Council violates rental registration order | New

0


At the Marco Island City Council meeting on October 18, the new Deputy City Manager, Dr Casey Lucius, reported on the work of city staff on the possible creation of a registration program for units of short term rental (STR) on the island.

She has struggled with RTS issues on the island since arriving. DOS issues are not unique to Marco Island and have made headlines across the country. This advice, along with advice dating back over a dozen years, has heard complaints from single-family homeowners about what they see as an invasion of their once-quiet neighborhoods.

One issue that continues to be talked about is the “deed restrictions”, which are not controlled by the city, but which were relegated to the Marco Island Civic Association by the Deltona Corporation before Marco Island became a city in 1998. These restrictions acts do not allow “businesses” to be in the neighborhoods of single family homes.

As investors have taken over a large percentage of homes in single-family neighborhoods and collect taxes and pay both county and state tourist tax dollars, they are seen as an invasion of businesses into once-quiet neighborhoods. . The other problem that has become problematic is related to the lack of control over the number of occupants, noise, waste and parking.

Currently, the Collier County tax collector shows there are 2,931 rental units on the island, while the state of Florida has 1,347 rental properties, 36% of which are listed as condos, 43% as single family homes and 21% as “others” based. on Collier County numbers. Dr Lucas proposed the Rental Registration Ordinance, in part to create a more accurate database to help the city compile a more accurate list of actual numbers.

The ordinance itself would only apply to single-family homes, as condominiums have their own registration process and internal controls. The order would include the following:

  • Address of the property and proof of ownership.

  • Contact numbers of owners.

  • Emergency contact number.

  • Copy of DBPR license and tax receipts.

  • Declaration of adherence to local, state and federal laws.

  • Obligation to display important information inside the unit.

  • Penalties for non-registration.

  • Registration fees and effective date.

  • Annual inspections required by law.

It would also give the board a list of optional items to consider.

  • Plan the interior of the house.

  • Landline phone for 911 and Code 3 notifications

  • 30-day update for changes to registration documents.

  • Pool safety standards in force.

  • Occupancy limit based on the number of rooms or maximum occupancy capacity.

  • Required one hour response by emergency contact.

  • Requirement for the installation of a sound level meter.

  • Requirement for the installation of a rental sticker by the front door.

Several bills are in the pipeline for consideration in the next session of the state legislature that could impact issues regarding the STR debate, one of which, HB 6033 (2022) would make it under local control.

Councilor Brechnitz was not sure what the registration ordinance would solve. “How do we apply this and what do we do with the information? ” He asked.

Councilor Irwin commented that she thought the number was small enough and asked why we would care about the county or state collecting the taxes owed. “It’s their problem, not ours,” Irwin said.

She would go on to say that rentals and sightseeing are big business here in Southwest Florida. “Collier County has the third highest number of STRs in the country. This has a big impact on our businesses, ”said Irwin.

Board chairman Grifoni asked why, if passed, we would not require all homes to be registered. He agreed with Councilors Irwin and Brechnitz and their views, and complained that annual safety inspections would open a huge “Pandora’s box.” He went on to say that he saw no benefit to what was on offer.

Councilor Folley said he thought it was premature and would like to wait and see how the new noise ordinance might play out. “I wouldn’t mind seeing it coming back a little later and with more citizen participation in a few months. I don’t mean to say we’re done with this. Folley then proposed that the matter be postponed until the second meeting in January. He first received a second on his motion from Councilor Brechnitz, but this motion was challenged by Board Chairman Grifoni, who questioned the wisdom of doing so without further direction to staff. Brechnitz subsequently withdrew his second to the motion, and the whole question fell silent.


Share.

About Author

Leave A Reply