2026-09-28 - Legislative Affairs Sub-Committee

00:10Good afternoon. Welcome to the

00:12legislative affairs subcommittee meeting

00:14of September 28th. if you could uh rise

00:17and join me in a salute to the flag.

00:34>> Roll call the members. Council Green Sua

00:37>> here.

00:38>> Here. Councelor H

00:39>> here.

00:39>> Here. Councelor Kelly

00:40>> here.

00:41>> Here. Council McKenna

00:42>> here.

00:42>> Here. And chairman Argenzio

00:44>> here.

00:44>> Here. reform is present. We have uh two

00:47items on tonight's agenda. The first

00:50being an ordinance establishing

00:51regulations for naming city property in

00:53the city of Rivier.

00:57>> Thank you. Uh any comments from any city

00:59councilors?

01:04>> Councelor H.

01:05>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking through

01:07this, um definitely think it's a good

01:09idea. One thing I would like to change

01:11is in section one

01:14part C where it says shall have been

01:17deceased for at least 10 years so that

01:20their contribution to the city will have

01:21stood the test of time. I'd like to see

01:24if we can make an amendment to change

01:25that to one year. Um which a few cities

01:30and towns do right now I believe but I

01:32would definitely like to see that

01:34shifted to one year. I feel like anyone

01:36that's being considered for

01:39a city building or a property or

01:41something like that, um, their

01:43contributions have probably already been

01:46well known by that by that time if

01:48they're being considered. Thank you.

01:51>> Thank you, uh, Councelor Green.

01:55>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I agree with

01:59Councelor H, but I was looking at it for

02:01in two years. Um, I think two years

02:05would make sure that they've done what

02:07they were supposed to do. You know, get

02:08all the criteria together and everything

02:10that that um needs to be done, but 10

02:13years is way too long to wait. The

02:16families want to be able to

02:19witness this and stuff like that. And

02:21and if you don't, if you wait 10 years,

02:24the family could be gone. So, um I

02:28support it, but

02:32I still believe that this is city-owned

02:34property, and I know other cities and

02:36towns do do um this the school

02:41department does the voting for it. But I

02:45I really believe that the process should

02:47be a committee with the school

02:51committee, the city council, and the

02:52mayor, not just the school committee

02:55naming this naming a bench. For example,

02:59what I'm talking specifically about is

03:01what happened over at the Lincoln

03:02school. We were trying to name a bench

03:07of of of a little boy and we got voted

03:11down for it. And to me that was

03:13heart-wrenching and I don't want to see

03:15that happen again. So I feel that if

03:17there is a process where all three

03:20entities come together and it's for the

03:23betterment of the residents of the city

03:25of Rivia who actually are the owners of

03:28all the property because they're the

03:29taxpayers. So that's just my two cents.

03:32Thank you.

03:33>> Okay. So, I think the naming of uh

03:35school property and school buildings is

03:37mass general law. And I, Madam Clerk,

03:40you can correct me if I'm wrong. I think

03:42we would have to do a home rule

03:44petition. Um,

03:46uh, to change that. Um, so I I believe

03:50if if we could vote on this and that

03:52could be a separate issue at some point.

03:54Go ahead. Um it is it's uh the mass

03:57general law chapter 43 section 33 but it

04:00does not state that the statute does not

04:03state that the school committee alone

04:06has exclusive authority or sole power to

04:09name the public assets. So we could

04:13change it as a home room petition like

04:15you just said but include these other

04:18entities with it.

04:22>> Okay. So are we looking to pass a Okay.

04:26>> Go ahead.

04:27>> No, when you finish.

04:28>> No, council president. Go ahead.

04:29>> Thank you. Um on the on the year thing,

04:34uh

04:36one council wants one year, another two.

04:38I want three. So, so but I think uh you

04:42know

04:43it's easy to say that you know the

04:46person with one year is or are or lesser

04:48than three is is someone that of stature

04:51but it it could get political too and

04:54somebody could be pushed up to the front

04:56because they fit. That's only my

04:59experience over the years when things

05:01have been done that maybe shouldn't have

05:03been done and some of us try to stop

05:05them or whatever. So I I think there

05:07there's maybe room for a compromise. I

05:09hope and and I I think someone that's

05:13someone that's been there three years,

05:14there's probably a better track record

05:16and we we will know that this is genuine

05:19and which in most cases it would be

05:21anyway, but there's always room for for

05:24problems.

05:25>> Thank you, Mr. President.

05:27>> Councelor Kelly.

05:28>> Thank you. I just have a question. So

05:30with the year requirement, the 10ear

05:32requirement that is for the naming of a

05:36property, not for a portion of the

05:39property. There's no um there's no said

05:42requirement for naming a portion of the

05:44property. Is that correct?

05:47>> I believe the way it's written, if a

05:50whole building would you would have to

05:52be deceased x amount of years. If there

05:54was a room in a building, I don't

05:56believe it has that same criteria.

05:58>> Thank you. Council

06:05Kogleandro.

06:07>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I want to

06:10show support for the amendment that

06:12councelor H would like to make. I think

06:13the whole point of naming a building or

06:15a room or anything after someone is to

06:17remember them. Naming something is a

06:20great way to do that. So, I'd be in

06:22favor of one year. I'm also in favor of

06:24getting all three of those groups

06:26together and maybe making a working

06:28group that makes these decisions instead

06:30of having to file a home rule petition

06:32because we would be the only

06:33municipality in the state that would

06:36take that power away from the school

06:37department. And where I would be on

06:39board to do that as well uh because I do

06:42believe it's taxpayer dollars that pay

06:43for these properties, I would like to

06:45try to do something more collaborative

06:47first. So, thank you very much.

