Roseville reviews draft hotel‑licensing ordinance; refers it back to staff for revision

City Manager Mr. Trejgan presented a draft lodging‑establishment licensing ordinance and urged the City Council to provide direction before final action. The ordinance uses recently enacted state authority to allow municipalities to require lodging establishments to obtain a municipal license and comply with state and local laws as a condition of that license, staff said.

Trejgan told the council that repeated nuisance and emergency calls at a small number of hotels — three of 12 hotels produced double‑digit monthly calls in 2021 while the others averaged about three calls per month — have tied up police and fire resources and motivated the proposal. He cited prior criminal incidents and public‑safety concerns and said the aim is not to close hotels but to require basic, safe standards for guests.

The draft would define "interested persons" (on‑site managers, owners/operators or anyone with a 5% ownership interest), require listing those individuals on applications, run criminal background checks for them, and allow initial and renewal inspections. Staff would have authority to impose enumerated license conditions, and the ordinance would treat licensed premises expansively to include a hotel’s building and controlled exterior spaces such as parking lots.

The ordinance caps the license fee at $150, Trejgan said, but the City may recover background‑check costs separately. Proposed minimum operating standards include registration of occupants, video surveillance with law‑enforcement access, functioning fire and smoke systems, working bathroom fixtures and 24‑hour telephone access. The draft also calls out nuisance events (trafficking, prostitution, unlawful sale/possession of controlled substances, unlicensed alcohol or cannabis sales, illegal firearms possession and other state‑ or city‑defined nuisances) as triggers for enforcement.

For extended stays, staff proposes flagging stays longer than 29–30 days (with a possible cap Trejgan described informally at six months) as requiring an "Extended Stay Permit" and additional review of room configuration and safeguards. If an initial application is denied, the draft requires a 12‑month waiting period before reapplying and contains language that would give an operator roughly 15 days to cease hotel operations while transition issues are discussed.

Council members pressed staff on multiple points: whether local rules could set a minimum renter age (staff said they would check state law), whether delinquent utilities could be a licensing condition (staff agreed), whether short‑term rentals, condos or other lodging models fall under the definitions (staff said the code defers in part to state definitions and will tighten language), and whether a $150 cap was adequate given the administrative and enforcement work involved (staff noted background‑check costs can be charged separately and that the fee cap reflected legislative compromise).

Council members also raised equity and housing concerns. Several members asked how the City would avoid displacing people using hotels as low‑cost housing and whether a 15‑day wind‑down after a license denial would be humane or feasible; staff said the goal is to allow administrative discretion, use waivers where appropriate and consult with operators about transition timelines. Staff emphasized that suspension or revocation would follow notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that significant enforcement steps could be brought to Council for final action.

After questions and discussion — and after staff noted they had met with hotel operators and Visit Roseville and made language tweaks — the Council did not take a final vote. Instead, members and staff agreed to refer the draft back to staff for follow‑up research and revisions on items discussed (statutory details, precise definitions, timing of implementation, potential impacts on low‑income guests and the wind‑down timeline). Staff will notify hotel operators of the next opportunity to weigh in before a future final adoption vote.

What’s next: staff will return with a revised ordinance addressing the council’s questions and recommended language for extended stays, denial/appeal procedures, fee and cost recovery, and clearer definitions of covered lodging types.