Transcript

Uh this is our third hearing of the

proposed creation of uh city rental

registry. Uh I would like to thank my

colleagues who have joined me uh as well

as our department our departments of

development and building and zoning uh

for the work they have put in during

this process. Additionally, I would like

to thank Steve Dunar from the city

attorney's office uh who is uh here with

us as well and for all the work that he

has done behind the scenes to help get

us to this point. Uh similarly to the

last hearing to date, our office has

received several emails and calls

sharing support, constructive criticism,

and general comments about the registry.

Based on the feedback from our residents

and stakeholders, the Department of

Development and Department of Building

and Zoning made a third round of changes

to the proposal which they will present

uh followed by um public testimony for

this evening. Um before I pass the the

the mic over to uh Director Messer,

again, I just want to thank all sides of

folks that have engaged with this. I

think this has been a very uh I would

say transparent process and a sausage

being made, if you will, in real time.

And so I just want to thank everyone who

has uh both come out in support but then

also those who have helped I think

strengthen uh the the proposal and where

we are. Uh before I move to uh our

administration to give a presentation,

any opening remarks from my colleagues?

No. Okay. Thank you. And thank you again

to our housing chair for being here,

Council Member Ross. Um uh she's been in

this space a long time and so thank you

again for your feedback and your

leadership uh in our housing efforts.

Uh, and now with that, I will turn the,

uh, floor over to Director Scott Messer

with our Department of Building and

Zoning as well as Deputy Director Hannah

Jones with our Department of Development

uh, for uh, the presentation for today.

Director,

>> thank you uh, council member, other

members of council. I also would like to

uh express my uh thanks and gratitude to

all of you and your um staffs as well as

the city attorney's office uh folks in

development and a lot of the

stakeholders for uh their input up to

this point. Um so as you mentioned we've

made a few changes um in this latest

round and I'm going to summarize a few

of those and then um take any questions

that you all may have or as we uh hear

from the presentations and the speakers

tonight I'm happy to answer any

questions along with my u peers here

from development. So um the first thing

that I want to highlight is um and I'm

just going to go through a few uh items

that are different now from previous

proposals. uh when you look at the

information that we're requiring as a

part of the registry, we have made a few

changes um to that uh section but

nothing significant. Uh primarily what

we did is um a a few clarifications of

the information that we need and we

added a category of information that's

linked to what I'm going to describe uh

in a couple of moments which is a uh

inspection component that has been added

a preventative education inspection. So,

in order to carry out that inspection

that I'm going to talk about in a

minute, um we need some additional

information from registrants. So, um,

we're going to be asking for things

like, um, what kind of shared mechanical

systems they have, whether they might

have a boiler system, uh, identifying

common areas, um, identifying, uh,

interior um, egress retention ponds,

things that exist on their sites, uh,

are going to help us in doing, um, what

I'm going to describe in a moment in

terms of the inspection process. That's

the major change that we made to um

information that we need from the

registry. Um another big change that we

made was to the fees. So the fees um

that we're proposing uh right now are

$15 per unit um down from $20 per unit

prior to this with a maximum of $1,500

per complex. So, a complex with 100

units would max out on the fee uh and

only have to pay the 1,500. Um, we

clarified that all fees collected as uh

part of this uh registry can only be

used for purposes connected to the

registry. They would not be going into

the general fund. Um, so we made those

uh clarifications. And then, as I

mentioned before, we added uh what we're

calling a preventative education

inspection. Uh if you recall in our

previous proposal um we talked about

self attestation and that on an annual

basis uh uh folks who register would

have to submit a document certifying

that to the best of their knowledge um

there are no violations or code

outstanding code uh violations to their

critical systems. We're still going to

ask for that. Um but then once every

three years we're going to create uh

conduct what's called a preventative

education inspection. This inspection is

at no extra charge to the registrants.

So not only have we lowered the fee to

the $15 per unit, but we have also um

provided an added service that once

every three years we will go out and

conduct an inspection. Um the purpose of

that inspection is as it's named uh

preventative and educational. So, we

will not be writing orders and issuing

violations during that inspection. If

there are critical problems that we

identify, those will be referred to the

appropriate um department or agency to

handle. Uh but the purpose of the

three-year inspection is truly to

provide um education, feedback, and to

try to come alongside the um owner of

the property to try to address any um

problems that we identify in that

inspection. Um

finally um above and beyond those um

issues um we just made a couple of um

specific um changes and clarifications.

Nothing significant. Um we are

highlighting that um that we will be

using civil action only to enforce uh

this registration. So not criminal

penalties will not be a part of this.

It'll be um through civil penalties and

civil action through the court system.

