[a. Ordinance D-2767-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 4, Section 2-96 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Taylor and Snyder.]

ON OUR AGENDA, ORDINANCE, CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2 THROUGH 96 OF CARMEL CITY CODE. SPONSORS TAYLOR AND SNYDER, THIS IS FOR THE ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ORDINANCE CAPITAL FUND. CHIEF?

>> GOOD EVENING, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THIS BACK IN FRONT OF YOU.

>> AS WE DISCUSSED BACK ON MAY 13TH, AND WORKED WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON UPDATING OUR ORDINANCE WITHWITH OF THE LANGUAGE AND CHANGING THE NAME OF IT TO REFLECT WHAT IT IS SO THE FUND IS WHERE OUR EMS REVENUE GOES INTO AND HELPS TO PAY FOR CAPITAL EXPENSES FOR FIRE AND E M S ITEMS. LOOKING AT OUR CURRENT BILLING RATES AND STATE LAW THAT WAS PASSED IN 2024, IT ALLOWS US TO INCREASE OUR RATES TO 400% OF -- UP TO 400% OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, AND THAT IS REALLY WHERE THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE COMMERCIAL INSURANCE.

NO MATTER WHAT WE BILL FOR A MEDICAID OR MEDICARE PATIENT, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO GET WHAT THAT REIMBURSEMENT IS. SO WE WILL SEE THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE COMMERCIAL PAID, AND THEN WE HAD A -- BETWEEN THE PRIVATE PAY AND CITY RESIDENTS THAT CARMEL RESIDENTS WOULD PAY NO MORE THAN 800 OUT OF POCKET, WHATEVER THE COMMERCIAL INSURANCE HAD PASSED ON TO THE CITY RESIDENT. ADDITIONALLY ARE ISSUES OF LIFT ASSIST AND OUR EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES. WE AVERAGE ABOUT TEN A MONTH. SO THIS IS, AGAIN, WHERE THE FACILITY, SOMEONE HAS FALLEN, BUT THEY ARE UNINJURED AND LAYING ON THE FLOOR. INSTEAD OF THEM USING THEIR TRAINED PERSONNEL TO PICK UP THE PATIENT IN THE CHAIR THEY CALL 911 FOR US TO DO THAT.

WE SEND ONE OF THE ENGINE COMPANIES OR ONE OF THE LADDER COMPANIES OUT THERE.

WE DO AN ASSESSMENT TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO INJURY.

OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE ISIS WE TREAT THAT

[00:20:02]

AND TRANSPORT THEM TO THE MOST APPROPRIATE HOSPITAL.

I'VE BEEN TALKING WITH A NUMBER OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND OUR COMPANY OFFICERS AND THEY SAID, CHIEF, NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN WHEN WE GO TO THE LIFT NOTHING WRONG, THEY JUST NEED HELP GETTING BACK INTO THEIR BED OR BACK INTO A CHAIR, AND THIS IS WHERE I FEEL LIKE THE FACILITY SHOULD BE TAKING CARE OF THAT.

I THINK THAT'S -- I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOME MALFEASANCE ON THEIR PART FOR WHEN -- MY MOTHER IS IN AN EXTENDED CARE FACILITY AND WORKING WITH THEM AND SIGNING THE DO YOU MEAN, MY EXPECTATION IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF HER AND NOT PASS OFF LIABILITY AND LEAVE HER LAYING ON THE FLOOR FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME WHILE THEY CALL 911 AND GET SOMEONE ELSE THERE WHERE THEY SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT SITUATION, AND SO WE ARE ASKING TO INSTITUTE A LIFT ASSIST FEE OF $500 EVERY TIME WE GO TO AN EXTENDED CARE FACILITY AND HERE WE TALK ABOUT SUPPORTIVE LIVING FACILITY, NURSING CARE, NURSING HOME.

I WANT TO STRESS, THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE WHERE SOMEONE HAS FALLEN THERE AND THEY CAN'T GET THEIR LOVED ONE BACK UP OFF THE FLOOR.

THEY'RE NOT TRAINED RIGHT. THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD RESPOND WHICH WE DO MANY TIMES. PROBABLY AS WE LOOK AT OUR LIFT ASSIST FIRST QUARTER OF THIS YEAR WE WEREWERE 30. WE RESPOND TO ABOUT A THOUSAND FALLS, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, IN PRIVATE DWELLINGS EVERY YEAR.

WE GO OUT THERE AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE TAKEN CARE OF AND KE SURE THEY GO TO THE HOSPITAL AND WE WILL NOT BE BILLING THE RESIDENTS FOR THAT. WILL THE FACILITY PASS THAT FEE ON TO THE INDIVIDUAL? I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT THAT WOULD AREN'T HAPPEN, BUT WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO IS TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OUR FACILITIES HERE.

WE HAVE A FALL PREVENTION PROGRAM THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY PARAMEDIC THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THESE FACILITIES TO SEE WHAT'S THE REAL ISSUE HERE AND HELP THEM WITH SOME ADDITIONAL TRAINING OR GUIDANCE IF NEEDED, AND I SENT SOME LINKS OUT TO SOME OTHER ARTICLES AND THIS ISN'T JUST AN INDIANA PROBLEM. WE'RE SEEING THIS ISSUE ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND WHERE SOME PEOPLE HAVE INSTITUTED THE FEE, THEY'VE SEEN IN WORKING WITH THOSE FACILITIES THEY'VE SEEN THE CALLS DROP.

SO MY ANTICIPATION IS THAT MAYBE WE WOULD SEE THOSE RESULT, AS WELL, IF -- IF WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO HAPPY TO DISCUSS ANY OTHER CHANGES. BENJAMIN IS HERE, AS WELL AND WE ARE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> QUESTIONS FOR CHIEF OR CITY LEGAL? COUNSEL?

>> IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING A REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO AT SOME POINT PARTICIPATE IN THE FALL PREVENTION PROGRAM IF THIS IS DEEMED TO BE A REPETITIVE OFFENSE?

>> SO WORKING WITH THEM, THE FACILITY, ON -- YEAH, MAYBE ENROLLING IN A PROGRAM, YEAH.

>> KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, A DRIVING PROGRAM AND NOW YOU HAVE TO TAKE A SAFE DRIVER'S PROGRAM.

THEY SAY THESE ARE THE RULES ESTABLISHED FOR US BY THE ORGANIZATIONAL GROUP, AND YOU KNOW, MANY OF THESE COMPANIES ARE OUT OF STATE COMPANIES. THE FOLKS WORKING THERE, THEY UNDERSTAND, BUT IT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO PER THEIR REGULATIONS AND IF THEY COULD PICK THESE PEOPLE UP, THEY WOULD, BUT THEY MAY GET IN TROUBLE AND SO IT'S A LARGER PROBLEM, BUT WE HOPE MAYBE THROUGH THIS AND SOME CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE HERE IN OUR CITY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT -- MR. CHAIRMAN, SORRY. CHIEF, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROCESS HERE. YOU CAME TO COMMITTEE LAST TIME WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS. I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO SOME OF OUR PROVIDERS IN THE COMMUNITY AND FOUND OUT, YEAH, THIS IS DRIVEN BY INSURANCE ON

[00:25:01]

THEIR SIDE AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS AS TO WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DID.

SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I'VE HAD ALL MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. I KNOW I DRUG YOU BACK TO ANOTHER MEETING AWAY FROM YOUR FAMILY, BUT YOU HAVE MY SUPPORT ON IT BECAUSE NO ONE COULD GIVE ME A GREAT REASON OTHER THAN THEY WERE TRAINED THAT WAY FROM MANAGEMENT OR IT WAS AN INSURANCE ISSUE WHICH IS THEIR ISSUE.

SO I'M GOING TO TAKE THE POSITION IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO BUSINESS IN CARMEL THAT THIS IS THE STAND ART ARD THAT CARMEL HAS, BUT THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE LAST FEW WEEKS FOR ME TO DO MY RESEARCH. COUNSELOR GREEN?

>> YEAH. I SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE.

JUST A QUESTION, I KNOW APPARENTLY IT'S KIND OF A CORPORATE DECISION BASED ON INSURANCE WHY THEY'RE TELLING THEIR -- I WAS LOOKING THROUGH MOST FACILITIES AND ALL FACILITIES HAVE TO GET LICENSED BY THE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD TAKE WITH THAT LICENSE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT INDIVIDUAL. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE DATA AND A TESTIMONY AND WITNESS TESTIMONY, IT SOUNDS LIKE, WORKERS WHO SAID I LIKE YOU, BUT I'M TOLD I CAN'T. I KNOW COUNSEL LIKES TO INVESTIGATE THAT, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING STUFF, BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WOULD BE A GOOD SOURCE TO SEE BECAUSE IF THIS IS A DEEP POCKETS AND NOT JUST ONE FACILITY, BUT A CORPORATION RUNNING MULTIPLE FACILITIES AND INCREASING PROFIT MARGIN BY SHIFTING DIFFERENT SERVICES, DIFFERENT NEEDS TO OTHER ENTITIES, YOU KNOW, THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S INVESTIGATED PROBABLY BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND THEIR CONSUMER DEPARTMENT.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSELOR GREEN.

COUNSELOR LOCK? >> IT MAKES REASONABLE SENSE TO MOVE WITH THE FEES AND THE PROCESS. I DO WONDER IF THEY'RE LEGAL AND THIS IS JUST FROM MY END, THE CONCEPT OF A DIFFERENT FEE STRUCTURE FOR CITY RESIDENTS VERSUS OUT OF CITY.

THIS WAS SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE AT LAST MEETING WHERE YOU HAVE FAMILY IN TOWN AND SOMETHING HAPPENS AND THERE'S A DIFFERENT TREATMENT JUST ON THE FINANCIAL SIDE OF WHAT WE'RE COLLECTING. I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT THAT IS VALID AND WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY BEING PRESENTED AND WE'RE GOOD TO GO. MY SECOND QUESTION, AND I KNOW AS WE LOOKED AT IT AS A WHOLE, THE CONCEPT OF CREATING THIS OVER TIME, WHEN IT COMES TO AMBULATORY SERVICES AND THE THINGS THAT ARE THERE, AND I LOVE THE IDEA OF IMPLEMENTING FEES AND GETTING US TOTO WE'RE RIGHT SIZING AND AS WE'RE LOOKING ABOUT HOW TO CREATE A SUSTAINABLE FUNDING SOURCE THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT, OR IF WE ARE THAT THAT'S THE REASONABLE USE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE FOR HOW TO USE THIS

MONEY. >> YEAH, AND WHAT I'VE SEEN IS THERE ARE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT, THAT HAS BEEN PAID FOR, AND IT SHOULD BE A REFUND AND TRULY MAKING THIS FOR CAPITAL PURCHASES AND THAT IT IS SUSTAINABLE, AND I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES.

ZACH HAS DONE THAT THAT'S FREED UP SOME ADDITIONAL DOLLARS AND WE SEE A POSITIVE BENEFIT FOR A FEW MORE YEARS OUT AND CONTINUING TO REFINE IT AND CERTAINLY LOOKING AT OUR '26 BUDGET MAKING SURE THAT THOSE ITEMS ARE IN THE OPERATIONAL AREA, AND THEN REALLY, YOU KNOW, GETTING DOWN TO ENSURING THAT THESE ARE THE TRUE NEED, RIGHT? AND OF OUR OVERALL BUDGET.

>> PERFECT. I BRING THAT UP JUST AS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AS WE'RE MOVING INTO THIS SECTIONS IS YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, KNOW AT LEAST FROM MY POSITION ON THE COUNCIL, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HELP SUPPORT AND CREATE THE FUNDING SOURCES WHERE WE NEED TO. THANK YOU.

EXCUSE ME. SORRY.

>> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO

ADD? >> JUST A QUESTION.

SO THIS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME WITH THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RESIDENT, AND IT TAKES PLACE ALL OVER THE STATE. ULTIMATELY, THE LOGIC BEHIND

[00:30:02]

IT AND THE RATIONALE THAT YOU SUPPORTED IS THE TAXPAYERS OF CARMEL ARE SUPPORTING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THIS HAS BEEN RUN OUT OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SO THEY'RE RECEIVING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESIDENCY WITHIN THE CITY.

>> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF? SEEING NONE. DOES SOMEONE HAVE A MOTION?

>> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS BACK TO FULL COUNCIL WITH POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> IF I MAY?

>> YES, SIR.

>> OH, WE NEED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED AS WELL, FIRST. I APOLOGIZE.

>> WILL --

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND THE

MOTION? >> I WOULD MOVE TO AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE AMENDMENTS.

>> IS THAT OKAY?

>> SECOND IT.

>> GREAT. CALL TO QUESTION ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF COUNCILMAN ROYAL'S MOTION SAY AYE.