06:51Thank you uh counselor. Any other

06:53further discussion?

06:56So where do we stand? Uh do you want to

06:58take separate votes on the one and two

06:59year or

07:04Okay. So

07:07madame clerk could you an amendment that

07:09uh councelor Hash raised that uh we

07:12should have one year.

07:16Shall the legislative affairs

07:18subcommittee amend se proposed section

07:211.10.030

07:24C1

07:26to strike 10 years and insert in place

07:30thereof one year. Councelor Agend I'm

07:33sorry. Uh councelor Green SA.

07:38>> Yes.

07:39>> Yes. Councelor Hass.

07:41>> Yes.

07:41>> Yes. Councelor Kelly.

07:42>> Yes.

07:43>> Yes. Councelor McKenna.

07:44>> Yes.

07:45>> Yes. Yes. Chairman Arjenzio.

07:46>> Yes.

07:47>> Yes. Uh that amendment um has uh been

07:49approved by the legislative affairs

07:51subcommittee.

07:52>> A vote on the uh motion as amended

07:56>> to

07:56>> in favor.

07:57>> Okay. Uh shall the legislative affairs

07:59subcommittee offer a favorable

08:01recommendation to the full city council

08:04to adopt the ordinance as amended?

08:06Councelor Gino SA.

08:10>> No.

08:11>> No.

08:11>> No. Councelor Hass.

08:13>> Yes.

08:14>> Yes. Council Kelly. Yes. Yes. Council

08:16McKenna.

08:16>> Yes.

08:17>> Yes. And Chairman Argenzio.

08:19>> Yes.

08:19>> Yes. The property naming ordinance has

08:21received a favorable recommendation for

08:23adoption as amended.

08:25>> Thank you.

08:27[clears throat]

08:28>> Next item is a motion by councelor

08:30Aenzio that the city council order to a

08:32public hearing an ordinance establishing

08:34a unified rental registry and inspection

08:36program and amending and restating the

08:39regulation of short-term rentals.

08:44Thank you. U I know this is my motion.

08:47Uh does anyone have a problem with me uh

08:49sitting up here as chair or should I

08:52relinquish the chair? Okay. All right.

08:54Thank you. Um so I'll I've created some

08:58slides or some visual aids here to help

09:02us out. I know we really didn't get a

09:04chance to talk about this last time. We

09:05were all kind of caught up in the

09:07recusal uh part of it. I believe Ashley

09:10is going to be able to put those slides

09:13up for us. And these are just talking

09:15points. Um, and please feel free to ask

09:18any questions or what

09:46So, this is a unified rental registry

09:49proposal. This combines both long-term

09:52and short-term rentals. We we have one

09:55now for short-term rentals. Um, and what

09:59already exists and what is new. So

10:01already [clears throat]

10:03on the books uh in our ordinances

10:06uh we have a ordinance that requires

10:10inspections of every rental unit. Uh

10:13whether it be a single family home with

10:16a somebody renting a room or a penthouse

10:18down the beach. Uh you are required to

10:22get a certificate of fitness uh when you

10:26rent. And every time the

10:29uh property turns over, you would it

10:33would require you to come in and get

10:35another certificate of fitness. A

10:36certificate of fitness is $75.

10:39Uh fines are set under chapter 4U. There

10:43are administrative search warrants uh

10:45that uh could be imposed if there is a

10:49threat to life and safety. Uh what is

10:52new about this? um every

10:55property in the city again whether it be

10:58one room or whether it be uh multiple

11:00units you need to register. It sets an

11:03inspection cycle. The cycle is every fi

11:06once every five years. You would

11:08register online and you would be

11:11establishing a tier system. once every

11:13five years if there's no problem. If

11:15there's a property that has uh

11:18demonstrated uh a lot of uh fines or or

11:22problems, if they've been validated, you

11:24would go down to a three-year uh

11:27inspection cycle.

11:29Next,

11:32this would create one list of every unit

11:35in Rev. You register once a year online.

11:39Monitor unregistered rentals online to

11:41conduct the property owner and inform

11:44them the need to register and be

11:45inspected. Inspect on a schedule once

11:48every 5 years. It's the same code, the

11:51same standards that we've been applying

11:53and it's the same inspectors.

11:57The current ordinance was written in

11:591976.

12:01uh it was almost unchanged for 50 years

12:04besides updating fees. Certificate of

12:07fitness inspections are already

12:08required. Uh the state sanitary code

12:11already sets the standards for

12:13inspections. One housing inspector

12:15currently administers all rental

12:18inspections, complaints, and inspection

12:20reckons with the assistance of the

12:22short-term rental inspector. The current

12:25ordinance in was in place before the

12:28internet, before the massive growth in

12:30the city and before every platform and

12:33practice we experience now in the modern

12:36world.

12:37Who would have to register?

12:40Anyone offering a unit for rent in Rea?

12:42Every long-term rental unit, rooms

12:45rented within homes and short-term

12:48rentals such as Airbnb.

12:53who does not have to register.

12:55Homeowners who do not rent family and

12:58licensed facilities, units occupied by

13:01family, hotels, motel, and state

13:04licensed group residences. So, if you

13:06have a home and you you have a two

13:08family or a three family and it's all

13:11family, you don't have u tenant or

13:16any kind [clears throat] of uh formal

13:19lease rental. you would not have to

13:22participate or uh register.

13:25The cost of this would be $25 per unit

13:28per year. That averages out to $2 a

13:31month. And this is capped for large

13:33portfolios at 5,000, meaning large

13:36buildings along the beach. Uh they would

13:39be capped at 5,000. Uh most cities and

13:42towns that surround us have this cap. Um

13:45fees go into revolving fund for

13:47inspections, staffing, and monitoring.

