01-22-2018 Council Work Session Packet

Home Browse Search

emergency contact, but the question becomes what if the emergency contact requires more than 60 minutes to respond. Would that be a criminal offense punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000.00 fine, or would the council wish to make that some sort of civil penalty not punishable by jail, but which the council, after a hearing, might impose? I have a similar concern with number six requiring the renter to be accessible to the owner by telephone at all times. I think number 7 is probably enforceable, number 8 would be enforceable, number 9 seems reasonable, number 10 seems to be identical to number three. I don't' have any issues with Section 26-83 which prohibits rentals of less than 30 days with certain exceptions. In terms of Exhibit B, which prohibits short term rentals: this would obviously be the easiest of the proposals to enforce; however, there still would be evidence and proof issues regarding the investigation and collection of evidence necessary to prove a short-term rental had occurred. This would no doubt require cooperation from the renter, and might require police department or other investigative agency to prepare search warrants to get copies of cancelled checks, to look for rental agreements, and to be able to bring witnesses back for trial, if necessary, assuming that most short-term rentals are going to be made by people who do not live in the Twin City Metropolitan area. Exhibit C seems to be a bit of a compromise between A and B. Under the terms of Exhibit C, an owner would have to obtain a short-term rental license, and under Section 2(c) regulation, again the proposed ordinance would proport to put criminal liability upon the owner to ensure that the renter and guests behave appropriately. I have the same concerns with the provision as I did as discussed above. Number two requires the owner to provide a 24-hour emergency contact available to respond within 30 minutes. Again, the 30 -minute time period gives me concern. Are we going to prosecute an owner criminally if it takes their emergency contact 45 minutes to respond? I think it's reasonable to require that an emergency contact be given, but if we are going to go with a provision such as this, I believe we should have language such as "within four hours, or a reasonable time" because, depending on the time of day and the situation of the "emergency", what might be reasonable in one circumstance, might be too long or too short in another. Number 4 discusses requiring that the renter be 25 years of age or older and that that person provide a phone number to the owner and be accessible "at all times". By setting a minimum age of 25 years, I think the City holds itself out for a possible equal protection argument, and to enforce this, we would be required to prove why someone 25 years of age or older would qualify, but someone 21 years of age or older would not. My suggestion would be that the City simply make it 21 years of age, which is regarded in Minnesota as an adult for all purposes. I believe the City is within its rights to regulate rental properties. My concern is that by making violation of the ordinance a criminal offense under the City Code, as opposed to an administrative violation that could be punished by either a fine or possible revocation of the rental license, the City would be creating enforcement issues that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. In addition, the amount of resources required for proper investigation and preparation of a criminal charge may require more resources than the City has to commit given the other responsibilities of the police department and/or the administrative staff.