>> AYE. UNLESS YOU'LL BE ABLE TO PULL IT UP.

NO? >>÷÷ OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, CHIEF.

[e. Ordinance D-2773-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving and Adopting a Revised Interlocal Agreement; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen. ]

>> THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM E. ORDINANCE E-2773- 25 IN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL TO ADVISE THE LOCAL AGREEMENT. THE SPONSOR ISIS LAWSON ADOPTING A REVISED AND LOCAL AGREEMENT IN THE U.S. 31 RAMP, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA AND CERTAIN NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREAS TO ORDER TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

>> GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. HENRY STANSKI.

WE TALKED AT LENGTH ABOUT THIS ITEM AT COUNCIL WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED. ESSENTIALLY, THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT WE ALL DISCUSSED AND VOTED ON EARLIER THIS YEAR IS MISSING THE SECTION THAT IS NOW HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE ON YOUR SCREEN. THE -- UNDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, THE COUNTY WOULD RECEIVE NEW FUNDS FROM ALLOCATION AREAS THAT WOUD BE CREATED BY THE CITY.

A PORTION OF THAT WOULD FUND NEW REDEVELOPMENT, BUT A PORTION OF THAT WOULD GO TO THE COUNTY, AND THE COUNTY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THOSE FUNDS TO PAY OFF EXISTING DEBT WHICH WAS THE LANGUAGE LEFT OUT PREVIOUSLY THAT NOW YOU CAN SEE IT COMING BACK IN BLUE OR THE COUNTY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BORROW NEW BOND AMOUNTS AGAINST THE FUTURE TIF REVENUE, AND SO THIS LANGUAGE AUTHORIZES BOTH. THIS HAS BEEN THE CORRECTED VERSION THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY EVERY OTHER BODY THAT'S A SIGNATORY TO THE INTERLOCAL WHICH INCLUDES THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND IT'S COMING BACK BEFORE THIS COUNCIL FOR A FINAL OKAY WITH NOW THE CORRECTED LANGUAGE AND ONCE THAT IS VOTED FOR THE INTERLOCAL WILL BE IN PLACE AND BY THE WAY, WE ARE EXPECTING TO TAKE SOME ALLOCATION AREAS RELATED TO THIS TO CITY COUNCIL AT ITS NEXT MEETING.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

AND. >> AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE ERROR WAS BY AN OUTSOURCED ATTORNEY BY THE COUNTY THAT WAS WRITING THIS ORDINANCE NOT FROM AIR STAFF.

I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION, AND THE ACTUAL CORRECTION IS MOST IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SERVICE THEIR DEBT FROM THIS ALLOCATION AREA. QUESTIONS FOR HENRY?

>> I HAD A CHANCE TO DISCUSS WITH HENRY, AND I AM NOW COMFORTABLE WITH THIS.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSELOR. IS THERE A MOTION?

>> WILL WE SEND IT BACK WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION?

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNSELOR LOCKE AND SECOND BY COUNSELOR GREENE.

SO PLEASE VOTE. THE MOTION

[00:35:01]

CARRIES. 4-0.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, HENRY. APPRECIATE YOU.

[b. Ordinance D-2770-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting a New Article 6 Under Chapter 4 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Aasen, Taylor, Snyder and Ayers.]

NEXT UP WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM B ON THE AGENDA, ORDINANCE D-2770- 25 IN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL ADOPTING A NEW ARTICLE 6 UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE AND AUSTIN TAYLOR AND OWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLINGS RESIDENT AND OBTAIN A PERMIT BEFORE LETTING A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLING AND LIMITS THE NUMBER OF PERMITS TO 10% OF ALL HOMES WITHIN ANY SUBDIVISION OR THE CITY AS A WHOLE. SERGEI AND ADAM, BOTH LEGAL COUNSEL, IF YOU WOULD NOT MIND COMING TO THE PODIUM FIRST TO ADDRESS ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT WERE RECENTLY MADE TO THE ORDINANCE?

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. WE HAVE MET WITH COUNSEL'S COUNSEL EARLIER TODAY OVER THE PHONE AND MET WITH JARED TAYLOR, AS WELL TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE CORRECTIONS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES ARE NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS ORDINANCE BETTER, AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST A COUPLE OF OVERALL CONCERNS OF THE ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED AS IS SPECIFIC TO THE TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF TWO, IF THAT'S OKAY. WE'LL START WITH THE SECOND ONE BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE GENERAL CONCERNS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AND COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, AND IT AGREES WITH ITS STATED PURPOSES.

HOWEVER, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFICALLY, THE SECOND PHASE IS CONSIDERED A LITTLE BIT, TOO SOON, AND IT WAS INDICATED IN A PREVIOUS MEETING WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD SPAN PROBABLY SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS.

THERE WILL BE, IT SEEMS LIKE, THERE WILL BE SOME DATA COLLECTION INVOLVED THAT MIGHT TAKE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME USING A SOFTWARE THAT COUNSELOR TAYLOR MENTIONED AND THERE WILL BE ANALYZING DATA AND APPLY IT TO THE ORDINANCE AT HAND. ALSO, AS YOU KNOW, THE STATE LEGISLATURE MIGHT REACT TO THE ORDINANCE. THERE HAVE MADE A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS MADE BY STATE LEGISLATORSAL READY LEGISLATORS ALREADY TO THAT EXTENT. WE BELIEVE THAT IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING DO IN THE NEXT SESSION IN RELATION TO THE ORDINANCES OF THAT TYPE IN GENERAL, AND YOU KNOW, THAT LEGISLATURE ALREADY REGULATES REGISTRATION PROGRAMS AND TO A CERTAIN EXTENT PERMITTING FOR PERMIT 36120. PERHAPS IT MIGHT BE WORTH IT TO SEE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO DO IN THE NEXT SESSION.

WE'RE VERY CLEAR ABOUT OUR ROLES. THE COUNSEL PASSES LANDLORD AND IT IS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THIS.

IF WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION PARTICULARLY IMPLEMENTING IT, AND IF THIS ORDINANCE IS OF THIS YEAR TO THEN REGISTER AND BEGIN TO IMPLEMENT THE CAPS BETWEEN 2026. I CAN SPEAK TO MYSELF AND THE CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH COUNSELORS THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WILL NEED TIME AFTER THE REGGIST RAISING PERIOD IS OVER TO THEN BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE THE CAPS IF IT WERE PASSED AS

IS. >> I'M SORRY FOR JUMPING IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE NUMBERS, AND I WANTED TO SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS. I SPOKE WITH MAYOR FINKIN, AND I APOLOGIZE NOT REACHING OUT TO OTHERS, BII WAS TOLD SHE

[00:40:02]

DID REACH OUT TO CHAIR TAYLOR. THE IDEA IS BECAUSE WE ARE SO FAR URN THE GAP ACCORDING TO THE DATA THAT WE SAW, THE QUITE -- OUR E DPKTIVE DATE ACCORDING TO THE LAW WOULD STILL BE -- I KNOW WE CAN MOVE IT. WE'D WANT TO HAVE IT EARLIER JUST IN CASE THERE WAS ANY SORTING OF GRANDFATHER. I KNOW THERE WAS A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER THEY WOULD HAVE A GRAND FATHER OR NOT. THERE IS NO BILL TO DEBATE.

WE WOULDN'T WANT TO CATCH OURSELVES AND SAY IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD THIS EFFECTIVE DATE HERE WE COULD HAVE RETURNED IT. WE COULD REMOVE THIS OPTION BASICALLY FOREVER IF WE DON'T GET IT THE RIGHT WAY. THE EFFECTIVE DATE COMPARED TO WHEN IT'S IMPLEMENTED. THOSE CAN DIFFER AND WHEN IT'S IMPLEMENTED IS UP TO EXECUTIVE DISCRETION AND DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE SPELLED OUT IN THE ORDINANCE, CORRECT?

>> YES. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. THE EFFECTIVE DATA OF THE ORDINANCE IS USUALLY WHAT LEGISLATURE IS LOOKING AND THE TRYING TO SET A DATE, FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATE CODE AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE MIGHT BE IN EFFECT WHICH IN TURN WOULD A SECT THE SO WE DON'T KNOW IF IF IT WILL ADDRESS THIS ISSUE,OR ALTERNATIVELY, IT WOULD HAVE HAVE BEEN COMPLETE PREEMPTION AND IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, AS YOU NOTICE, TO HAVE HAVE AN EFFECTIVE DATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVE. WE WOULD PREFER THAT THAT DATE BE A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD ONLY IN A PERMITTING SECTION ONLY. APRIL OR MAY WOULD BE PREFERRED TO GENERATE FIRST, BUT AGAIN, I AGREE THAT RIGHT NOW WE'RE SPECULATING AS TO WHAT STATE IS GOING DO.

ASK AND THEN FINALLY, THE FINAL CONCERN IS YOU'VE HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE. THE CITY OF FISHER INTRODUCED THEIR ORDINANCE. THEY PASSED.

WE BELIEVE THERE MAY ABE POTENTIAL CHALLENGE FOR THIS ORDINANCE, AND FRANKLY, WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE CO DEPENDENT IF THAT IS FILED. AND PLUS, OF COURSE, THAT STEJS FROM THE POTENTIAL LEGAL CHALLENGES AND WE'LL DISCUSS IT HERE, BUT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW CONCERNS THERE, AS WELL.

SO THESE ARE THE GENERAL CONCERNS AND GENERAL MESSAGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT I ALSO HAVE A LIST OF PRETTY TECHNICAL THINGS THAT ADAM AND I CAN DOUBLE TEAM HERE.

IF YOU LIKE, WE CAN GO ONE BY ONE, LINE BY LINE.

>> SO AFTER ADAM AND OUR SERGEI SPOKE THIS AFTERNOON.

A COUPLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN COUNCIL MEMBERS.

-- DOES EVERYONE HAVE THE MOST RECENT VERSION PULLED UP HERE? FIRST, I WANT TO LET COUNSELORS SPEAK AS TO WHY THEY WANTED THE CHANGES TALK ABOUT THOSE NOW.

COUNSELOR? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

THE ONE CHANGE THEY UNDERSTAND NOW HAS BEEN WRITTEN INTO THIS NEW VERSION THAT WE GOT TODAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I BROUGHT UP WAS ELIMINATING THE CAN CITY WIDE. SO WHEN CHAIRMAN TAYLOR READ THE SYNOPSIS, WITH ANY NASHTD OR NEIGHBORHOOD OR HOA.

IT WOULD NOT ENCOMPASS THE WHOLE CITY.

SO MY LOGIC FOR THAT WAS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A RENTAL PROBLEM THROUGHOUT THE CITY. WE HAVE A RENTAL PROBLEM IF SOME SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE CITY, AND SO MAKING IT, MAKING THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO SHOWS SPECIFIC AREAS SEEM TO MAKE SENSE TO ME, BUT I HAVE LOTS AND LOTS OF QUESTIONS YET. I'M STILL NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE WHOLE CONCEPT YET, BUT I DO WANT TO BANK AND ACKNOWLEDGE

[00:45:09]

CHAIRMAN TAYLOR FOR HEARING ME AND ALLOWING THAT CHANGE TO BE

MADE. >> COUNCILWOMAN MEN ARDZ?

>> ACTUALLY, I WANTED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE REGARDING HOAS EVEN THOUGH IT'S INGRAINED OR CODIFIED IN STATE LAWS.

SO JUST AS AN ADDED LAYER, I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT THIS ORDINANCE DID NOT INTERFERE AND INTERACT WITH ANY OTHER HOAS WITHIN THE CITY. SO IF THE HOA HAS A CERTAIN RULING, IT DOESN'T CIRCUMVENT THAT.

SO I JUST WANTED THAT TO BE VERY CLEAR AND ON THE RECORD.

SO IF YOU HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT HAS A THREE- YEAR WAITING PERIOD FOR SOMEONE TO RENT THEIRTHEIR HOUSE AFTER THEY'VE PURCHASED IT, I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD CIRCUMVENT THE

COVENANT. >> NEXT UNDER SECTION 4- 5 UNDER REQUIREMENT, IT STATES FOR THE RECORD NOTHING CONTAINED HERE SHALL BE CONSTRAINED OF THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION AND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OR SIMILAR ENTITY TO ADOPT AND ENFORCE COVENANT, RULES THAT ARE SET FORTH HEREIN.

IF YOU WANT TO THEN BEGIN GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE OTHER TECHNICAL AND OTHER CHANGES THAT YOU AND COUNCIL RECOMMENDED? STARTING WITH THE BENEFICIAL

OWNER. >> YEAH.

ABSOLUTELY. THOSE ONES ARE YOURS.