13:50The current ordinance is $75 per

13:52inspection per tenant turnover. Under

13:56the proposed new ordinance, the

13:57inspection would be free.

14:02So only the inspection schedule changes.

14:05Today a turnover if a landlord contacts

14:09the city to be inspected voluntarily. No

14:11accurate data or current rental

14:13landscape in Rea under the registry once

14:17every five years. and online monitoring

14:20of the entire rental landscape in

14:22Riviera.

14:24So, right now, people that voluntarily

14:28call up, they're they're renting their u

14:30three room or whatever it is. They call

14:31up, they get a certificate of fitness,

14:34these people are doing what they're

14:36supposed to be doing. Others are not

14:40calling the city and the city has no way

14:42of knowing if somebody is renting. So

14:46this puts everybody on the same playing

14:49field

14:50and we certainly want to make sure that

14:53everybody that is renting tenants are in

14:57a safe sanitary uh condition and not

15:01subject to any kind of a fire hazard or

15:03anything like that. So the fines these

15:06fines already exist new fines are not

15:09being established. Chapter 40 ticketing

15:12is in force and rever today, voted on

15:15and accepted by the city council over a

15:17decade ago. Life safety violations

15:20already run at 490 a day maximum.

15:24Now, if a tenant does not want to be

15:28inspected and no life safety threats are

15:31suspected, no inspection occurs. So,

15:35this was uh brought to my attention that

15:38people thought this was an invasion of

15:39privacy. So, if a landlord gets called

15:43for an inspection and the tenant refuses

15:46to have the city come in, it ends there

15:49and then the landlord would be obligated

15:52to let the city know when that um that

15:55piece of property or that unit is

15:57vacated. So, nobody is going to force

16:00their way in to any um unit unless

16:05there's a suspected um life safety

16:09issue.

16:12Administrative search warrants. I know a

16:13question came up about that. So, that is

16:16in effect. If the city feels as though

16:18there's a life safety threat, they can

16:21petition to a judge to get a

16:23administrative search warrant. That's

16:25rarely done. They do do it now.

16:28Occasionally the the city does ask for

16:31one uh but it's up to the judge. So

16:34there was a misconception that if you

16:36didn't register that you know we would

16:38be getting a a search warrant to come

16:40in. That that's not the case. That is

16:42only on very um severe cases.

16:47Illegal apartments and rooming houses

16:49finding illegal units. Online rental

16:52monitoring will flag rental listings,

16:55including rooms for rent. Listing

16:57history will be preserved, so a history

17:00of listings being advertised and filled,

17:03will help stop rooming houses slip

17:05through detection.

17:07Every listing will have a legal use

17:09determination to discover illegal work,

17:11illegal units, and help stop unsafe

17:14situations such as overcrowding and fire

17:17code violations. I know in other cities

17:20and towns um the fire departments have

17:23been very supportive of rental

17:24registries because firefighters are

17:27going into homes and buildings and they

17:29don't know what they're going to

17:30encounter in there. Um so they're very

17:33supportive.

17:39The inspections, fines, and codes are

17:41not new. The rental list is

17:44adds over 2,000 apartments units a year.

17:47The city has no record of its own rental

17:49stock. And also, consequently, the city

17:53council voted to create a rental

17:55registry as part of the city master plan

17:58back in 2021. That was part of the

18:00master plan. The only new thing this

18:03ordinance creates is a smaller fee, a

18:06more routine inspection schedule, and a

18:08centralized list of rentals.

18:11Fairness. Good landlords already pay

18:14fees, get inspected, and follow the

18:16state's sanitary and building codes.

18:19Offenders skip all of this and put their

18:21tenants at safety risk. Nothing today

18:23actively attempts to catch offenders. A

18:27registry will be proactive monitoring

18:30puts every landlord on the same list

18:32under the same rules. Doing things right

18:36shouldn't be a disadvantage. enforcement

18:38that only reaches the people who

18:40volunteer to pay and be inspected isn't

18:43fair to anybody.

18:45I'll [clears throat] stop there. The

18:47next piece of this uh new ordinance is

18:49short-term rentals. Um a change to that.

18:52So, does anyone have any input questions

18:55about the rental registry?

19:00>> Councelor H.

19:00>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, the the

19:04registry, would that be for potential

19:07renters as well as

19:09the city to look at? Um, can they look

19:11at the history of a rental unit,

19:13anything like that? Safety violations,

19:15any code violations?

19:16>> Yes, they would be able to search that

19:19for any code violations. So, so they

19:22would know the history of the place that

19:24they're looking to rent. That's Yes,

19:27that's correct.

19:29Anything

19:32else?

19:38>> Thank you. You're welcome. Councelor

19:41Kelly.

19:42>> Thank you. Um just a couple of

19:44questions. So, first the fiveyear

19:48inspection schedule. Um, I thought that

19:53if violations were being um if people if

19:59if a landlord if a specific landlord was

20:01being fined or that we thought they were

20:03in some kind of a violation, they would

20:06be subject to more inspections or more

20:09frequent inspections. But am I hearing

20:10>> that? That's correct. So if if if if you

20:14would be subject to an inspection once

20:16every five years. Now, if complaints

20:18came in and violations came in and they

20:21were substantiated, that's where the

20:23tiered system come in. You you would be

20:25inspected more often.

