Council hears wide-ranging debate on proposed rental-registry pilot after hours of public comment

City staff on July 21 presented a draft rental-registry pilot that would require owners of larger multifamily properties to register, provide contact and ownership information, and be placed on a public, tiered compliance map that would guide risk‑based inspections.

The presentation came from John Shardine, director of the property maintenance unit, who said the pilot is intended to shift the city from a complaint-driven system to a proactive, data-driven approach. "This program is intended to encourage volunteer compliance, improve housing conditions, increase transparency, and strengthen accountability," Shardine told the council during the staff briefing.

Under the proposed framework, phase 1 would require registration for residential rental properties with five or more units; phase 2, after year three, would expand to two- to four-unit rental properties. Staff outlined a three-tier public system (green, yellow, red) based on the previous 24 months of inspection and violation history, with inspection cadence and unit fees tied to tier status: $20, $30, and $40 per unit respectively. Staff proposed hiring two inspectors, an office assistant and GIS support to implement the program and estimated first-year implementation costs near the amounts shown in the packet.

The public-comment period drew nearly 20 speakers. Tenants and tenant advocates told council the registry would help renters find responsible landlords and get access to resources and emergency contact information. "We pay good money to live in subpar conditions," said Alyssa Jacob, who urged the council to move forward.

Landlords and landlord-association representatives warned the registry would add bureaucracy and cost at a time when margins are thin. Jason Weigert, a local property owner with experience in other cities’ registries, said mandatory fees and inspections would strain a backlogged code unit and urged clear, objective checklists focused on life‑safety issues: "Without clear inspection standards, it's like taking the test before," Weigert said.

Councilmembers pressed staff on implementation details: whether the program would duplicate existing enforcement, how fees and fines would be structured, whether interior inspections would be required, and whether the pilot was funded in the FY2027 budget (staff said the additional positions were not yet included in the proposed budget). Several members suggested incentives and waivers for long‑standing compliant landlords and staggered registration to avoid a first‑year surge.

Council did not vote on an ordinance. Instead, after discussion and incoming questions, members gave staff direction to continue roundtables with stakeholders, refine enforcement and fee language with legal counsel, and return with a draft ordinance and additional budget detail for further consideration. The city manager said an ordinance could be prepared for council consideration by the end of the year, with implementation possible in FY2027 pending staffing and funding decisions.

What happens next: Staff will hold stakeholder roundtables, work with legal on enforceable language and fee structure, and return to council with an ordinance and budget implications for further action.