YEAH. FOR THE COUNCIL, SO JUST MOVING DOWN IN SECTION 5- 501 UNDER THE DEFINITION SECTION IT HAS -- WE ADDED A DEFINITION --

>> COULD YOU GIVE US THE LINE- ITEM OR THE LINE NUMBER, PLEASE?

>> LINE 62 UNDER 5- 501, AND SO IT ADDS THE DEFINITION OF THE BENEFICIAL OWNER AS BEING A NATURAL PERSON THAT HAS 25% OWNERSHIP BE IT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OF THE DWELLING OR THE ENTITY AND THE IDEA'S IN THE REGISTRATION, THE OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED. AND THEN YOU'LL SEE UNDERLINE 66 AND 67 LEAD TO THE SHORT- TERM RENTAL DEFINITION THERE BECAUSE WE'RE MOVING IT ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. THEN WE CHANGE IT TO PERMITTED.

THEN IF YOU MOVE TO LATER ON, SO UNDERLINES 97 TO 103 UNDER THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING WE PUT IN THERE THE SHORT- TERM DWELLING, WE ADDED EXEMPTIONS TO THE SHORT- TERM RENTALS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF A RENTAL DWELLING, AND THEN, AS WELL, A DWELLING WITHIN THE RENTAL COMMUNITY IS ALSO EXEMPTED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLINGS HAVE A F1 DWELLING WITHIN THE RENTAL COMMUNITY AND THAT HAS -- AND WE ALSO 104 TO 105 WE HAVE THE DEFINITION OF A RENTAL COMMUNITY AND THAT ALIGNS WITH THE DEFINITION OF STATE

STATUTE. >> SO 104 AND 105 IS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, WE DO SUPPORT BUILD TO RENT COMMUNITIES.

THERE'S ONE BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW. WE WANT IT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT INCLUDING BUILD TO RENT COMMUNITIES IN THE CAMP OR ARE AFFECTED BY THIS ORDINANCE. AND THAN UNDER 4- 500 WE DISCUSSED THAT AND MOVING ON TO 4- 501 BEGINNING IN LINES 136 TO 139, 144 AND 157, BENEFICIAL OWNERS HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED IN THE REGISTRATION AND THEY HAVE TO UPDATE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION AND THAT TYPE OF THING. AND THEN UNDER SECTION 4- 502 LINES 189 TO LINES 190, SIMPLY WE'RE REMOVING STATEWIDE

[00:50:01]

CAP AND CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE DWELLING TO PERMITTED AND JUST CLEANING THAT UP. LASTLY, LINES 281 AND 282 AND 4- 504 AND SIMPLY CLARIFY STATES THAT THEY PAY A VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THE COURT ORDER IS PUNISHABLE AS CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ADDING THAT ENFORCEMENT LANGUAGE THERE. ? THANK YOU, ADAM.

SERGEI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CHANGES THAT YOU RECOMMENDED EARLIER TODAY?

>> SO THE FIRST CHANGE IS ON LINE 75 AND 77 OR 75 THROUGH 77.

THAT IS SUBSECTION 4 OR 5- 501 DEFINITIONS. I DID HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE BROAD SCOPE OF THIS PARTICULAR PERMITTED RENTAL DWELLING EXEMPTION AS TO RELATES TO THE SITUATION AND UNDOU HARDSHIP.

SPECIFICALLY, I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT IF A SITUATION WOULD RELATE TO THE MEDICAL CONDITION.

FOR EXAMPLE, OR A DISABILITY. SO THERE MIGHT BE SOME A HIPAA CONCERN AND UNDUE HARDSHIP USUALLY APPLIES TO ENTITIES THAT ARE AT LEAST QUASIJUDICIAL BUDDIES. LIKE BCA IS UNDUE HARDSHIP AND MIGHT BE ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS THERE, BUT IT MIGHT BE TOO SPIKE OF A DIRECTOR BECAUSE I RECOMMEND THAT THIS SECTION BE EITHER SUPPLEMENTED WITH A REQUIREMENT OF AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE OWNER OR WE'LL HAVE SOME SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS AS TO MEDICAL INFORMATION FOR THE NATURE OF A DISABILITY AND THE INFORMATION OF THE RUN IN VIOLATION OF HIPAA, AND THEN MOVING DOWN TO 81 -- LINES 81 TO 84, SPECIFICALLY PROVISIONS OF SEVEN AND EIGHT AND THEN IF IT'S OFFERED BY, BUT UNABLE TO SELL IT FOR SIX MONTHS. I BELIEVE THAT THOSE TWO SECTIONS HAS THE BIGGEST POSSIBILITY FOR MISUSE.

THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO DO INFLATE THE PRICE OF YOUR HOME BY TENFOLD AND LIST IT AS NOTNOT A REALTOR OR BROKER, BUT LISTED BY OWNER ON THE MLS OR ONE OF THE AGENCIES THAT JUST -- YOU PAY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF A FEE AND THEN THEY LIST IT FOR YOU.

SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS COMPLETE REMOVAL OF SECTIONS 7 AND 8.

>> CLARIFICATION THAT ONE OF THE PERMITTED RENTAL DWELLING REASONS IS THE OWNER HAS BEEN RELOCATED BY THEIR EMPLOYER IN EXCESS OF 50 MILES FROM THE LOCATION IN THE LAST YEAR.

I KNOW THAT WAS BOUGHT UP EARLIER, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS PERMITTED TO ALLOW TO BE A RENTAL.

>> MOVING ON TO SECTION 4-502. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LINE- ITEMS STARTING AT 180 THROUGH 183.

SO THIS SECTION LISTS HOME RENTAL DWELLING, PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE IS FOR THE DWELLING NOT TO HAVE MORE THAN THREE PUBLIC SAFETY CALLS OF SERVICE IN THE LAST 24 MONTHS. THE CONCERN HERE IS THE DEFINITION IS TOO BROAD. CALLS FOR SERVICE INCLUDE FIRE AND EMS CALLS AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY SITUATIONS WITH INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT REQUIRE MORE CALLS FOR SERVICE THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY CODE OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. SO THE RECOMMENDATION THERE IS TO MODIFY IT TO EITHER CITATIONS OR

[00:55:02]

ACTUAL CITATIONS OR AT THE VERY LEAST AND EXCLUDE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND EMS GOALS, AND NOW THE POINT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT BY COUNCIL TAYLOR AND WHAT IF IT'S A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND NO CHARGES ARE FILED BY PROSECUTORS,÷÷ ET CETERA? SO PERHAPS THE SOLUTION THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIATED REPORTS FOR POLICE RUNS.

THAT'S THE SUGGESTION THERE AND THEN MOVING DOWN TO JUST A CLARIFICATION IN SUBSECTION BEGINNING WITH LINE 188 THROUGH 192.

I READ THIS LANGUAGE A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND I JUST HAD A QUESTION IN MY MIND WHERE THE LEGACY DWELLINGS WOULD COUNT TOWARD 10% FOR NEIGHBORHOODS NOW, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD. IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT IT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT SIMILARLY TO PERMITTED RENTAL DWELLINGS, BUT THAT LANGUAGE, THAT CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE WAS INCLUDED IN THE PERMITTED RENTAL DWELLING SECTION, BUT NOT HERE. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO INCLUDE SIMILAR CLARIFICATION SO THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT LEGACY DWELLINGS WOULD COUNT TOWARDS THE CAP.

>> NEXT SECTION STARTS AND ENDS ON LINE NUMBER 204 WHICH READS A DENIAL OF RENTAL DWELLING UNIT MAY BE APPEALED UNDER SECTION 4504. RECOMMENDATION HERE, AND I WILL ADDRESS IT LATER, AS WELL, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION SHEER TO HAVE A DENIAL OVER RESIDENTIAL PERMIT AND APEEL PROCESS SIMILAR TO THE APPEAL PROCESS WHICH WOULD BE RATHER THAN TO THE COURT AND THAT'S DIRECTION 4504 AND AUTHORIZES THE PROPERTY OWNER TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF RESIDENTIAL PERMIT DIRECTLY TO THE CITY COURT AND WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND AND IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND DETERMINATION. IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO FOLLOW THE SAME PROCEDURE FOR ALL ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND GO THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPELLATE BODY FIRST, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE BPW RATHER THAN JUST STRAIGHT TO THE CITY COURT OR THE CONTRADICTION, BUT WE'LL GET MORE EXPLANATION ON APPEALSCOURT IN GENERAL. NEXT IS SUBSECTION NUMBER 4, THAT STARTS ON LINE- ITEM -- LINE 216 THAT RELATES TO THE REASON FOR -- THE REASONS FOR

REQUIREMENTS. >> REVOCATION.

>> I APOLOGIZE. IT READS ANY SPECIFIC REVISION ON A CITY ORDINANCE THAT PLACES UNDUE BURDENS ON PUBLIC SAFETY RESOURCES.

IF OUR OPINION THAT LANGUAGE IS A LITTLE BIT TOO BROAD, AS WELL. IT'S NOT REALLY A GOOD DEFINITION OF WHAT UNDUE BURDEN IS IN RELATION TO PUBLIC SERVICES. IT'S AKIN TO A COURT DETERMINATION, AN INQUIRY, AND FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, I THINK IT WOULD BE UNWISE. HOWEVER, SUBSECTION NUMBER TWO THAT INCLUDES ANY VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 6 AND CHAPTER 10 INCLUDES A LOT OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT WOULD FALL UNDER BURDENS ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND I THINK THAT SPECIFIC SECTION IS ALREADY COVERED IN THOSE CHAPTERS.

SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO STRIKE SUBSECTION 4 BECAUSE I THINK A MAJORITY OVER ISSUES THAT IT'S TRYING TO ADDRESS IS ALREADY ADDRESSED IN CHAPTERS 6 AND 10 AS LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE. THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS ISIS CORRECTED THAT IS TO SAY WE DON'T HAVE A CITY OFFICER DESIGNATION AND THAT WAS ALREADY CORRECTED BY ADAM. AND THE SUBSECTION C ON 227 WAS ALSO CORRECTED AND THERE WAS JUST A TYPO.

[01:00:04]

MOVING ON TO ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.

THIS IS WHERE THE COURT COMES. SO IF I CAN HAVE YOUR ATTENTION ON LINE 266 AND IT GOES THROUGH UNTIL THE END OF A BACK SECTION OF 284. SO SUBSECTION F, IT SAYS NOTICE OF VIOLATION OR A DENIAL OF PERMITS.

THIS IS WHERE THE DENIAL OF PERMIT REFERENCE IS TO THIS SECTION. I RECOMMEND THAT DENIAL OF PERMIT HAVE ITS OWN APPELLATE PROCEDURE WHICH IS THE SAME AS REVOCATION OF PERMIT AGAIN THROUGH BPW RATHER THAN THE DIRECT APPEAL TO CITY COURT. ALSO, THE A PPEAL OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO CITY COURT CAN BE PROBLEMATIC, RATHER, FROM THE OWNER STANDPOINT IF THE CITY WILL ASK FOR ANY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THAT HEARING BECAUSE CITY COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND THIS ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY CONCENTRATES ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A LOT. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT NOT TO DO RATHER THAN FINES.

. TO GIVE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT RECOMMEND THAT IT'S GOING IN THE ALTERNATIVE OR BETTER STILL TO -- AN ALTERNATIVE MEANING THE JURISDICTION WOULD BE THE TERM OR BETTER STILL TO HAVE AN APPEAL THROUGH TO COUNTY COURTS, SUPERIOR OR CIRCUIT COURT IN HAMILTON COUNTY.

>> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS THE DUE PROCESS IN THEIR APPEAL. SORRY. COUNCILWOMAN MANAR.

>> MY APOLOGIZE. IT'S A PRIVILEGE TO BE ON THE DEUS. IS IT JURISDICTIONAL?

>> THE CITY COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

>> PERFECT.

>> SO IF WE'RE ASKING FOR A PROPERTY OWNER NOT TO DO SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO A FINE, BUT DISCONTINUING CERTAIN ACTIVITY, FOR EXAMPLE, OR BRING PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE IN A CERTAIN WAY THEN THAT REMEDY WILL NOT BE IN CITY COURT, BUT COUNTY COURT.

>> THANK YOU. >> BENJAMIN LAG IS HERE AND HE CAN EXPAND ON ANY PARTICULAR SECTION. HE KNOWS MORE THAN I DO.

>> AND THE SAME COMMENT HEREHERE SUBSECTION G, 269 THROUGH 275 TO GRANT THE CITY MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO CHANGE IT IN THE JURISDICTION, AT LEAST, OR EVEN JUST LIST IT AS COUNTY COURTS. AND FINALLY, THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT ONLY APPLIES IN THE COMMITTEE WILL DECIDE TO CHANGE IT TO THE COUNTY COURTS IS THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SUBSECTION H STARTING AT 276.