20:27>> Okay. Thank you. And the um the

20:29definition of what would constitute a

20:31life safety issue. Is that clearly do we

20:35have a specific threshold for that? Is

20:37that because I I I know that fire code

20:40violations are

20:42um they have a wide range. So I and I'm

20:45not even sure. I know that in certain um

20:48that in all two family or multif family

20:50homes for instance um the electrical

20:53panels need to be separate. So if the

20:56electrical panels aren't separate say in

20:58a in a residence would that rise to the

21:00level of a fire code violation and then

21:02would that rise to the level of a life

21:04safety issue?

21:06>> U the other Mr. Reenzio can

21:09>> Okay, thank you.

21:11>> can shed some light on that.

21:14So Vincent Argenzio 249R

21:17Broadway uh housing inspector. So yes,

21:21so in the state sanitary code there is a

21:23specific category. It's a condition

21:25deemed to endanger and life safety risk

21:28and then there's a whole category within

21:30there. So that's anything from lack of

21:33heat, uh no water, no hot water as well.

21:37um fire code violations, so no carbon

21:40and smoke detectors, um improper

21:43electrical wiring, exposed wiring. Those

21:46are just some examples. But in the state

21:48sanitary code, it does have a very

21:50particular list of life safety issues,

21:53and it's its own separate category.

21:56So, here's my I think my overall um

21:59opinion on this is that I am in 100%

22:01full support of it in terms of

22:04short-term rentals. Um absolutely. The

22:09long-term rentals I have

22:12I guess I'm cautious or I'm concerned

22:14because of my day job. Um, I see a lot

22:18of instances where people are under the

22:21impression they've had tenants for 10,

22:2315, 20, 25 years. They've been in these

22:25houses for 40, 50, 60 years. They are

22:27under the impression that they have a

22:29legal two family and everything is fine.

22:31Um, when the day comes that they're

22:33ready to sell their home, a realtor goes

22:36in, someone like me, and says, you know,

22:39this may not be legal. Oh, but I've been

22:41being taxed for the last, you know, 20

22:43or 30 years for a two family, so it has

22:45to be. No, not necessarily. Um, when

22:47they find out that they need to bring

22:49that unit up to code in order to sell

22:52it, in order to get a smoke certificate,

22:54they often find out that the things that

22:57need to be done run into the thousands

22:59of dollars where this could easily run

23:0240, 50, $60,000. Separating electrical

23:05panels, making windows larger, um,

23:08putting in another entrance, multiple

23:10things. So the situation that I'm

23:13thinking of is what if someone is in

23:16this situation,

23:18they register their property there, it's

23:21inspected, and then all of a sudden they

23:23find out these violations exist. It

23:27could be a life safety issue, which of

23:28course we want everyone to be safe.

23:30Absolutely. But what if this is like a

23:3260, 70, 80 year old woman who now is

23:35going to be faced with a 30, 40 or

23:37$50,000 bill to update this unit or be

23:41be faced with these hefty daily fines. I

23:44don't want anyone to feel that they may

23:47be forced to sell their property over

23:49something like this. And if if there

23:51were a program in place to maybe help or

23:54assist a homeowner to come up with this

23:57or you know in a financial um support to

24:01bring everything up to code, then maybe

24:02I could get on board with it. But I'm

24:04thinking about and I know there's a lot

24:06of instances. I mean there are I see

24:08this constantly in my line of work. So

24:11um that's what brings me what gives what

24:14gives me pause for the long-term rental.

24:17I don't want anyone to be in that

24:18situation, be faced with this, have an

24:20inspection, feel like they're doing the

24:22right thing, and then all of a sudden

24:23feel like now I'm hit with, you know, a

24:26$40,000 bill or I'm going to be getting

24:28fined every day. I guess I'm just going

24:30to have to sell the house because I

24:31can't afford to do this. So, that's my

24:33fear. So, thank you.

24:39So I I understand that and uh so there

24:42there were a few things within that

24:45statement. So I'll try to go through

24:46them in in order. Uh so the first one is

24:50that that happens now uh that either

24:53they apply for a short-term rental

24:55permit or there's a uh someone applies

24:58for a certificate of fitness or uh a

25:00tenant uh at a property that's renting

25:03complains to the city and they say,

25:05"I've just moved in uh 3 weeks ago, a

25:08month ago. Something doesn't seem right

25:10here. This seems unsafe." and we go and

25:12inspect and then we do discover that it

25:14is an illegal unit or there is some

25:17portion of the unit that may be a it is

25:19a legal unit but the work was done

25:20without permits. Uh so uh a new kitchen

25:24was installed or a new electric panel

25:26was put in uh things of that nature. Uh

25:28so again depending on the severity um

25:32and if the landlord is willing to work

25:35with the city usually what happens is a

25:38remediation program. So, they'll sit

25:40with a building inspector, and again,

25:42I'm not in the building department, but

25:44I am familiar with the process cuz just

25:46from doing inspections, I've discovered

25:48illegal units. And they'll work with the

25:50landlord and say, "These are the things

25:52that need to be done to be brought up to

25:54code. No fines will be uh put on the

25:57property as long as you uh meet this

26:01remediation program." And they usually

26:02give quite a lengthy period of time, and

26:05when I I mean months, to bring it up to

26:07code. Um, and those are again just for

26:10things that really necessarily wouldn't

26:12be considered life safety issues.

26:15Obviously, I could give dramatic

26:16examples of life safety issues, but for

26:18things that aren't really don't appear

26:21to be dangerous at the moment, we the

26:24city does work with property owners to

26:26help them bring the property up to code,

26:29gives them a program, and as long as

26:31they're meeting those requirements

26:32there, there's no fines placed on them.