Um we also uh have committed to a review

a full review and report of the program

to city council uh on a timetable to be

determined. But um rather than it be

nebulous, we are making a formal

commitment to review um the entire

registry uh and the rules and regs

associated with it and fees uh within a

specific timetable so that we can really

look at how this is functioning. So

those are basically the main changes um

that we made um and I'd be hap I'll turn

it over to develop to see if you have

anything additional.

>> Thank you director. The only thing that

I would add is the department of

development really sees the uh

educational component of this as an area

where our division of housing stability

can lean in. How do we come alongside BZ

to help on the education component both

for the property owners and the tenants?

So, does this give an opportunity to

engage proactively with them? Does it

help us be able to communicate more

effectively what the expectations are

for a landlord, but also for a tenant so

that it does not become necessarily a

punitive exercise, but one that's more

proactive to help maintain good

relationships between landlords,

tenants, and the city.

And I would just also add, council

members, that this um three-year

inspection uh that we've um added to the

registration, it is not an automatic

inspection of any interior units. So,

the inspection will be focused on

critical systems, exterior areas, um all

the areas that I mentioned that we've

added to uh information required from

the registrant. Um the only um way that

we would be doing interior inspections

is if there are violations that are

referred out to the appropriate parties

that already have a process to deal with

actual unit inspections or if the owner

or the tenant requests us to do um an

inspection of an interior unit, we're

willing to do that. Um, but I just want

to highlight that as a as a matter of

course, that three-year inspection does

not include um interior inspections

automatically, but those could be a

result indirectly from that inspection.

>> Uh, thank you, director, for that uh

that overview. Um, I do want to kind of

stick in that uh inspections uh piece of

this. Um and really I think uh you know

my I think my first initial reaction and

think and many folks are are would be

that uh this doesn't have necessarily

teeth to it right but I think that this

idea of being proactive and going out

is the thought process there that uh if

there are glaring external issues uh

right then that would then prompt or

warrant

code to come out or to for us to

investigate even further versus the I

think the uh more enormous task of going

into every single unit. And then I'll

have uh uh our our city attorney chime

in as well kind of the legal hurdles uh

around that other kind of more

enforcement mechanism that folks would

would want to see. Um, so, so if you

could just talk to more about that piece

of it, being more proactive, um, than

necessarily what I think some have

advocated for, even quite frankly

myself, um, and how we landed there.

>> Yeah, thank you, uh, council member for

that. Um, I would I would answer in two

separate, uh, responses. The first is

when it comes to the actual three-year

inspection that we've added, the

preventive educational inspection, it

it's absolutely the case that that could

result in interior inspections if we

find something that gives us probable

cause or gives us a reason to refer

that. So for example, if we were to do

that inspection and we found that a

shared heating system was not working

properly, then we would refer that to

code enforcement and code enforcement

would go through their normal channels

of getting inspections of affected units

and making sure it's working properly.

If we found uh a fire code hazard, we

would refer that to the fire division

and they could come out and follow up on

that. So I want to be clear that we're

not saying that if we find problems, uh

we're just going to ignore those issues.

What we're saying is those will be

referred to their normal channels and

the process by which we would obtain

permission to inspect interior units

would be would be handled by those

separate uh enforcement areas. Um so it

could still happen. It's just not going

to be us, you know, randomly knocking on

doors and and going into people's

property. Um secondly, um we've we

didn't highlight that in my presentation

because we've had it in our previous

proposals, but we still have the

conditional registration process, which

gives uh us the authority to um deem

someone's registration as moving to

conditional status. when that happens

and those happens for the sort of our

more problem properties areas that have

had multiple code violations and there's

four or five triggers um that would

result in someone being put on

conditional registration that still does

involve a component of getting into

units to actually confirm that the the

units are in good uh uh condition. And

so um we still are doing inspections uh

when triggered appropriately. And so the

the triggers are just a little different

in that we would find some kind of

violation as the in the general

inspection that we do every three years

or if we move an owner to conditional

status that triggers interior

inspections

>> and and director speak to I think that's

part of this update too. Was there some

clarification around

uh the conditional

um status and in particular I think

around violations and and and what we're

looking for there cuz I think that there

was uh some concernation that folks

think that we were going to go out and

ding folks for things like high weeds or

that kind of thing. Right. I think the

the thought process uh for us and for me

is it is about holding folks

accountable. Uh absolutely. But it's

also about compliance cuz again we want

our residents to be in uh safe living

conditions. Uh and we want to ensure

that we have as many units still online

given our housing situation. So if you

could just talk about the conditional

registration, some clarification around

those violations, the cure period and

some of the clarifications that we made

in this updated proposal.

