Councilperson Christopher Cooney and Bryan said the intent was a uniform cycle that would put all permits on a June 1–May 31 schedule, with proration applied for first-year filings.

Chair Winnifred Weizer argued against giving an administrative advantage to late registrants, noting that the city sends reminder notices in advance and that a late-renewal penalty exists. "If they knew they were supposed to renew it for June 1st and missed that deadline, why should they be given more months?" she said.

Committee members agreed it would be clearer to separate the administrative registration (application and payment) from the inspection process. Bryan recommended calling the first step a "registration" and treating inspections on their own timeline so properties could be registered while code violations were remediated. "You register; inspections and violations are handled separately," he said.

On inspection cadence, Davis noted the staffing and logistical burdens of inspecting large complexes. Cooney proposed requiring that 100% of rental units be inspected at least once in a three-year cycle by inspecting roughly one-third of units each year (at least 33% annually) so inspections are distributed and enforceable. The committee asked Davis to consult the commercial inspector about how to assign buildings to years and the operational feasibility of a per-year distribution.

Davis also reported that the current ordinance language — which can prevent issuance of a license when code violations exist — has delayed tenancy approvals for participants in housing programs (as raised by CMHA). The committee discussed a provisional or temporary license to allow placements to proceed while owners correct violations within a fixed remediation period; Bryan described the existing enforcement path of notices to show cause, a limited response period, and potential revocation or prosecution if violations are not resolved.

Members asked whether CitizenServe, the city's permitting system, can be configured to record unit-level inspections and tie violations to specific units; they also asked staff to provide cost estimates for a tiered fee structure based on building size rather than a flat $500 per building. The committee cited examples such as Huntington House (92 units) and a potential Bell Tower project (roughly 200 units) when discussing equitable fee scaling.

The committee did not adopt final ordinance language at the meeting. Chair Weizer asked Bryan to clean up the codified text and asked Davis to return with CitizenServe capability and fee-recommendation options; the item was tabled pending those updates.

What happens next: the law director will provide revised ordinance language and the housing director will report back on system capabilities and proposed fee tiers. No final changes to Chapter 1493 were adopted at this meeting.