26:36Uh now in terms of what we were saying

26:38about assistance for seniors and things

26:40like that, I I do know within this

26:43proposal that for the short-term rental

26:45portion at least of it that there is

26:47some part of the proceeds that would go

26:49to affordable housing and that the city

26:51now has started a program to help

26:54seniors with uh housing repairs and

26:57things of those nature. Uh, so if we

27:00were getting more income derived from

27:02the short-term rental portion of it, I

27:05would assume that maybe part of that

27:07could go as part of affordable housing

27:08and assistance for seniors if that very

27:12specific scenario did come up. Um, so

27:15again, those are the things that I from

27:18from your questions that that would be

27:20my answer. And on the other side of it

27:23as well, not necessarily seniors that

27:26have had a house for 40, 50 years or or

27:29longer. Uh but at the same time, people

27:32that are renting units that are illegal

27:36are receiving income from it, $1,800,

27:392,000, $3,000 a month. So to be taking

27:43money and income from that unit at the

27:46same time is unsafe. the the property

27:49owner also does have a responsibility to

27:51make sure that what they're renting is

27:53safe for the tenant. So just

27:57>> thank you for that. is would there be

27:59any um would it be possible or is there

28:02any way to separate this to have it you

28:06know one apply to short-term rentals and

28:10one apply to long-term rentals so that

28:12we could

28:12>> I I think I think we the idea of this is

28:15to put it into one central registry so

28:18everybody is playing by the same rules

28:20and on the same playing field u

28:23short-term rental

28:26it doesn't it still needs needs to be

28:28safe, sanitary, and you know, livable

28:32conditions. So,

28:34um that's why we didn't make that

28:36distinction between the two and made it

28:38one central registry. Everyone needs to

28:41everyone that's renting, everyone that

28:43has a land has a landlord, they should

28:45be following state sanitary code. And I

28:50I think that's the bottom line. Thank

28:52you. Any further questions? Oh, council

28:55me.

28:56>> Thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, so I have a

28:59couple of questions. So, as you know, I

29:01have a um rooming house next door to me

29:03and how he gets away with it. I mean, he

29:05h he was fine when he at the beginning

29:08because everybody had a lock on their

29:11door. Uh, he has six bedrooms. Uh, now u

29:15and he got away with it recently because

29:17he had um he showed a registry of people

29:22living there that they were all a

29:23family. So, that's how he got away with

29:25it. But there are other people that had

29:28left. So they didn't I don't know if

29:30they were illegal or not, but they left.

29:33And so that registry really wasn't

29:36truth. It wasn't true.

29:37>> So uh not to interrupt you, uh but one

29:40of the things the the software that's

29:42been so successful with the short-term

29:44rental would be applied to long-term. So

29:47if a person rented, excuse me, um

29:51advertised in any that would catch it.

29:54Now, if it's done by word of mouth, I

29:57mean, are we going to catch 100%.

30:00>> No. And this is done word of mouth,

30:02definitely. And um and uh what happened

30:05just recently is this whole family just

30:08moved out.

30:08>> Okay.

30:09>> And now he's got new people in there.

30:11>> And I don't know if I don't think

30:13they're family at all. I think that he's

30:15just renting six rooms. He did advertise

30:18it on Zillow.

30:19>> Then the this would have picked it up.

30:22But I

30:22>> if it's short term it would have picked

30:24it up.

30:24>> Yeah, it is short term and well it's not

30:26short. I mean that you know that family

30:29was there for three years. Okay, you

30:30know but um the other thing I'd like to

30:32tell you is um

30:35>> we do in in the city we have legal um

30:40houses um you know uh

30:44halfway houses and we do have legal

30:46houses. How do they go about getting

30:48registered that they can perform uh you

30:51know have these people there? They have

30:54their rooming houses and and they but

30:57they're legal.

30:58>> Yes. I I don't this wouldn't apply to

31:01that. That's a state uh mandated program

31:04that you know I don't think we have

31:06control over that.

31:07>> Okay. And the other thing is when the

31:09police uh when the um re police come and

31:12they deliver our packages, I talk to

31:14them all the time and I ask them what is

31:16the biggest threat in um Revier and they

31:19said going into halfway houses because

31:22they don't know and they don't know

31:24what's going to happen. So yeah, we do

31:26re we really do have to uh address this.

31:30It's a big concern. So,

31:32>> and I think one of one of the problems,

31:33especially with firefighters and police,

31:35they're going into

31:37>> homes and there's six or seven, eight

31:39different bedrooms. They all have locks

31:41on them. They don't know what they're

31:42encountering when they get in there. So,

31:44that's one of the things we're trying to

31:45do. But if we could work with uh Chief

31:47Levida and maybe if they could if the

31:51police do um go into these houses, maybe

31:55we could get a list of these houses that

31:58they're going in and feeling threatened

32:00uh with and uh I mean that would be that

32:03would be something that would help the

32:05city.

32:05>> I believe that may happen. I will.

32:08>> Okay. Sorry. Thanks.

32:12>> Should I give my name again for the

32:14record or No. Okay. Okay. So, if if this

32:18were to go forward uh as it's written

32:21now, so the rental registry, the reason

32:23why it would be combined into one

32:25database is that we would be able to

32:28share that information with any

32:31department that feels as though they

32:32need it. Um so, the first part being so

32:35police and fire, uh if we be able to

32:38incorporate, um if they get a call, they

32:41can look up is this a long-term rental?

32:44Has it been discovered as a illegal

32:47rooming house so that if there is a

32:48fire, the fire department knows or the

32:50police know to check the attic, check

32:52the basement. Um, is it a short-term

32:55rental? Um, and then also, is it a

32:58licensed rooming house? Is it a halfway

33:01house? We we could put all of that data

33:04onto a map similar to GIS and they would

33:07have a history of what the property is.