>> Yeah. So, uh, when it comes to

conditional registration, as I

mentioned, there's several triggers that

would, uh, result in someone being put

into a conditional registration status.

So, um, properties with 100 units, um,

up to, so less than 100 units, if they

have five code orders, but code orders

that are related to things like no heat,

no water, no electric, means of egress,

serious safety, uh, violations. So, like

you said, high weeds, uh, trash, things

that aren't related to critical safety

systems would not be included. Um, but

they would have to have more than five

of those in a 12-month period. For

places with more than 100 units, they

would have to have 10 of those within a

12-month period. And in both cases, um,

those would have to be orders that

weren't complied with within a 30-day

period. So, if someone complies with our

orders within 30 days, they don't count

is what we're saying. if they are

trivial or smaller orders that aren't

related to critical safety systems, they

don't count. So those triggers of how

many code orders you've received in

recent 12-month period, there's only a,

you know, handful of those type of

orders that are going to count because

either you've complied or they're not

the type of orders that we're counting.

Um, we've done some math, we've done

some review. If we look back

historically at how many units are we

talking about that historically would be

in violation of those uh levels, it's

less than one half of 1%. So we're not

talking about um you know dozens and

dozens and dozens every month. We're

talking about a handful of um some of

our worst of the worst so to speak um

that we would be dealing with on that

less than one half of a percent. And

then the other triggers are, you know,

if you've had vacate orders, if you're

declared to be a public nuisance. So, I

guess what I'm, you know, trying to

communicate is is that the properties

that go into conditional status, I think

there would be no surprises uh from

folks as to who those properties might

be because the condition uh is going to

be evidenced by these triggers.

>> Gotcha. Thank you for that. And and just

to I think to to that point, I think

it's important to note this is not a

gotcha exercise. I want to reemphasize

that the vast majority uh of our housing

providers who are landlords, who are

small business owners are doing the

right thing. This is not about

penalizing uh those folks and it is not

about us demonizing either housing

providers uh because the vast majority

uh are doing the right thing and doing a

noble thing by providing housing u to

our residents. Uh attorney Dumbar, if

you could talk I mean the uh the

director alluded to this about probable

cause. Um I watch law and order but I am

not a lawyer nor do I play one. Uh I

defer to council member Ross and

president proim Dorren for those types

of things as well as the city attorney's

office. Could you just talk about

broadly I think some of the legal

complexities I mean what has taken us a

long time to get here I think is around

the legal complexities of how we have

structured this particular around

entering folks units uh and inspection

piece but if you could just talk about

some of the legal challenges that we

have had to really overcome to get to

this point I think that would help to

level set with the inspections piece in

particular.

>> Yes sir. Thank you councilman. And um I

mean I will tell you the short version

is you cannot pass a registry that

requires interior inspections of

everyone's home. Hard stop. U now the

longer version, you know, if you live in

a place, you got a right to keep the

government out of it generally. Um and

and the ways that the government can get

into your home and and home could be a

rental apartment. It could be your your

owner occupied home. Makes no difference

for purposes of this legal analysis.

There's three ways. A consent. you can

say, "Cool, come in, cop, firefighter,

whomever." Um, the second one is if

there's an imminent emergency happening,

if if someone is chasing someone in or

if if we see eminent threat of collapse

or something. Um, third one is a a

judicial order of some sort, a warrant.

Now, the the overwhelming majority of

warrants happen when um police are

investigating a crime and they've got to

say, "I have specific probable cause to

believe there's evidence of a crime on

the other side of that door." Um that

that's what you saw on Law and Order,

Councilman. Um now, now the other type

of warrant that is is much less

frequently used, but is what we're

talking about here today is an

administrative search warrant.

um it is it is obtained from a court

just like a a criminal search warrant

is. Uh the standard is not the same. And

I will tell you this is a um it is a a

kind of a an area of law where there are

not clear statutes that divided ABCD. So

what we as lawyers have to do is look at

cases for how different courts have

looked at similar laws and done that. I

will tell you it is a hotly contested

issue. there is currently pending in

front of the Ohio Supreme Court uh a

Canton ordinance where this was

challenged. Uh so um all of that being

said, you get my best shot at it, which

is um you can't say rental registry

government gets to go into everyone's

unit regardless of what you want to hard

stop. What you can do is create a

regulatory scheme where you are basing

those searches on a a rational basis and

and I don't mean that specifically for

rationally why does that person want to

get behind that door. It means if you

all are rational and how you are passing

this piece of legislation. So it's not

just if you've got an oddnumbered rental

unit we can inspect you. It is things

like, well, we have a history of code

violations. We have the types of things

that show us a more concerning thing.