SPECIFICALLY NO COST MAY BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE CITY IN ANY SUBSECTION, AND BENJAMIN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE CAN IMPOSE RULES ON COUNTY COURTS.

SO IF YOU DECIDE TO SHIFT IT FROM CITY COURT TO COUNTY COURT, THEN THAT SPECIFIC SENTENCE WILL NEED TO BE STRICKEN AND THAT IS IT.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> QUESTIONS FOR SERGEI OR ADAM?

>> COUNSEL MENARD?

>> YEAH. I WANT TO GO BACK TO -- SHOOT.

I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. MY APOLOGIES.

I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT HERE FOR A SECOND. MY QUESTION WAS REGARDING -- OH, SHOOT. WHEN I THINK OF IT. SORRY. SORRY TO WASTE YOUR TIME.

>> COULD WE JUST HAVE A SUGGESTION? I KNOW YOU GAVE SOME OF THOSE WERE -- WE HAVE THIS RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE THAT THE COMMITTEE CAN VOTE TO AMEND WITH YOUR SUGGESTION A FEW OF THEM PROVIDED AN EITHER/OR OPTION.

BECAUSE NOW THEY'LL HAVE TO BREAK THAT UP.

[01:05:04]

>> LET'S SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS

THOSE ITEMS RIGHT NOW. >> SURE.

>> SO REVIEW THE -- REVIEW THE EITHER/OR RECOMMENDATIONS

AGAIN. >> SO IT'S -- LET'S START WITH THE LAST ONE SINCE IT'S FRESHEST IN MY MEMORY.

>> LET'S START WITH ONE AND WE'LL DISCUSS EACH ITEM AS YOU BRING THEM UP.

>> OKAY.

>> SO THE FIRST ONE IS LINE 75

THROUGH 77. >> I THINK THE EASIEST SOLUTION HERE WITH ADAM OR BENJAMIN, IS TO REQUIRE AN AFFIDAVIT THAT WOULD OUTLINE THE LINE SITUATION THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE.

THIS WAY, THE DIRECTOR FOR AN ENFORCING BODY WOULD NOW BE FORCED TO ASK FOR MEDICAL INFORMATION THAT CAN BE PROTECTED BY HIPAA OR NATURE OF THE DISABILITY THAT CAN BE PROTECTED BY ADA OR OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL REGULATIONS THAT POTENTIALLY CAN ALLY TO THIS RATHER BROAD TURN IN LIFE SITUATIONS.

>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AFFIDAVIT? COUNSELOR?

>> IF YOU'RE ELIMINATING THE SIX MONTH BECAUSE YOU'RE AFRAID OF ABUSE, BUT YOU'RE PROVIDING MORE DOCUMENTATION FOR UNDUE CIRCUMSTANCE E THAT STILL COULD BE SOMETHING SOMEONE LIST, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE

PROPER DOCUMENTATION. >> ABSOLUTELY.

YOU STILL HAVE THAT CATCH ALL PROVISION THAT WE COULD NOT PREDICT EVERY SINGLE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT APPLY IN A SPECIFIC SCENARIO IN ANY PARTICULAR TIME AND MARKETS FLUCTUATE, ET CETERA.

WE'VE ALL EXPERIENCED 2008 AND 2009 HOUSING MARKET COLLAPSE AND CIRCUMSTANCES CAN CHANGE.

THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T -- OR RATHER, WE DON'T RECOMMEND REMOVING IT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A PROVISION THAT WOULD ADDRESS OTHER SCENARIOS, BUT REQUIRING VERY SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT CAN PROTECT IT.

>> SO YOU CAN REMOVE THE SIXTH MONTH AND SOMEONE CAN SELL THEIR HOUSE, THEY DO HAVE A WAY TO BE AN EXCEPTION THERE.

>> IT WOULD FALL UNDER A, LIVE SITUATION, IN MY OPINION.

>> SELOR LOTT.

>> IS THIS A NEW CITY

COMPLIANCE? >> I'M TRYING TO THINK OF SPECIFIC AFFIDAVITS AS IN A LEGAL FORM THAT WE COLLECT. WE CERTAINLY REQUIRE A FORMATION FOR AN APPLICATION, BUT AS FAR AS AFFIDAVIT GOES, I CANNOT THINK OF ONE. LET ME SEE IF THE DIRECTOR IS HERE. CAN YOU THINK OF ANY SPECIFIC AFFIDAVITS THAT WOULD REQUIRE AS AN APPLICATION OR PERMITTING PROCESS? ANY SCENARIOS THAT COME TO MIND?

>> I APOLOGIZE. WHEN CONSTRUCTION WORK HAS BEEN DONE AND NOT INSPECKED, THERE HAS BEEN INSTANCES IN THE PAST WHERE IF THEY PREFER AN AFFIDAVIT THAT SAYS THAT THEY'VE MET THE REQUIREMENTS AND WE WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT A CONSISTENT WAY THAT WE DO BUSINESS. IT'S JUST BEEN ON RARE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

>> AND I CAN THINK OF A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS, AS WELL.

WHEN WE DEAL WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WE REQUIRE TELEVISIONS FOR CERTAIN ISSUE, AS WELL, BUT IT'S VERY CASE SPECIFIC. IT'S NOT TIED TO A SPECIFIC APPLICATION OR PERMIT.

>> AGAIN, SO I JUST WANT TO REITERATE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT MR. COOPER CAME UP AND SPOKE ABOUT SOMEBODY BEING MOVED TO CHICAGO, AND SO THIS

[01:10:02]

PROVISION WITH THE 50 MILES OR MORE.

THEY WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE ABLE TO RENT

THEIR HOME. >> IT WOULD BE PERMITTED

DWELLING. >> RIGHT.

THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN

OUT. >> IF THE PLOTTED NEIGHBORHOOD FOR WHICH THEY LIVE IN IS AT THE CAP ALREADY.

>> CORRECT. CORRECT. YEAH.

THANK YOU FOR --

>> IF NOT, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY CAN OBTAIN A PERMIT AND UNDER THIS ORDINANCE -- AND STILL DO THAT.

CORRECT. I WANTED TO BE SURE BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE.

>> COUNSELOR?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST ON THIS SPECIFIC POINT.

I'M A LONGTIME RESIDENT OF CARMEL.

SOMETHING HAPPENS IN MY LIFE AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS I HAVE TO PROVE TO YOU OR WHO AM I PROVING THIS TO YOU AND WHO WILL MAKE THE DETERMINATION FOR YOU THAT THE SOLUTION FOR ME IS TO RENT MY ONLY IS MY PREFERRED WAY OF DOING IT IN THIS SITUATION, THIS PERSONAL, MAYBE TRAUMATIC SITUATION THAT I'M IN. WHO IS JUDGE AND JURY

ON THAT? >> TECHNICALLY, IT'S THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION BY A DIRECTOR.

AS OF RIGHT NOW IT IS THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES THAT WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF ENFORCING IT.

IF THE COMMITTEE DECIDES TO CHANGE THAT INDIVIDUAL TO SOMEBODY ELSE, THAT WOULD BE THAT INDIVIDUAL, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW IT IS THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR. IF AN APPLICANT DISAGREES WITHWITH DETERMINATION AND THE ADMINISTRATE OF DETERMINATION IT CAN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY DECIDING IT.

>> THAT WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING AND MY AFFIDAVIT WOULD

BECOME PUBLIC. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> YEAH. OKAY.

>> COUNSELOR GREENE.

>> SORRY. I KNOW DR. JOE HAS A QUESTION AFTER ME, TOO. FOLLOWING UP ON COUNCIL WORRELL, WHO IS THE ACTUAL DECISION MAKER? WHO IS THE ENFORCING BODY? IS IT THE INSPECTORS OR WHO

WOULD BE -- >> THE ENFORCING BODY AS OF RIGHT NOW IS CODE ENFORCEMENT. CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO I THINK MIKE BROUGHT UP THE LAST TIME THE INSPECTORS USED TO BE A PART OF DCS AND NOT PART OF

LEGAL. >> SO IS DCS, THE DIRECTOR, THE RIGHT PERSON GIVEN THE

STRUCTURE. >> ABSOLUTELY.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK, AND LAST MEETING DIRECTOR HARBAUGH EXPRESSED HIS POSITION, AND IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES IS THE CORRECT PERSON TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION TOP GINN TO BEGIN WITH ESPECIALLY WITH RECONSIDERING THE SHUFFLING REINFORCEMENT WOULD FALL UNDER OFFICE OF COOPERATION AND COUNSEL BECAUSE CODE ENFORCEMENT IS UNDER THE OFFICE OF COOPERATION COUNCIL AND, AS WELL -- IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION PERTAINING TO THAT.

SO IF I BUILD A FENCE OR I DID NOT OBTAIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICE E THE DECK TO BUILD THE FANS AND IT'S DETERMINED THAT I VIOLATED AND DID NOT GET THAT, WOULD THAN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT.

>> IT WOULD MOVE TO ATTORNEYS.

>> THAT'S AL READ SITUATIONS AND WAS, THE DEPARTMENT -- NOT DEPARTMENT WAS UNTIL RECENTLY, RAPS WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS LETTING AND THAT'S THE SUCCESS, BUT NOW CODE ENFORCEMENT IS UNDER OFFICE OF COOPERATION AND COUNSEL WHICH MAKES MORE SENSE BECAUSE THEY WORK TOGETHER ON ENFORCEMENT ISSUES AND FILING THE COURTS.

>> BUT, AGAIN, THAT'S THE SAME SITUATION THAT WE HAVE WITH MOST OF OUR PERMITTING PROCESSES NOW.

IT'S PERMITTED BY DOCS. IT'S ENFORCED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT.

>> IF IT'S ZONING AND PLANNING PERMIT IT FALLS UNDER THE PURVIEW, AND IT WOULD BE DOCS.

>> IF IT'S AN ENGINEERING PERMIT, IT WOULD BE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

[01:15:05]

AND BPW AND MARKETING DEPARTMENT.

>> I JUST HAD A DEFINITION QUESTION AND ALSO ONLINE 86 IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER.

IS THAT A LEGAL DEFINITION THAT YOU'RE JUST USING A GENERAL LEGAL DEFINITION OR IS THAT A DEFINITION THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED IN WHAT CONSTITUTES AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER?

>> ADAM, I'M GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT HERE.

I BELIEVE THAT IT'S THE DEFINITION THAT WE ESTABLISHED. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT DEFINITION IS THE SAME ORDINANCE AFTER ORDINANCE, BUT I MIGHT BE WRONG.

IF I WERE TO GUESS, THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE ORDINANCE.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO WROTE IT.

IS THAT A STATUTORY, LEGAL DEFINITION? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?

>> I'M NOT 100% SURE. I WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU ON THAT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> WOULD YOU ACCEPT A QUESTION THAT ISN'T EXACTLY RELATED TO THIS, BUT I WANT TO GET IT OUT OF MY BRAIN?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> TO YOUR QUESTION THAT PEOPLE BUILD ILLEGAL FENCES AND WE HAVE A SHORT- TERM RENTAL, NO PERMIT, NOTHING, SO I GUESS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE, SOMEONE RENTS THEIR HOME AND DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF GOING ON AND THERE'S A FAMILY IN THERE, WHAT HAPPENS AND IT'S AN ILLEGAL RENTAL.

TO YOUR POINT, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OR LEGAL, WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT FAMILY RUNNING THAT HOME?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. LET'S TAKE IT A STEP BACK.

NUMBER ONE, FOR US TO KNOW ABOUT VIOLATION IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES WE HAVE LIVE REPORTING AND WE DO KNOW THAT FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE, BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT WHICH UNDER ENFORCEMENT SECTION, IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE A DECISION FOR THE COURT TO MAKE, BUT SINCE THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF I CAN'T ENVISION THE COURT FORCED TO FIRM NATE TERMINATE THE RELEASE.

>> THE COURT WOULD NOT TERMINATE THE LEASE OR THEY WOULD?

>> NO, I THINK IT'S A POSSIBILITY. YEAH.

>> SO THEY WOULD BE EVICTED.

>> ESSENTIALLY. THIS ALSO WOULD BE THE CASE, AND IF THERE IS A SUIT BROUGHT BY SOMEONE NOT FOLLOWING AN HOA CCR IN THE COURT OF LAW.

>> POTENTIALLY.

>> I ASKED THAT QUESTION -- IT WAS A TALK, AND SHE WAS ASKED THIS QUESTION, AND IT WAS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, RIGHT? AND THE ANSWER THAT WE WERE GIVE SEN DO YOU HAVE A PRIVATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE LANDLORD AND THE PERSON LEASING, THE LANDLORD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH SOMEONE AND THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT THEN THE PERSON LEASING WOULD NOT BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY, BUT WOULD LIKELY BE OPEN TO SOME SORT OF RELIEF IN THE COURT

SYSTEM. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT OF CLARIFICATION, AS WELL. THE AFFECTED FAMILY AND COUNSEL MORELL'S EXAMPLE WOULD HAVE ENTERED INTO THE LEASE ILLEGALLY. IT IS A PRIVATE CONTRACT THAT THE COURT WILL BE TERMINATING

POTENTIALLY. >> COUNCILWOMAN MENARD?

>> ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE HARDSHIP CLAUSES AND THE HARDSHIP HAVE TO BE A RECORD? DOES IT HAVE TO BECOME A MATTER OF RECORD, I GUESS?

>> CERTAIN MEDICAL INFORMATION OR

DISABILITY INFORMATION -- >> DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

>> SORRY. I ASSUME YOU MEAN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST A MINOR.

>> DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST

WOMEN. >> OR MEN.

>> OR MEN, I APOLOGIZE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION CORRECTLY, AS WELL.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INSTANCES THAT HAVE NOT

[01:20:02]

BEEN REPORTED TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, CORRECT? OR ANY.

BECAUSE IF IT IS RECORDED THERE WOULD BE A COURT RECORD OF

THAT. >> THAT'S PURR LICK.

PUBLIC. >> IT IS A PUBLIC RECORD AND PROBABLE CAUSE THAT WOULD VAR NEY VERY GENERAL TERMS LED TO THAT, ET CETERA.

SO A LOT OF INSTANCES OF REPORTED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OF PUBLIC RECORDS ALREADY. IF WE'RE DEALING WITH MINORS AND THEN THE COURT SYSTEM WOULD PROTECT INFORMATION RELATED TO MINORS AND IT WOULD BE SEALED AND SIMILAR PROCESSES, AS WELL.

>> IT DOES STATE THERE WAS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST THE MINOR, AND IT DOESN'T STATE THE MINOR'S NAME.

>> EXACTLY. IT'S JUST A GENERAL TERM, GENERAL TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED AND THE PERCEPTION OF THAT PARTICULAR TIME IN REPORTING.

IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION AND PERHAPS WORTH THINKING THROUGH AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES AGAIN AND IT'S A BROAD TERM.

>> I WAS THINKING, TOO, ALONG THE LINES OF THEIR ADDRESS BECOMING PUBLIC, AS WELL, IF IT IS THAT TYPE OF SITUATION BECAUSE THAT'S NOT SOMETHING --

>> GENERALLY SPEAKING, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT EXCLUDED SPECIFICALLY FROM LONG

DOCUMENTS. >> THEY'RE NOT PUBLISHED ONLINE FOR EASY PERUSING AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE OBTAINED BY A REQUEST, OTHER PEOPLE KNOW IT AS A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

REQUEST. >> SORRY, MR. CHAIR.

I JUST WANTED IT TO BE ON THE -- UP FOR DISCUSSION.

>> THAT'S COVERED.

>> BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE ALL TRYING TO GET TO THE SAME PLACE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COUNSELOR? >> WE HAVE THE SAME QUESTION AS COUNSELOR MENARD ON CERTAIN PLACES LIKE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR THE MEDICAL CONDITIONS.

HOW MUCH INFORMATION HAS TO BE PUT IN THAT AFFIDAVIT AND ULTIMATELY, WHO IS MAKING THAT DECISION. SO -- THE OTHER -- I MEAN, THE OTHER OPTION IS TO LEAVE IT AS IS AND LEAVE IT UP TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BASED ON THE DISCUSSION AND PRIVATE DISCUSSION WITH --

>> THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. YES.

>> COUNSELOR LOCKE?

>> THE AFFIDAVIT WOULD ALLOW IT TO SAY OTHER OPTIONS, AND YOU CAN USE THE TERM THAT DOESN'T HAVE DETAILS AND GET AN AFFIDAVIT THAT'S LEGALLY BINDING AND SHOWS THAT IT'S THERE. SO IN SOME WAYS IT GIVES PROTECTION. I ASK THE QUESTION IF WE'VE USED AFFIDAVITS BEFORE BECAUSE IT DOES TACK A LEGAL STATEMENT OF TWO ELEMENTS OF A LEGAL FACT WITHOUT THE LEGAL FACTS OF THE LEGAL ELEMENT THAT'S THERE AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE ELEMENTS ARE MET WHICH SEEMS REASONABLE AND FINE, DID YOU DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE'D DONE IN PRACTICE IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THAT REASON, THE IDEA OF PROTECTING THOSE ELEMENTS FROM PROCESS. YOU GET AROUND THAT WITH AN AFFIDAVIT. IT JUST SEEMS VERY BROAD. THAT WAS WHY I STARTED WITH THAT QUESTION ABOUT IT TO BEGIN WITH, BUT --

>> AND IT IS. I AGREE.

I THINK COUNSELOR LOCKE IS EXACTLY RIGHT. IT IS A BROAD DEFINITION, AND IT'S A TOUGH ONE, TO BE HONEST. IT'S A TOUGH ONE JUST BECAUSE OF HOW MANY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS BY DEFINITION IT CAN REFER TO.

>> FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. SO COUNSELOR LOCKE, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU CAN STATE THAT AN AFFIDAVIT COULD BE IN PLACE, BUT THE AFFIDAVIT COULD MERELY STATE BASED ON A CONVERSATION WITH THE DIRECTOR AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN THAT THERE IS ANOTHER LIFE SITUATION AND THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD COVER THE BASES WITHOUT HAVING UNDISCLOSED --

>> YEAH. IF WE ACCEPTED AN AFFIDAVIT ON THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY YOU WOULD SAY OTHER LIFE SITUATION WHICH HASSES HAS SES IN ESTATED LEAVING THE DWELLING AND THEN HAVE THE LEGAL BASIS FOR MEETING THE ELEMENTS TO MEET THAT WITHOUT HAVING TO SHARE OTHER INFORMATION.

[01:25:01]

>> IS THERE ANY CONSENSUS ON THE COMMITTEE ABOUT THE AFFIDAVIT? IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE TO -- YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT

YET. >> WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT EITHER/OR .

>> I THINK THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT IS EITHER/OR IS THE COURT SCENARIO. OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO EITHER HAVE A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN EITHER SCENARIO IN SUBSECTION F OR SUBSECTION G OR SUBSECTION G ALREADY HAS THAT OPTION. IT CAN BE FURTHER NARROWED TO COUNTY COURTS IF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS A CONCERN.

, AND I PREDICT THAT SOME OF THOSE ENFORCEMENT CASES ALL WOULD HAVE AN DJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO THEM AND I WOULD APPEAL TO THE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT AT THE VERY LEAST TO EXPAND THE DEFINITION IN F TO THE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION OR JUST MIRROR WHAT G SAYS MEANING CITY COURT OR CIRCUIT OR SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY.

COUNTY. AGAIN, FOR MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY, COUNTY COURT WOULD BE A BETTER VENUE.

[01:33:06]

HIM, HEY, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF THIS SPIRIT ALREADY, I THINK SOMEBODY SAID, THIS IS GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO IMPLEMENT. I'M SORRY. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO SAID THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHO IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DIRECTOR DID ANYONE LET YOU KNOW THAT I HAD ASKED THESE QUESTIONS, THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION OF THIS?

>> WHILE YOU MAKE YOUR WAY UP TO THE PODIUM, DIRECTOR, I WILL MAKE A COMMENT. YOU SAY WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR LEGISLATING.

ADMINISTRATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EXECUTING THAT. I THINK IT IS GOOD PRACTICE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE ASKING THE ADMINISTRATION TO DO, SO I WANT TO SPEND SOME TIME, WHOEVER IS HERE TONIGHT, TO SPEAK TO THAT , AND CHIEF OF STAFF WEBER TOLD ME SOMEONE WOULD ADDRESS THAT FOR ME. IF THAT IS A NO, I WILL MOVE

ON TO MY NEXT QUESTION. >> MOVE ON.

>> OKAY, WELL IT LOOKS LIKE DIRECTOR --

>> I DON'T THINK WE ARE PREPARED TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. THERE ARE A LOT OF SPECIFICS THAT HAVE

NOT BEEN COVERED. >> EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.

>> SERGEI, COULD YOU WALK ME THROUGH AND MAYBE CONTRAST AND COMPARE WHAT HAPPENS NOW, BUT IF THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED, HOW WILL THIS ORDINANCE FIX THAT PROBLEM , AND I WILL START WITH THE GRASSES OR THE SHUTTERS THAT ARE FALLING OFF.

>> LET'S ADDRESS HOW IT WILL WORK NOW, AND POTENTIALLY, EVEN

[01:35:03]

AFTER THE ORDINANCE IS PASSED. NOW, ANY PROPERTY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL IS SUBJECT TO ALL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCES THAT THE CITY OF CARMEL HAS. SO, THE ENFORCEMENT OF , PARTICULAR , VIOLATIONS UNDER ANY SUCH ORDINANCE, BE IT TALL GRASS AND WEEDS, OR ANY OTHER WILL BE THE SAME UNDER THE CITY CODE PROVISIONS . CITATION, AND THEN IF THE VIOLATION IS NOT CORRECTED, IT CAN ESCALATE ALL THE WAY TO FILING THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION WITH THE COURT. AND, THERE IS REALLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RENTAL PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY THAT IS OWNER OCCUPIED, AS FAR AS ENFORCEMENT OF CITY ORDINANCES. HOW THIS ORDINANCE MAY AFFECT IT ONE THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IS YOUR REVOCATION OF A PERMIT. IF A PERMIT IS REVOKED DUE TO CONTINUOUS VIOLATION OF CITY CODE, THEN, THE REVOCATION PROCESS WOULD FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE THAT IS OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FIRST, AND THEN, A POTENTIAL

DETERMINATION BY THE COURT. >> I REALLY WANT YOU TO GET INTO THE DETAILS AND WALK ME THROUGH THAT.

>> I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AFFECT OF OTHER CITY

ORDINANCES WOULD NOT GO AWAY -- >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN STILL ENFORCE ANY ISSUES THAT

ARE PRESENT ON RENTAL PREMISES. >> I UNDERSTAND. HOWEVER, I AM OPERATING ON THE PREMISE THAT WE HAVE HEARD THROUGH EMAILS AND TESTIMONY TO THE COMMITTEE THAT A RENTER LIVING NEXT DOOR OR A LANDLORD OWNING THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR , THAT THE PROPERTY IS EASILY SPOTTED. IT IS IN DISREPAIR. THAT IT IS NOT WELL MAINTAINED, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. IF WE ARE GOING TO PASS THIS ORDINANCE, HOW DOES THAT CHANGE? AND, I, ACTUALLY, WOULD LIKE TO HEAR -- I ADDRESSED MY QUESTION TO THE LEGAL. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS TO MAKE THAT ALL HAPPENED.

>> I DON'T THINK IT WOULD CHANGE. AGAIN, ANY PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF CARMEL WOULD BE CITY TO -- SUBJECT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT, IN TURN, WOULD BE BASED ON ANY OTHER ORDINANCE THAT AFFECTS THE USE OF A PROPERTY IN CARMEL. WHETHER IT IS A PLANNING AND ZONING VIOLATION, A CODE VIOLATION OR STATE VIOLATION LIKE AN UNSAFE HOLDING, FOR EXAMPLE. THE IMPLEMENTATION OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE ORDINANCES AND LAWS WILL NOT CHANGE. THEY WILL NOT BE CHANGED BY THIS ORDINANCE, AT ALL.

>> WHAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY, AND WHAT I WOULD SUPPORT IS THAT PERMIT TO OPERATE A BUSINESS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE REVOKED, AND SO I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, HOW LONG WILL THAT TAKE? WHAT IS THE PROCESS? HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST? SOMETIMES, EVEN TO JUST GET THE LAWN MOWED , IT FEELS LIKE A

LONG TIME. >> HE IS TALKING ABOUT, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT -- BASED ON THE ORDINANCE AND THE PROCESS OF REMOVING THE PERMIT THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO A LANDLORD -- TALKS WITH THE PROCESS WE WOULD TAKE TO REMOVE THAT PERMIT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION 4 DASH -- IT WILL BE FOLLOWED FOR THE PERMIT , A RENTAL DWELLING PERMIT TO BE REVOKED. IF YOU SEE IN THE CRITERIA , RATHER, REASONS FOR REVOCATION. IT SAYS A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING PERMIT MAY BE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES.

NUMBER ONE, FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED NOTICE OF VIOLATION, ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER. IT CAN BE EITHER A VIOLATION OF A PERMITTING REQUIREMENT BY THEMSELVES, BUT ALSO, A VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCES INCLUDED IN CHAPTERS 6 AND 10, AND IT HAS ALSO BEEN DECLARED A

[01:40:04]

COMMON NUISANCE. THERE IS A NUISANCE ROUTE, AS WELL, TO IMPLEMENT IT UNDER NUISANCE VIOLATION.