33:10And in turn, if it's [snorts] data that

33:13we don't have and police or fire did get

33:15a call and they did discover something,

33:17we then would be able to incorporate

33:19that into the database. Uh, and also, I

33:23know councelor Hass had mentioned for

33:25renters, uh, they would be able to

33:27search properties. If I, say I did want

33:30to rent, um, on Reservoir Avenue, for

33:32example, I could look up, is it in the

33:34rental registry? has it been inspected?

33:36Is there a history of violations? Or is

33:40it an unlicensed rental? Are are they

33:42skirting the rules in in some way? So,

33:45you would be able to look those things

33:47up. Um and then also for city

33:50departments and also the council, we

33:52could break it down by warden and

33:54precinct. Uh where are the short-term

33:57rentals? Are they licensed? Are they not

33:59licensed? Uh long-term rentals, is this

34:01a licensed rooming house? Is it a

34:03long-term rental? And then from there,

34:05are they permitted under the rental

34:07registry or are they operating without a

34:10permit, never been inspected? So those

34:13things could be incorporated. And that's

34:14why this was designed in a way to be one

34:18database.

34:20>> Council McKenna.

34:22>> Um Mr. Aenzio, I just want to say thank

34:24you. I I know this started uh through me

34:27and uh council Aenzio uh three or four

34:32years ago, but the magnitude of where

34:34it's come, it's it's unbelievable. So,

34:37thank you very much. I really want to

34:39thank you.

34:40>> No, thank you,

34:41>> Councelor Gino Sua.

34:44>> Thank you. Um

34:49I [sighs]

34:50I I love this. This is um we I I've have

34:55to deal with this being a landlord in

34:57Boston. So, they they've had this for

35:00many many years and it's very successful

35:02because not only can you see what your

35:05tenants are if they're breaking anything

35:08in the apartment, you know, you know

35:09what your apartment looks like once you

35:12have this and and you can also see which

35:15landlords are not doing the right thing

35:17by their tenants. So, it's it's I think

35:20it's a win-win situation. Um, my

35:22question is this. Are there going to

35:24have to be any additional inspectors

35:28being put on? What will it cost to

35:30operate this? Will there be an

35:32additional cost to the city over there?

35:34I

35:34>> This is part of the the program why this

35:36$25 fee um as funds are collected. Uh

35:42that money could be then turned back. So

35:44this isn't a tax rate. This isn't just

35:46money collected to go to anything in the

35:48city. This has to stay within the

35:50program. So, as this if if it's if it's

35:54passed, um as money is collected, it

35:57would go into a a certain fund and then

36:00you could hire more inspectors and do

36:02things like that. Uh it it's designed to

36:05be self-funded.

36:08So, yes, uh other yes, other inspectors

36:10would have to come on, but uh this would

36:13be a slow roll out. This isn't something

36:15that, you know, we would start to uh ask

36:20people to register. Letters would go

36:22out. It would probably take a year, you

36:24know, for this whole process to get

36:26rolling and and money collected. And

36:28then at the end, we could see, well, we

36:30need a couple one or two more inspectors

36:32and this program would pay for it.

36:35>> Was there any advice seeker

36:38of the city?

36:39>> No.

36:39>> Regarding it? No.

36:40>> Okay. Thank you. Council

36:45has

36:46>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the

36:47leeway. You had said previously that the

36:50software would pick up I think someone

36:52talked about a property on Zillow or or

36:55um a site like that, but would that also

36:57factor in would the the software be able

36:59to pick up things on say Facebook. I see

37:02things listed um Craigslist and things

37:05like that. Would the software be

37:07successful picking up on that?

37:12So around this time last year, I know we

37:15did discuss using the software to um

37:18find rooming houses and things of that

37:20nature. Basically, the way that it works

37:22right now, we we operate within a filter

37:24of short-term rental type websites, but

37:27if it were to expand, we would go to

37:29over 10,000 websites. So that would

37:31include apartments.com, Redfin, Zillow,

37:34Facebook Marketplace, uh Craigslist.

37:38if you and then again if there are

37:39websites that somehow we don't scan or

37:42they're new just because of the nature

37:44of the internet we could add it into a

37:47list to be scanned. So I know for

37:49example like um there's pool rentals now

37:52um and then they incorporate you know

37:55using the house as well. So someone

37:57rents a house for a party they use the

37:59pool and then they also use the house

38:01for the bathrooms and things of that

38:04nature. we can scan those as well for

38:06for people renting their properties for

38:08pool parties and things like that. So as

38:11it comes along and new things come up,

38:13we can also incorporate new websites

38:16that are, you know, have just come

38:18online and people begin to use. So, so

38:20yes, it's right now it's over 10,000

38:22websites and we can continue to add to

38:24it as things are created.

38:28And just as an aside, uh in this uh new

38:32ordinance, uh pool rentals uh are now uh

38:36you can't do that anymore. I got some

38:37complaints in my area that people were

38:39renting their pools and then on a

38:42Saturday, you know, 50 people would pull

38:44up and and they'd be using the backyard

38:48and uh we looked it up on pools.com

38:51or something and sure enough, there's

38:52some people in Reving.

38:55Uh so, but this this ordinance prohibits

38:57that. So, uh, any other, uh, questions?

39:01Uh, Councelor Mccurio,

39:04um, unfortunately, uh, did you say you

39:06were going to be recusing yourself from

39:08this vote?

39:10>> You're going to be voting on the rental

39:12registry? I know at one point you had

39:14said you may.

39:15>> Well, I do own rental property. Yes.