You still got to go get the

administrative search warrant at that

point. So, um, if you don't have

consent, if you don't have the

emergency. So, um, just high level

people think of it as you got a right to

keep the cops out or other law enfor I

mean roughly same rules can apply to

Director Messer's crew. Um, but the the

most important thing we're talking about

here today is in the administrative

search warrant world, this entire

process we are going through now,

really good chance this whole thing gets

challenged in a court of law. Our

defense is going to be we didn't blindly

say let's inspect whatever ones we want

to. What we are going to say is we put a

tremendous amount of time into

determining what are our most concerning

units. What is the process for us to

inspect those units. I I will tell you

that that I and my colleagues have done

a review had many conversations with

Director Messer, Deputy Director Jones

and her folks and we feel what we've got

in front of you satisfies those

standards.

Uh, thank you for that. Um, and I'm sure

there'll be more legal questions that I

won't be able to answer. So, thank you

for being here. Um, director, could you

just give us a uh, also I think an

update on where we are as far as uh,

legislative language to date? Um, so

folks who I know a lot of folks in this

room have been following us closely. uh

it's not been centered around

legislation, but more or less a proposal

because we really wanted to workshop

this with the community before actually

having legislative language. And I'm

going to ask you want to give us an

update on where we are as far as

actually writing that legislation, it

being introduced to council, but then

want to go into if you could have this

distinction. And I think uh some of the

testimony we'll hear tonight as well as

what we've heard are around kind of

scenarios and uh idiosyncrasies that

won't be captured in legislation, but

there's a whole another process around

rules and how this implementation will

work. So if you could just touch both of

those for me.

>> Yeah. So, um, essentially the proposal

that we've been distributing to folks

and everyone's been reacting, um, in

large part that proposal then gets

changed into actual code updates, code

language. Um, we have completed our

proposed code language. And so, that is

going to be available for folks to start

to review um, to compare to the actual

policy document that we've handed

around. Um so the code language we do

have a draft of that and um we'll be

able after this hearing to you know get

that to folks so that they can review

the actual code and then you are correct

part of that code language talks about

how some things are not necessarily

spelled out in the code itself but refer

to rules and regs that the director um

may be able to implement as a result of

the legislation and the code changes.

And so for example, some of the

information we might ask for um the code

would say something like here are five

things you have to give and then other

information deemed necessary by the

department that would be spelled out in

the rules and regs and might be updated

from time to time. So if we decide that

as a city we want to collect certain

types of information, we can always just

add that to the registry um as opposed

to go back and change the code. So

there'll be certain things that we'll be

able to update or change that are rules

and regulations and then certain things

will be codified in the code that

itself. Um and after this hearing we'll

be moving forward uh to adopt uh first

and foremost the code changes and then

the rules and rags that go along with

that.

>> Thank thank you for that director. And I

do want to uh be clear, I know I've said

this on the record and and we'll say it

again that included in that legislation

that I know I will move to ensure that

there's a review period just similar to

our CRA policy to similar to our minimum

wage policy when it comes to incentives

just to ensure that we are one holding

ourselves accountable but also ensuring

that we're going back to make sure that

as the city evolves and changes so does

our policies. Um, and so I just wanted

to make sure I had that clarifying note.

Any uh questions from my colleagues for

the administration or directors before

we move to public testimony?

>> Yep. I just have a couple of question a

few a few questions. Director, um, I'll

start with the with the rules and rags

since we're talking about it now. Rules

and regulations would be passed in

addition to the piece of legislation.

Are those rules and regulations legally

binding?

So, uh, the rules and regulations are

when you say legally binding, they will

be referred to as, uh, in the in the

legislation itself. And so, they're

legally binding in the sense that the

legislation incorporates or gives me as

the director the authority to implement

those, but they aren't code language.

So, um, they're changeable. They're, uh,

different than the actual code language.

Um, so that's the best I can say. And so

when you decide as director that it's

necessary to change rules and

regulations associated with a piece of

legislation, is there a notice period?

Are you letting the the public know? Are

you letting stakeholders know that there

are changes in these rules and

regulations? And if so, what is that

process?

>> So I don't I don't know the exact

process. I don't know if um Mr. Dunar

has any information on that. Probably

not. Uh so I would just say the answer

um is that typically um we do provide

plenty of notice of rules and

regulations changes and we do publish

those. But if you're asking me what's

legally required, I'm not sure.

>> I'm just ask what what your process is.

When you provide notice of those

changes, you pub you said you publish

them. Where are you publishing them?