>> IS THAT 30 DAYS? IS THAT 60 DAYS? 90 DAYS? FIVE DAYS?

>> I DO NOT RECALL , WHAT IS EXACTLY GIVEN IN ANY PARTICULAR

NOTICE OF VIOLATION. >> BENJAMIN PROBABLY HAS THAT INFORMATION, ON HOW WE TYPICALLY DO CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE TIMEFRAME AROUND THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE TO THIS SECTION THAT COULD LEAD TO A REVOCATION OF RENTAL DWELLING PERMIT. COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THAT PROCESS, AT LEAST, FROM THE TIMELINE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT? THAT THEN WOULD DRIVE THE NEXT STEPS IN THE REVOCATION OF THE RENTAL PERMIT DWELLING PROCESS.

>> IT IS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. WHAT WILL HAPPEN, TYPICALLY, IS WE WILL RECEIVE A CALL OR SOMETHING WILL TRIGGER A REVIEW OF A PARTICULAR PROPERTY. FROM THERE, THEY WILL NOTICE THERE IS A VIOLATION. THEY WILL SUBSTANTIATE THE VIOLATION, AND THEN, THEY TYPICALLY ISSUE A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. THAT IS, SOMETHING THAT GOES OUT THAT IS A CATCHALL DOCUMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR THE CITY TO BOTH ISSUE CITATIONS, BUT ALSO, IT ALLOWS A MECHANISM FOR ABATEMENT AND THAT ABATEMENT IS UNDER STATUTE, WHICH GIVES NOTICE OF , NO LESS THAN 10 DAYS, NO MORE THAN 60 DAYS. IN A PARTICULAR INSTANCE LIKE THIS, YOU DON'T HAVE AN ABATEMENT. THIS ISN'T THE MOWING OF THE LAWN OR THE FIXING OF THE WINDOW. IF IT IS A PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUE, WHAT THAT WOULD THEN ALLOW US TO DO IS, WE CAN ENTER ONTO THAT PROPERTY AND REMEDY THAT ISSUE AT THE CITY'S COST, AND FIX A LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY THAT EXISTS, AND HAVE IT BE PAID THROUGH THE COUNTY CLERK, SO IT IS A POWERFUL MECHANISM ON THE TAXES, BUT IT IS SPECIFIC FOR ABATEMENT PURPOSES. WE DO THAT RIGHT NOW AS A CATCHALL. IF WE WERE DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH A PERMIT ISSUE, AND THEY OPERATE IN A MANNER IN WHICH WE ARE LOOKING TO REVOKE THE PERMIT, BECAUSE , WHAT I BELIEVE, IT WOULD BE SOME KIND OF NOTICE OF REVOCATION THAT WOULD GO IN, THAT WOULD PROBABLY SET FORTH A RIGHT TO SUBMIT AN APPEAL. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE THAT AVENUE TO GO DOWN. HERE RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE NOTICES OF VIOLATION, AND WE HAVE CITATIONS. THE CITATIONS THAT COME TO CITY LEGAL, ONCE THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY REMEDY , COME WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNER, BECAUSE WE TRY TO DO THAT, RIGHT? THE NUMBER ONE GOAL IS TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM. LET'S GET THEM IN COMPLIANCE, AND IF WE CANNOT DO THAT , AND THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY A SET TIMEFRAME. IT IS A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ISSUE IS, WHAT THE SITUATION WITH THE HOMEOWNER IS, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY PROVIDED ANY TYPE OF SHOWING THAT THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE CITY TO REMEDY THE ISSUE. THE CITATION THEN TRIGGERS , IT COMES TO US, WE FILE THE COMPLAINT AND WE ASK FOR THE RELIEF. IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, WE WOULD FILE IT WITH COUNTY.

>> BUT, IN THIS PROCESS, THAT IS HOW WE WOULD FILE FOR RELIEF IN THE CASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION, SO NEXT, IF THERE IS A NUMBER OF THESE VIOLATIONS AS LISTED AND AS AMENDED, THE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES CAN FIND, BASED ON THESE ITEMS UNDER SECTION A THAT THE PERMIT SHOULD BE REVOKED. THEN, THE DIRECTOR WITH AN ISSUE BY CERTIFIED MAIL, WHICH COULD TAKE SEVEN DAYS OR SO, WITH A RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, THAT THEY INTEND TO REVOKE THE PERMIT , GIVING THE PERSON , THE OWNER, WHO IS GOING TO HAVE THE PERMIT REVOKED, 15 DAYS TO REQUEST IN WRITING FOR AN APPEAL THAT WOULD GO BEFORE THE NEXT BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MEETING. IT DOES PROVIDE A LOT OF TIME AND PROCESS FOR DUE PROCESS FOR THOSE, WHOSE RENTAL DWELLING

PERMITS MAY BE REVOKED. >> HOW DOES THE FINDING WORK.

THE $2500 LISTED? $100 PER DAY, ALL THAT? EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

>> LET'S GO TO THAT SECTION, AND ADAM, IF YOU WANT TO COME UP

TOO. >> I KNOW COUNSELOR GREEN HAS A

QUESTION, AS WELL. >> MY QUESTION IS ALONG THE SAME LINES. WE HAVE HAD EXAMPLES. YOU CAN KEEP THE RECEIPT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME UP. I'M JUST GOING TO USE AN EXAMPLE. WE HAVE A PROPERTY LIKE YOU SAID, THAT IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED. EVERYTHING IS FALLING APART. THE HOMEOWNERS AROUND ARE COMPLAINING, AND SO

[01:45:04]

BRETT AND I GO TO THE PLACE AND HE'S LIKE, WELL, I KNOW THE OWNER. THAT PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF YOUR DISTRICT THAT IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED, HE OWNS THAT ONE TOO. SOMETIMES, THERE IS A BAD ACTOR THAT PERPETUATES. ALONG THOSE LINES, IF A PERMIT IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REVOKED , AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THINGS MORE COMPLICATED, BUT I ASSUME THERE IS A PROCESS WHERE FUTURE PERMITS FOR FUTURE HOMES, IF THE PERSON IS ALREADY NOT MAINTAINING THE HOMES THAT THEY ALREADY OWN IN CARMEL, BUT THEY ARE TRYING TO PURCHASE NEW HOMES, IS THERE SOME TYPE OF --

>> --. THAT HAS TO BE DONE THROUGH THE REGISTRY, AND THAT IS WHY THE REGISTRY PROCESS , IN PARTICULAR , THE PENALTIES AND REMEDIES ARE SPECIFIC TO THE FAILURE TO FILE FOR A PERMIT.

THAT CREATES THE INCENTIVE TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE FILE FOR THE PERMIT. IT IS NOT RELATED TO A CODE ENFORCEMENT MATTER.

>> THOSE PENALTIES AND FINES WILL BE ISSUED BY THE COURT.

WHAT HAPPENS IS THE COMPLAINT GETS FILED. WE SEEK THE RELIEF, ASKING FOR WHAT IS SET FORTH WITHIN CITY CODE. THAT $100 PER DAY, OR $2500, DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS, AND SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT REMAINING IN COMPLIANCE, UP UNTIL THE DATE OF JUDGMENT, WE CAN THEN SEEK FROM THE COURT THAT AMOUNT, IF IT IS ACCRUING EVERY DAY. WHAT WE CAN DO, THOUGH, WHEN WE GO TO COURT IS, WE CANNOT ONLY FILE FOR THE COMPLAINT TO SEEK THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, WE CAN SEEK FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

THAT IS KIND OF AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, WHERE WE SAY, THEY ARE CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION, AND WE NEED A PRELIMINARY ORDER FROM THIS COURT, WHICH, USUALLY, CAN TAKE PLACE WITHIN 10 DAYS, 15 DAYS, DEPENDING ON WHEN THE COURT SETS THE HEARING ON IT TO MAKE AN INITIAL DETERMINATION. IT'S NOT EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF, BUT WE HAVE TO PROVE A CERTAIN STANDARD, A LEGAL STANDARD, WHICH IS HIGH. IF WE CAN PROVE THAT, WE ARE ABLE TO GET THAT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND WE HAVE THAT WITH THE COURT. IF THEY ARE IN VIOLATION, IF THEY CONTINUE TO DO IT, THEY CAN BE HELD IN CONTEMPT, WHICH CARRIES WITH IT A WHOLE HOST OF PENALTIES THAT ARE ISSUED BY THE COURT. WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO WAIT FOR A LEGAL PROCEEDING , A COMPLAINT TO RUN THROUGH ALL THE STEPS, AS WE KNOW THEY CAN SOMETIMES TAKE A WHILE. WE CAN SEEK THAT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AT THE INITIAL STAGE, AND WE HAVE DONE IT. THIS IS MORE KIN TO WHEN WE DEAL WITH A ZONING VIOLATION, VERSUS A CITY CODE MAINTENANCE VIOLATION . WE HAVE GONE TO COUNTY COURT AND WE HAVE SOUGHT THIS RELIEF , FOR BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN IT. THEN, WE WORK IT OUT THROUGH THAT PROCESS. DISCOVERY COMES INTO PLAY. UNTIL WE GET TO JUDGMENT, THAT IS WHERE THE FINES WILL KICK IN, AS WELL AS

THE PERMITTING. >> THE REASON I AM ASKING IS THAT , AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE HEARD A GREAT ANSWER YET , AND I'M GOING TO LET COUNSELOR AASEN TELL ME WHATEVER HE WAS GOING TO TELL ME, BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE LEGAL SIDE FIRST.

BECAUSE, IF WE ARE GOING TO GO BY HOA, WE HAVE SOME HOAS OVER 10%, AND IN MY OPINION, UNPROVEN, IF WE PASS A 10% CAP , WE HAVE JUST INCREASED THE VALUE OF THOSE . I THINK THERE IS 30% RENTALS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I MET WITH TODAY. AGAIN, SUPPLY AND DEMAND. IF YOU MAKE SOMETHING, WHERE THERE CAN BE NO MORE OF THOSE, WE ARE NOW INCREASING THE VALUE OF THAT RENTAL UNIT THAT IS ABOVE THE CABIN -- CAP AND IS BEING GRANDFATHERED IN. THE RESIDENTS ARE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THEY WILL BE SOLD, AND THIS WILL, THROUGH A PROCESS , THAT THEY WILL GO AWAY. I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE ARE, ACTUALLY, ENSURING THEY ARE MORE VALUABLE. THEY MAY STAY FOR A MUCH LONGER PERIOD OF TIME THAN GOING AWAY. NOW, I'M KIND OF FIGURE OUT, HOW DO WE GET RID OF THOSE THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, IF THERE ARE BAD ACTORS? I WANT TO UNDERSTAND , HOW MUCH TIME WOULD THAT TAKE? HOW REALISTIC IS IT? HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST YOU? ARE WE GOING TO BE IN COURT EVERY DAY? WHAT ARE THE REAL RAMIFICATIONS OF US DOING THIS? THAT IS MY JOB UP HERE AS A CITY COUNSELOR, A

[01:50:06]

MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, TO UNDERSTAND EVERY DETAIL BEFORE I VOTE. THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO.

>> THE IMPORTANT POINT IS, IF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO OBTAIN A NEW PERMIT, AND IF THEY ARE AT THE CAP, THAT PERMIT, THE NEW BUYER WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET A

PERMIT TO RENT. >> YEAH, I WANT TO HAVE SOME DEBATE ABOUT IT, IF I AM ALL WET, IF I AM JUST GUARANTEED -- THERE IS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE 10 IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THERE ARE 30, SO THOSE EXTRA 20 DWELLINGS, THEY ARE NOW RENTALS. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LIKE GOLD. THEY ARE NOW VERY VALUABLE AND WILL NOT BE SOLD OR WILL NOT BE SOLD EASILY OR QUICKLY , AND THE NEIGHBORS WILL STILL BE DEALING WITH THAT SAME SITUATION, EVEN THOUGH, WE

JUST PASSED A 10% CAP. >> HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL PROTECT THEM MORE. IF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE BEING TARGETED, IT'S BECAUSE THE PRICE RANGE OR THE HOMES, ARE IN THE PRICE RANGE OF HOMES THAT INVESTORS TARGET, WHICH ARE THE HOMES THAT FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS OR THOSE THAT WANT TO DOWNSIZE WANT TO ACQUIRE, BECAUSE OF THE PRICE POINT. I THINK WHAT IS IMPORTANT THERE IS THAT THERE IS A MECHANISM IF THEY ARE BAD ACTORS, TO REVOKE THEIR PERMIT, BUT I THINK IT IS UNSURE, THE EXACT TIMELINE OF HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO REVOKE THE PERMIT.