39:19>> Okay. So, I I had talked to the city

39:21solicitor. So any city council that's

39:23going to recuse themsel from the vote

39:25needs to recuse themsel from the debate.

39:28So if you're if you if you feel

39:29comfortable voting on the registry then

39:32please go right ahead.

39:33>> All right. Thank you.

39:34>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

39:36that. Jim McCar 193 Cresman uh councelor

39:39Kelly brings up some great points and

39:41also uh council Angela Gino Sire brings

39:44out probably the most important points

39:46of this program. I like the program, but

39:49financially can the city afford a

39:51program like this? Um, according to the

39:55um Census Bureau, there's a $12,000

39:58units, rental units in the city of River

40:01right now. uh with a $25 annual fee that

40:05will generate approximately $300,000 for

40:08the city of RE theoretically. But with

40:11the larger buildings uh capped at 5,000,

40:14that's going to bring that down

40:16considerably. If all uh 12,000 new

40:20qualified for the least 5-year

40:22inspection cycle, um we're thinking

40:25about 2400 inspections a year.

40:28That is approximately 40 inspections per

40:31week before including tier 2 properties

40:33requiring inspections every three years,

40:35tier three properties requiring annual

40:38inspections, failed inspections and

40:40reinspections, tenant complaints,

40:42illegal apartment investigations,

40:45scheduling reports, notices,

40:46enforcement.

40:48So, with that being said, I'm I'm just

40:50curious of how many additional staffing

40:52we're going to need for this um for this

40:55program. That's very concerning to me.

40:57This is a big undertaking for the city

40:59and I think it's going to be a big

41:00undertaking from what I understand. Mr.

41:02Ajenza, you have uh yourself and one

41:05part-time employee.

41:07>> One full time.

41:07>> Okay. One full-time employee and do you

41:09have a part-time employee also that does

41:11the short-term rentals?

41:17>> So, there is one full-time housing

41:19inspector. I am the short-term rental

41:21inspector. I do aid the one full-time

41:23housing inspector.

41:24>> Okay.

41:25uh who does all of what you mentioned

41:27now, the certificate of fitness

41:29inspections, the tenant complaints,

41:31uh reinspections. So, I I do assist with

41:34the overflow there, and I do have one uh

41:37part-time uh director for the short-term

41:40rentals that specifically does the

41:41short-term rentals. So, there are two of

41:43us right now that do all housing related

41:46interior inspections.

41:48>> Great. Thank you, Mr. Aenzio, for that.

41:51So my concern is how many more

41:53additional inspectors are we going to

41:54need uh for this program to be

41:56successful? Uh and what will the program

41:59really cost over the long term? Five

42:01years. It's going to cost. Yeah, we're

42:03going to bring in revenue approximately

42:05three uh 250 to 300,000 a year with the

42:09$25 inspections. Um and realistically,

42:13how many inspectors can do inspections

42:15in in a yearly basis? 45 is really

42:18pushing it. uh uh for one inspector to

42:21to do weekly. That's going to be quite a

42:23quite a case load uh for an inspector.

42:29How was the $25 fee established? Did we

42:32put it did you just throw that number

42:34out there? Uh did you consider the

42:37financial burden that the city will have

42:39on it

42:40>> hiring inspectors?

42:43>> Uh it was

42:45looked upon. We we looked at a lot of

42:47surrounding cities and towns and the $25

42:51um was established by a lot of cities

42:54and towns around here. So, we use that.

42:56Uh as far as the inspectors go, that was

42:59the reason for this was designed to be

43:01self-funded.

43:03um the figures that you're coming up

43:05with. Uh a couple of if you read into

43:08the ordinance, any building that's newly

43:11constructed for the first five years is

43:14exempt from the inspection part of it.

43:18Uh because we uh felt as though they

43:21just went through the rigorous process

43:24of having the building inspector, the

43:26wiring inspector, certificate of

43:28fitness, a certificate of occupancy.

43:30They just spent quite a bit of money.

43:32it's a new unit. Uh so those were those

43:36are will be exempt from inspections for

43:38the first five years. So that'll knock

43:40off quite a few of them. So yes, you you

43:42bring up some valid concerns. Um and as

43:46this program kicks off if if it does and

43:49money is collected, uh an inspector is

43:53probably around 60 $65,000.

43:57Uh are we going to hire an additional

43:59one, two? Uh Mr. Jenzio, maybe you can

44:02speak to how many inspections a week um

44:07can be done or realistically.

44:11>> Okay. So, speaking for myself, uh again,

44:16it it all depends on the unit. So, if

44:19the unit is in good shape, it takes 15

44:21minutes. Uh if it is not in good shape

44:23and you're there writing for an extended

44:26period of time, that can go up to 45

44:27minutes, an hour. Uh, and then again, if

44:30you discover huge life safety issues,

44:32there there have been times where I've

44:34gone to units and the the fire

44:35department's been called and all that.

44:38But those cases aside, they should not

44:40take that long. They're 15 30 minutes uh

44:44in a day. There there have been times

44:46I've done 35 40 inspections uh

44:49depending. It's it's a full day

44:51schedule. Um, but it it isn't out of the

44:55realm to say that in a week you can

44:58comfortably do 40 or [snorts] so

45:00inspections.

45:02And again, to the counselor's point, um,

45:06I I don't believe just like the

45:07short-term rentals that that wasn't

45:09overnight. That was a long roll out of

45:12notifying the public, getting people to

45:14register. And in this case where it is a

45:17significantly

45:18larger undertaking

45:20for sure um but the roll out I would

45:23assume would be the same that this would

45:26be well over a year notifying the public

45:29of what's changing and give them a

45:32chance to contact the city have

45:33questions and then again to councelor

45:36Kelly's point if there are issues at the

45:38property maybe bring it up with the city

45:41um so that that can be discovered and

45:43then also uh there really isn't a full

45:46number or an accurate number of how many

45:49rentals there are in the city because we

45:51don't have something like this in place.

