Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates annual rental-registration fee to fund expanded code enforcement
Summary
Council members discussed converting the city's one-time rental registration to an annual fee (suggested $20) to fund additional code enforcement staff; staff estimated ~9,000 registered rental units and roughly $180,000/year revenue at $20/year and said ordinance and implementation details would need analysis.
During the FY27 budget workshop, several council members proposed converting the existing one-time rental registration fee into an annual recurring fee to provide stable funding for additional code enforcement personnel.
Council members framed the change as a response to neighborhood impacts tied to high-occupancy rental properties after recent state law changes. One council member suggested a $20 annual fee and asked staff to analyze operational impacts, administrative burden and legal considerations. Staff said the city currently shows roughly 9,000 registered rental properties and estimated a $20 annual fee could generate about $180,000 a year, which could fund two to four additional code officers depending on salary and benefit assumptions.
Staff noted the existing ordinance currently charges a one-time fee and that a switch to an annual fee would require ordinance amendment; staff said the city enforces registration today and could design a recurring-fee system but would return with an implementation plan analyzing administrative impacts, equity considerations, and whether to extend the fee to multifamily properties (the current registration excludes multifamily complexes by ordinance).
Council debate included alternatives: (1) retain the one-time fee and increase enforcement activity using fines, (2) dedicate general-fund dollars to code enforcement as a public-good approach, or (3) adopt a targeted recurring fee to cover incremental enforcement costs. Several council members emphasized the need for a careful analysis of who ultimately pays (landlords vs. tenants) and the equity implications of a recurring charge.
Council directed staff to return with a more detailed proposal, including revenue estimates, administrative costs, legal mechanisms (ordinance amendment), and suggested targets for how many additional officers the revenue could support.