COUNSELOR AASEN. >> THANK YOU. I AM NOT ACCUSING JEFF WORRELL OF MAKING THAT ARGUMENT, BUT I HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK ABOUT CODE ENFORCEMENT. THE INTERESTING THING IS, I FEEL LIKE PEOPLE ARE PROVIDING THE COUNTER ARGUMENT TO AN ARGUMENT THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD A SINGLE CITY COUNSELOR MAKE. I HAVE NOT HEARD A SINGLE CITY COUNSELOR HEARSAY THAT WE DON'T WANT RENTALS BECAUSE THEY DON'T MOW THEIR GUARDS AND THEY ARE BAD PEOPLE, AND WE DON'T WANT THEM IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE SAY THAT. IF THAT IS WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS ABOUT, I WOULD BE A COMPLETE NO, BUT NO ONE HAS SAID THAT , AND EVERYONE KEEPS DEBATING AGAINST AN ARGUMENT THAT NONE OF US HAVE MADE. SO, WHAT IT REALLY IS ABOUT IS CREATING HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE, AND NOT JUST ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS. I HAD SOMEONE COME UP TO ME AND SAY, I AM A RESIDENT. I OWN FIVE OR SIX HOUSES. I WOULD LIKE TO OWN MORE. THEY ARE WAY UNDER THE CAP, SO THEY PROBABLY COULD, AND I KIND OF HAD TO LOOK AT HIM AND SAY, I GET IT, BUT SOME PEOPLE JUST WANT TO OWN ONE HOUSE. SOME PEOPLE JUST WANT TO OWN ONE HOUSE. AND, I UNDERSTAND THE GUY. EXCUSE ME, COMMENTS FROM THE CROWD, BUT THE IDEA THAT --

>> ANYMORE OUTBURSTS, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING.

>> THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT, CREATING HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE, WHO DON'T HAVE FIVE OR SIX HOUSES.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE WEALTH TO RENT OUT HOMES. THEY JUST WANT A HOME TO LIVE IN, AND THEY ARE TIRED OF RENTING, BUT THAT IS ALL THEY CAN FIND, BECAUSE EVERY TIME THEY GO OUT THERE AND TRY TO BUY A HOME TO RENT, A HOME TO PURCHASE, THERE ARE INVESTORS, WHO COME IN WITH CASH, WHETHER IT'S INSTITUTIONAL OR LOCAL, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, AND THEY ARE LEFT OUT IN THE COLD, AND WE KNOW IT HAS HAPPENED. I CAN GIVE YOU A LIST OF PEOPLE. AND SO, WE ARE NOT OUTLAWING RENTALS. WE ARE WAY UNDER THE CAP, WHICH MEANS THAT I DOUBT THERE'S GOING TO BE A TON OF ENFORCEMENT AT FIRST, BECAUSE MOST NEIGHBORHOODS ARE UNDER THE CAP.

AND, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO CREATE A BALANCE. WHAT IS THE BALANCE WE WANT? DO WE WANT TO HAVE 100%, NO RENTALS? NO, WE DON'T WANT THAT. BUT, IF WE SEE IN OTHER NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, 30, 40% RENTALS IN A COMMUNITY HAVING A PROACTIVE MEASURE THAT ENSURES THAT PEOPLE STILL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT. JUST TO CLARIFY, I KNOW WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT PEOPLE MOWING THEIR YARDS TO ME. PEOPLE CAN PUT THOSE WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT NO ONE SAID THAT HERE AT THIS

DANCE. >> THANK YOU, COUNSELOR AASEN.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR LEGAL OR COMMENTS? ACTUALLY, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A MOTION, BEFORE WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION.

>> MR. CHAIR, I WILL GO AHEAD AND MOTION THAT WE SEND THIS BACK -- WELL, WE NEED TO AMEND -- DO WE NEED TO AMEND IT AGAIN,

BASED ON -- >> NO, WE DID NOT MAKE FURTHER

[01:55:04]

AMENDMENTS. >> I WILL MOTION THAT WE SEND IT BACK WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL

COUNCIL. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE

TABLE. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> NOW, WE CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY THAT CAME TODAY TO SPEAK. SOME FAMILIAR FACES, SOME NOT SO FAMILIAR FACES, AND I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN A ROOM WITH SO MANY LAWYERS AT ONE TIME. I'M COUNTING FIVE. I HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO ALL OF THE BACK-AND-FORTH, AND I HEARD ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT CODE ENFORCEMENT , AND I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH LISTENING TO -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THIS WITHOUT SOUNDING CRASS. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE WANTING TO BUY HOMES AND CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY ARE ALWAYS OUTBID OR ALWAYS OUTSMARTED BY THE WEALTHIER, AND THAT IS THE MARKET. I GET IT. BY OTHER INVESTORS, AND NOBODY HAS REALLY DEFINED TO ME WHAT AN INSTITUTIONAL BUYER IS. NOBODY HAS SAID TO ME, THIS IS WHAT AN INSTITUTIONAL BUYER IS. NO ONE CAN GIVE ME THAT DEFINITION. I AM RAMBLING AGAIN. I'M SO SORRY.

I RAMBLE WHEN I GET A LOT OF THOUGHT IN MY HEAD, BUT I REALLY WANT TO TRY AND DO SOMETHING THAT IS GOOD FOR THIS COMMUNITY, AND I THINK ABOUT MYSELF. I THINK ABOUT MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE WE HAD TO CHANGE OUR COVENANTS, BECAUSE WE HAD BUYERS , INVESTORS, COMING IN BUYING OUR HOMES, AND IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WERE RENTING. WE JUST WANTED PEOPLE TO BUY THE HOUSES AND LIVE IN THEM. WE WANTED THEM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT I HAD, AND I BOUGHT MY HOUSE 25 YEARS AGO. I WILL STOP RAMBLING. ALL I WANT TO SAY IS THAT I REALLY THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE OPPORTUNITIES OPEN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN HOMEPLACE , IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD , IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ]THE LOWER PRICE POINTS. THANK YOU

FOR LETTING ME GO ON AND ON. >> OTHER COMMENTS AND FURTHER

DISCUSSIONS, COUNSELOR? >> PROCEDURALLY , THIS FUNCTIONS AS TWO ORDINANCES , WHAT IS THE PROVISION FOR THE REGISTRY AND THE ABILITY TO COLLECT DATA ABOUT PEOPLE RENTING HOMES IT CS A NEW MECHANISM BY WHICH WE CAN ENFORCE THINGS THAT ARE OCCURRING. TRYING TO PUT THAT IN THE SCOPE OF HOW THINGS APPLY NOW I'M WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO AS WE DID GET A LOT OF AMENDMENTS GOING FORWARD TODAY. THE SECOND PIECE OF IT IS THE CAP. WHICH IT DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE ANY DIRECT IMPLICATION OR CORRELATION TO THE FIRST PIECE OF THIS ORDINANCE. SOMETHING THAT PLUGS ON TOP AND CHANGES THE BEHAVIOR DOES NOT CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR DEPENDING ON HOW YOU APPLY, THE CRATES DIFFERENT EXTERNALITIES FOR HOW YOU GET ABOVE THAT, THE CAP ITSELF BECOMES MODERATELY SQUISHY BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF EXEMPTIONS . A LOT OF PLACES THAT WILL BE OVER THE NUMBER OR BELOW THE NUMBER AND IT CHANGES THE NATURE OF HOW PEOPLE ARE BUYING OR MOVING HOMES. ALL OF THAT CAN BE CONSTRUED WITH THE RIGHT DATA , IT DOES CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP WE HAVE TO THEIR PROPERTIES AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE TRYING TO GET TO , THE HEART OF IT IS THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP, AND TAKING CARE OF OUR COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. THAT IS WHERE THIS COMES BACK TO A POINT FOR ME TO SAY, THE DISCUSSION NEEDS TO HAPPEN. IF WE CAN ALIGN THESE THINGS TO GIVE US THE TOOLS WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE ABILITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE OR PUT THEM IN POSITIONS WHERE THEY ARE IS A DEVICE OR ACTING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR COMMUNITY OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, OF THEIR CITY. THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT DOES THAT HERE. I

[02:00:04]

LOVE THE WORK WE HAVE PUT IN TONIGHT, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF MOVEMENT AND CHANGE AND IDEAS AND FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY AND THAT IS HELPFUL. TO SEE HOW THESE WILL APPLY . THERE IS OBVIOUSLY WORK TO DO IF THIS WERE TO GO BACK TO COUNSEL TO BE APPROVED AND BE IMPLEMENTED, THAT DISCUSSION BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE FIGURING OUT AS A NEW COUNCIL, A NEW EXECUTIVE BRANCH, EVERY DAY, THERE IS A CONTINUAL EFFORT , WE HAVE DONE THINGS LIKE THIS WHERE WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THINGS IN THE OPEN , WE HAVE ANOTHER COMMITTEES WHERE WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME BEHIND THE SCENES AND IT COMES HERE IN A DIFFERENT CAPACITY AND ALL WORTHWHILE.

BECAUSE OF THE CONCEPT OF FIGURING OUT HOW BEST TO ADMINISTER THE GOVERNMENT WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE. I SHARE ALL THAT AS I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND THINKING THROUGH IT. AGAIN, I THINK IT IS WORTHWHILE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT, TO ME, MAYBE SEND THIS BACK TO THE COUNCIL OR THE COUNCIL TO TALK ABOUT THAT. I THINK ABOUT SENDING THAT BACK UP THERE TO BRING IN ALL NINE OF US TO HAVE THAT TO THE CAPACITY OF THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE NEXT STEPS NEED TO BE. THAT SEEMS REASONABLE. THAT IS WHY I SECONDED . AGAIN, I HEAR THE CONCERNS. I HEAR FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC THAT CAME FROM CITY AS WE ARE BUILDING IT AND WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD THIS AND FIX THE HOLES WE ARE TRYING TO FIX.

WHICH IS THE END OF MY DISCUSSION TONIGHT. THANK YOU.

RAMBLE TIME. >> THANK YOU. YEAH. I DO APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION . I JUST DO NOT THINK WE ARE READY.

IF THIS COMMITTEE BELIEVES THAT WORKING FROM THE FULL DAY IS COMING EVERYBODY IS HERE EXCEPT FOR ONE COUNCILMEMBER, WE GO TO 10:00 OR 11:00 ON A MONDAY, BUT NOT HEARING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS, AND I DO WORRY ABOUT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. WHEN I HEAR SOMEONE SAY , I WANT PEOPLE, I WANT YOUNG FAMILIES TO BE ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE. WHO IS AGAINST THAT? I AM NOT AGAINST THAT .

BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS LEGISLATION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OVERALL FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND I STILL DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE CAP CREATING A VALUE TO THESE RENTALS THAT ALREADY EXIST AND WE CANNOT GET RID OF. I DID NOT THINK OF THIS UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE. MR. CHAIR , TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT , BUT HAVING SOME KIND OF A REVIEW OR A SUNSET CLAUSE, OR SOME TYPE OF RENEWAL ON THIS ORDINANCE IS SOMETHING I WILL TRY TO BRING UP AT COUNCIL AND ASK YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT . DO WE REVIEW IT TO SAY MIDYEAR OF 2027 TO MAKE SURE THIS DID WHAT EVERYBODY HERE THINKS IT WILL DO . I WILL SUGGEST THAT. SO , IF THE FEELING IS, THAT, I AM UNCOMFORTABLE , THIS FEELS LIKE A RUSH , IT FEELS LIKE WE ARE RACING TO THE FINISH LINE AND THERE MUST BE SOMETHING GOING ON I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT. A FINISH LINE THAT HAS BEEN SET . IF WE ARE GOING TO MOVE THIS OUT OF COMMITTEE, WHICH IS WHERE THIS CONVERSATION CAN HAPPEN, WE CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE , AT THE FULL COUNCIL, IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO DO . I WILL SUPPORT THAT . BUT I DO FEEL LIKE WE ARE RUSHING. I HAVE SAID MY PIECE. I AM CONCERNED . I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE EFFECTIVE DATE, I DID NOT FOLLOW ANY OF THAT AND I KNOW THE MAYOR SHARED WITH ME HER CONCEPT OF SOME KIND OF A PASS , AND APRIL, WE HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT AT FULL COUNCIL AS WELL.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN , MAY I MAKE A COMMENT ? I DO NOT FEEL LIKE WE'RE RUSHING THIS BECAUSE IT WILL GO TO COUNCIL AND PROBABLY TO COMMITTEE, IF IT DOES NOT DO WELL IN COMMITTEE, IT WILL COME

BACK TO COUNCIL . >> WHY WOULD HE GO TO COMMITTEE?

>> LAND USE? >> NO.

>> YOU ARE RIGHT. I REDACT. >> ONE EVENING , UP OR DOWN VOTE, THE EASY VOTE IS YES, I GET THAT.