45:54So at least from for me if if we were

45:57now monitoring online the first thing we

46:00would do is establish a baseline of how

46:03many rentals did we estimate before were

46:05in the city versus now a number that we

46:07can start to verify and then start doing

46:10the math from there. Because at the

46:13moment, myself, uh, Director Wells, the,

46:17uh, housing inspector, uh, we we could

46:20all give different estimates of numbers

46:21of how many rentals are out there. So, I

46:23believe the first thing if this were to

46:24go into effect is get a number, see what

46:28we're going to be dealing with, and then

46:31act from there.

46:33>> Council,

46:35>> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.

46:36Alenzio, for that information.

46:38Currently, do we know, Mr. Jenzio, how

46:40many uh register apartments uh the city

46:42of Riviera has?

46:44>> No,

46:45>> we don't.

46:45>> No.

46:46>> So, there's no number that we don't

46:48have. Okay. Um

46:54>> yeah, my only concern is the cost of of

46:56of running the program. Um, you know,

46:59when you talk about you got $65,000 a

47:01year to hire, you're going to think

47:03about the health insurance, pension,

47:05fuel cost, equipment, training, and then

47:08we're going to need a whole new software

47:10program. Listen, I like the program. I

47:11think it's going to work, and I think

47:13it's important for the city, but we, you

47:15know, we're going to be coming into some

47:16uh budgetary numbers come 2028, and I'm

47:19really concerned about where we're

47:21heading right now. Uh so if we add three

47:23or four more staff to this uh the

47:26overall cost and hopefully I hope that

47:28this program will self-fund if it works

47:31I I hope it does. So

47:33>> So and not to interrupt you but also any

47:36fines that are levied will also go into

47:39the same pool of money. So it's not just

47:41the $25.

47:43>> Correct.

47:43>> So there there will be

47:45>> unfortunately there will be some fines

47:47out there. Correct. And that stay that

47:48also stays in the program. So the money

47:50that's raised through this program will

47:51not go into the general fund. They'll

47:53have their own separate operating

47:55account.

47:55>> I don't believe it can because that then

47:57that would constitute like a tax.

47:59>> So I don't believe it can legally can be

48:02put into the general fund.

48:03>> Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

48:05for your time. I appreciate it. And

48:06thank you, Mr. Jenziel, for being here

48:08tonight and your time.

48:10>> Uh shall I move on to short-term rental?

48:12Just a a couple of Okay. So Okay. So,

48:17short-term rentals, a 10% cap per

48:20building. We're proposing to expand this

48:22to apartment buildings. Right now, this

48:25is only uh owner occupied. Uh by doing

48:29that, uh it would put no more than uh

48:3410% of each building. Uh there would be

48:37a $600 per unit fee for each unit. the

48:41city would collect a 6.5% occupancy tax

48:44on that and a 3% community impact fee.

48:48This would generate income. Um, and the

48:52community impact fee, incidentally. Um,

48:55the state mandates that 30% of that

48:58money has to go to either infrastructure

49:01or affordable housing. I know the city

49:03of Gloucester

49:05um, they put a 100% of that community

49:07impact fee towards affordable housing.

49:10So that could be a little bit of a boon

49:11or a shot in the arm to the uh

49:14affordable housing uh crew up in uh

49:16community development. And there'd be no

49:18more than one unit in 10 in any

49:21short-term rental and uh the other 90%

49:24of these apartment buildings would stay

49:26long in the long-term market. Now I know

49:29uh neighborhoods are very concerned

49:31about short-term rental strangers coming

49:34into the um on into their streets

49:36showing up at 2:00 in the morning. This

49:38may shift some of that short-term rental

49:41into apartment buildings where you

49:43really won't notice that um what's

49:47happening. Um so

49:52again,

49:53what if we do nothing? So the the city

49:56can now enforce it the ordinance that's

49:59been on the books for 50 years. You

50:01could update the software. The software

50:03could identify long-term rentals. We

50:06could send letters to everyone that's

50:08looking to rent and send them a letter

50:11saying they have to get a certificate of

50:12fitness for $75

50:14and make them aware that every time a

50:17unit turns over, they're obligated to

50:20call the city and spend another $75 for

50:23a certificate of fitness. So, that could

50:25be done now and that's what's on the

50:27books now. So, I think the $25 rental

50:31registry

50:32um it it's actually uh less money. And I

50:37think I mentioned this before, if you

50:38are called for an inspection,

50:40the $75 is waved. There's no inspection

50:43fee.

50:45Any questions on short-term miles?

50:52Any questions on short-term?

50:55No. Okay. Uh, madame clerk, maybe we can

50:58have a vote to send this to a public

51:00hearing.

51:02>> Shall the legislative affairs

51:04subcommittee offer a recommendation to

51:06the city council to order the proposed

51:08ordinance to a public hearing? Councelor

51:11Gina Suaya,

51:12>> yes.

51:12>> Yes. Councelor H.

51:13>> Yes.

51:14>> Yes. Councelor Kelly.

51:15>> Yes.

51:15>> Yes. Council McKenna.

51:16>> Yes.

51:16>> Yes. And Chairman Argenzio.

51:18>> Yes.

51:18>> Yes. The [clears throat] ordinance

51:19proposed ordinance has received a

51:20favorable recommendation to be sent to a

51:22public hearing. No further business.

51:24Chair

51:26>> meeting is adjourned.