>>> MY MISTAKE. TO FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WANTED TO ADDRESS A FEW THINGS. ONE IS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION. IF THIS DOES

[02:05:04]

PASS , HE GETS TO THE END OF THE YEAR FOR THE REGISTRATION THAT GETS SET UP AND REGISTERED . OBVIOUSLY, IF THE ADMINISTRATION IS STRUGGLING , THEY CAN COME TO US AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL CHANGES. THE CAP, IF THIS IS PASSED, WILL TAKE TIME TO IMPLEMENT THE REGISTRY AND WORK THROUGH ENFORCEMENT, WHICH THIS COUNCIL WILL GIVE THE ADMINISTRATION THE TIME THEY NEED TO DO THAT. I WANTED TO TALK MORE ABOUT , THERE HAS BEEN TALK ABOUT THE BOGEYMAN OF THE LARGE INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, THERE HAS BEEN TALK ABOUT DATA, A LOT OF TALK ABOUT DATA, WE DO NOT HAVE THE DATA . WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS WHY IT STAYED IN THE ORDINANCE AND WHY IT HAS BEEN DRAFTED. OR POSSIBLY BEING RUDE -- REVIEWED FOR APPROVAL AND OTHER IMPORTANT ITEMS. ONE IS TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, ESTABLISH RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY OF CARMEL NEVER DEVELOP WITH THE INTENTION FOR THEM TO BECOME SINGLE-FAMILY RENTAL NEIGHBORHOODS. YOU CAN GO TO MR. CORBY THOMPSON'S FATHER OR TALK TO , I AM SURE, IF HE WAS STILL AROUND, YOU COULD TALK TO MR. ESKRIDGE, HE HAS CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CENTENNIAL , THE NUMBER OF RENTALS AND WHAT THAT HAS DONE TO THE PROPERTY VALUES IN CENTENNIAL . YOU CAN TALK TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ORIGINAL DEVELOPERS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD . IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THOSE WHO ARE PROTECTED HOAS, THISBY ORDINANCE PROTECT THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN HOAS, THE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVISION IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 10 OR MORE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OR TOWNHOMES AS A PLAID BEARING THE SAME NAME AS DIFFERENT PHASES.

THIS WOULD PROTECT THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE GLENWOOD , I USED TO LIVE IN WITHOUT AN H AWAY. -- HOA. OR PLAID IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DO NOT HAVE AN HOA. IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET AN HOA ESTABLISHED AND IT WOULD PROTECT THOSE THAT ARE TRYING TO PASS CAPS, WHICH I'VE SPOKEN TO FIVE THAT ARE TRYING TO PASS CAPS AND CANNOT BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF HOMES THAT THEY NEED TO GET -- TO ACHIEVE THE CHANGES IN THE CCR'S ARE ALREADY OWNED BY LANDLORDS . THEY ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE TO FURTHER IMPLEMENT A CAP OR PUT ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THEM.

TO THE REASON WHY THIS ORDINANCE CAME UP, THE REASON WHY THIS ORDINANCE CAME UP IS RIGHT, NEIGHBORS , OUR NEIGHBORS IN THE CITY OF CARMEL , DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS EVEN POSSIBLE.

UNTIL THEY WORK THROUGH HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT AND THAT THIS WAS LEGALLY POSSIBLE. TO IMPLEMENT A CAP TO PROTECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. SO, THEY STARTED REACHING OUT. WESTONS IS AN EXAMPLE, THEY ARE VERY CONCERNED, THEY ARE TWICE POINT NEIGHBORHOODS THAT INVESTORS ARE PURCHASING BECAUSE THEY CAN RENT THE HOME FOR $2000 OR $2500. THESE INVESTORS ARE NOT TRYING TO PURCHASE HOMES. THEY ARE TRYING TO BUY HOMES FOR PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF , WHEN I MOVED HERE IN 2005 I WANTED TO BUY A HOME, A VERY INEXPENSIVE HOME AND HOME PLACE, THOSE ARE THE HOMES THEY ARE TARGETING AND IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BUY A HOME NOW WITH THOSE TYPE OF THINGS HAPPENING AND THIS ORDINANCE IS TO PROTECT HOMEOWNERSHIP AND PROTECT THE LARGEST INVESTMENT THAT MOST PEOPLE WILL MAKE IN THEIR LIVES, THEIR HOME. THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-RICHARD ORDINANCE, -- ANTI-RENTER ORDINANCE, WE HAVE APPROVED A BILL TO RENT COMMUNITY, A SINGLE-FAMILY COMMUNITY AND WE WILL OBVIOUSLY LOOK AT OTHER ONE TO TRY TO CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THAT TYPE OF RENTAL HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT A KNOCK ON RENTER, THREE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE RENTERS , THIS IS TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS AS IDENTIFIED AT THE TASK FORCE, THE HOUSING TASK FORCE, ONE OF THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF THE HOUSING TASK

[02:10:02]

FORCE STATES , TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. YOU MENTIONED THAT INVESTORS WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP BUT NOT FULLY DISCUSSED DURING THE TASK FORCE MEETING. SO , THAT IS WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO DO. NOW , LET'S TALK ABOUT DATA. I SHARED THIS WITH MANY OF YOU, WE CAN PUT IT IN THE RECORD TO TALK ABOUT. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AT THE CENTER AT FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY IN MAY OF 2019 TALKING ABOUT THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON DEVELOP SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT BECOME MAJORITY RENTAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THE NEGATIVE IMPACT , THE LOOK AND FEEL, THE AMBIENCE, THEIR HOME VALUES. AND DECLINING HOME VALUES. LET'S TALK ABOUT REALTOR.COM, AT THE TIME, WHICH BY A RESEARCHER FROM THE SITE OWNED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, HE GOES THROUGH A LIST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEATURES THAT DRAG DOWN YOUR HOME VALUE RATE. HE TALKS ABOUT HOMELESS SHELTER BEING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I AM NOT AGAINST HOMELESS SHELTERS BUT THEY TALK ABOUT HOMELESS SHELTERS BEING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, A DRAG ON HOME VALUE BEING 12.5% DECLINE IN VALUE. THEY TALK ABOUT A GENTLEMEN'S CLUB , I WOULD NOT SAY THE MORE COMMON NAME, A DRAG ON THE HOME VALUE IS 14.7%. HIGH CONCENTRATION OF RENTERS, WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT RANKS WITH THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT DECLINE HOMEOWNERS? 13.8% . ALMOST THE SAME AS A GENTLEMEN'S CLUB . FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS FROM ONE OF THE RESEARCHERS IN MARCH OF 2016.

REALTOR.COM . LET'S TALK ABOUT MR. HENDERSON , THIS IS DATA BY AN ANALYSIS WITH A CALIFORNIA-BASED DATA ANALYTICS FIRM THAT DISCUSSED THE INCREASE OF INVESTOR , PARTICULAR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, BUT ALSO INVESTOR HOMES, HOW IT DRIVES UP RENTS. THIS IS A STUDY. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL, THE CENTER ON MEDIA AND POLITICS AND PUBLIC POLICY, HOW NEIGHBORHOODS DO WHEN INVESTORS PURCHASE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, A RESEARCH ROUNDUP TALKING ABOUT HOW THE INITIAL INCREASE OF VALUE OF THOSE HOMES , THOSE INVESTORS ACQUIRE HOMES FOR OVER THE VALUE, WAVE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS , ET CETERA, AND THE PRECIPITOUS DECLINE OF THOSE HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOODS VALUE WHEN THE PERCENTAGE OF RENTALS BECOMES TOO HIGH. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, THE INFORMATION ON INSTITUTIONAL INVESTING IN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND ALL THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS THAT THIS CAUSES ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. WE DO HAVE A LOT OF DATA AND DATA PROVIDED THAT SHOWS THAT , CURRENTLY, 8.7% OF ALL HOMES IN CARMEL ARE SINGLE-FAMILY RENTALS . OUR OWN DIRECTOR PROVIDED SOME DATA THAT SHOWS A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER NUMBER. IF WE DO WANT TO HAVE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DISCUSSION , ONE IN FIVE OF OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT CALLS ARE TO LANDLORD , INVESTOR-OWNED PROPERTIES. TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT HAVE DATA , THE DATA IS VERY CLEAR AND ON A NATIONAL LEVEL . ON THE IMPACT OF PLANNED , SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT TURN INTO PRIMARILY SINGLE-FAMILY RENTAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOW THAT IMPACTS THE LARGEST INVESTMENT ONE WILL MAKE IN THEIR LIFETIME , TYPICALLY, THEIR HOME. I WANTED TO PUT THESE ON RECORD.

AND MAKE SURE -- I KNOW I HAVE SENT THESE TO A NUMBER OF DIVE INTO THE DATA.YOU AND HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE HAD TIME TO READ THEM.

I LOOK FORWARD TO A FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THIS . WE WILL MOVE ON. WE HAVE TO CALL THE QUESTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF

[02:15:03]

MOVING THIS TO THE FULL COUNCIL WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION , IT IS STILL NOT WORKING. PLEASE, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AT THE

FULL COUNCIL. >> CAN WE MAKE SURE WE HEAR FROM THE ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE I DID SET THAT UP AHEAD OF TIME.

>> I DO KNOW THAT DIRECTOR WEBER AND, THEY DO HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT A PERMITTING PROCESS AND AN ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHERE EACH PLATTED SUBDIVISION IS BASED UPON THE CAP. SO, BUT, YES, NICE TO HAVE -- YES. I WILL

[c. Ordinance D-2771-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing the Issuance of Economic Development Tax Increment Revenue Bonds to Support the North End Phase II Project, and Authorizing and Approving Other Actions in Respect Thereto; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen. ]

WORK ON THAT. NEXT, WE HAVE, ORDINANCE D-2771-25, THAT WAS PASSED AND SENT TO COUNCIL FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION BUT WE ARE WAITING ON SOME ACTIONS BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO FULLY IMPLEMENT THIS . IT SHOULD BE ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA ON JUNE

[d. Ordinance D-2772-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting a New Article 8 Under Chapter 2 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Aasen, Ayers, Minnaar, Snyder and Worrell. ]

2ND. I THINK THE ONLY OTHER ITEM, IF YOU ARE PREPARED, THE MINOR ITEMS ON THE CITY CODE REVIEW, OR WE CAN HANDLE THEM IN THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING BECAUSE WE WILL ALSO HAVE ABATEMENTS ON OUR NEXT FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING, A MUCH LIGHTER SCHEDULE. THAT DATE HAS NOT BEEN SET AND I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU TO DETERMINE A DATE THAT WORKS BEST. ARE YOU OKAY WITH WAITING UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING? THOSE ARE VERY SIMPLE ITEMS. I DID ALSO WANT TO , FOR THE RECORD, STATE THAT COME IN CONVERSATIONS WITH RYAN LOCKE, TO A NUMBER OF PUBLIC COMMENTS , THE NEXT PHASE IN THIS, I ALSO SPOKE WITH BRENT, HEAD OF CODE ENFORCEMENT, THE NEXT PHASE IS, HOW DO WE ADD TEETH AND FINES AND PENALTIES TO OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO GIVE THEM MORE TOOLS TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE AND MORE RESPONSIVE, AND MORE TEETH ON HOW TO ENFORCE SOME OF THESE ISSUES? HOAS NEED TO STEP UP.

THEY HAVE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS AND THEY NEED TO HAVE STRONG BOARDS THAT ARE WILLING TO TAKE THE STEPS TO ENFORCE ISSUES THAT VIOLATE THEIR CCRS. IF THIS ORDINANCE DOES PASS THE COUNCIL OR NOT, THE NEXT PHASE IN THIS HAS TO BE , HOW DO WE BEEF UP OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE LOOK AND FEEL OF OUR COMMUNITY. I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT UP .

[g. City Code Review]

WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION, I ACCEPT A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> YES, SIR. >> TWO QUICK UPDATES FOR THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WE DO HAVE SOME TAX ABATEMENTS TO REVIEW ON THE AGENDA ON MONDAY THAT WERE NOT SENT TO COMMITTEE, JUST BE AWARE THAT IS COMING. AND, I THINK I SPOKE TO EVERYONE BUT, THERE COULD BE SOME CHANGES TO THE GOVERNANCE MODEL OF THE CARMEL MARKET, WE ARE WATCHING THAT CLOSELY TO SEE IF THAT AFFECTS ITEM D ON THE AGENDA. WE ARE WAITING ON THAT AND I THINK THAT IS A BIG PART OF THAT , OBVIOUSLY IT WAS ABOUT THE CHRISTKINDLMARKT AND SOMETHING SHOULD BE ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK OR

NEXT ABOUT THAT. >> MOTION TO ADJOURN ? IS THERE

A MOTION? >>

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

May 28, 2025 Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item