>> Yeah, typically we put those on our

website um so that folks are able to

>> The website

>> our website. Yeah. What is it?

>> That's uh I don't know the address.

>> Columbus.gov.

>> Columbus.gov and then go to bzs.

>> Perfect.

>> Yeah,

>> there's about 60 people behind you that

are probably interested in knowing how

to find updates to rules and

regulations. That's why I'm asking this

question.

>> Sure. Typically, people go to

columbus.gov and then they navigate to

our page. Okay. There may be a direct uh

website address, but typically people go

to columbus.gov.

>> Awesome. when we um I'm gonna go back to

the

PEI inspections. So, the every

three-year preventive inspections,

>> what what does it look like if you are

doing a three-year PEI inspection and

you identify uh issu critical issues

that need to be addressed? Is that

property immediately moved on to kind of

the conditional registration process?

Can you talk about then what that looks

like and what is the plan for

remediation if you are doing that

three-year inspection and you find that

there there are issues that need to be

addressed.

>> Sure. Uh no, the property would not

immediately be moved to conditional

registration. The conditional

registration is sort of a separate, you

know, I mentioned the the six triggers

that are outlined there that would

trigger conditional registration. the

preventive education inspection really

would be, as I said, just merely

referred to the relevant investigatory

agency. So, um, right now, typically

speaking, when you're dealing with

properties, you have code enforcement,

you would have fire, you would have the

building section, uh, and you would

maybe have the health department. So,

let's say during that inspection, we

found anything that would lead us to

believe there might be a code violation

of one of those sections, the housing

code, the health code, the fire code, or

the building code. That would be

referred out to the relevant enforcement

team. A couple of those belong to me as

well. A couple of them don't. So, it

just depends on what we find as a part

of the violation. Think of it like a 311

call or anything else that comes in that

we use to respond to. And so when we go

out and do that investigation, I think

what I just want to clarify is we're not

going to have a clipboard of blank

orders and just start writing orders for

people. Here's your inspection and here

are 10 orders of things for you to

correct. That is not how this inspection

will work. The inspection is designed,

that's why we call it a preventative

education inspection. It's really

designed to come alongside the owner to

rectify problems that we see proactively

so they don't end up on someone's

inspection list um to come back out on.

But if if we find something serious, we

we also want to be clear that we're not

just going to ignore that, right? We're

going to refer that out to the

appropriate agency to follow up.

>> Perfect. Thank you.

In the changes uh for inspections

relative to the three-year preventive

education inspections, you said there is

an opportunity for self attestation for

properties without code violations. What

does that self attestation look like if

>> so there will be a form um that they

would have to do an attestation on a

certification form that that they would

be you know uh essentially saying that

they've to the best of their knowledge I

know we've gotten a lot of feedback uh

in recent months on well how do I know

if there's any code violations on my

property um and and we we've added

language that includes you to the best

of my information, to the best of my

knowledge, we're not going to, you know,

ask owners of a property to instantly

become uh, you know, a a investigatory

code specialist. We're we're basically

focused on you don't you're not aware of

any outstanding orders. You're not aware

of any major critical system flaws, any

failures in your property, that type of

thing. To the best of your knowledge,

we're not, again, I think council member

said, we've really struggled to make

sure that this is not legislation that

turns into a gotcha. That's not what

we're trying to do here. We're really

trying to come alongside owners to um

and protect tenants from really

conditions that we think need to be

rectified.

There are oftent times developments or

properties that have to go through a

state inspection or a HUD inspection of

their physical conditions. Would

providing you the results of those

inspections also work to fulfill the

self attestation requirement? Yes, we

have said in the in the code summary and

in the legislation that you know on that

annual basis if you happen to be a

complex that has um you know formal

inspections done by third parties that

we would get copies of those as well.

>> Great. And then this might be a question

better suited for deputy director Jones.

Oftentimes we hear from tenants who get

kind of complaint exhaustion when they

feel like they're not receiving

responses from their landlords timely

and so they get sick of complaining not

only to their landlord but also to the

city. So there may or may not be a

complaint record of code violations or

potential code violations. Um, is there

a way to notify a community that a

preventive educational inspection is

getting ready to happen and that that

could be an opportunity for you to

request an interior inspection if you

feel like you've got issues that haven't

been addressed by the landlord?

So, uh, I think that that is you have

provided one example of the many ways

that we see a collaboration opportunity.

I think ultimately the goal is that

there be an element of the registration

process that is forward- facing and that

the public can access. So I would

anticipate that there would be a place

where you could see what properties

depending on the timeline of

registration are due for their

three-year inspection. Um, we would hope

that we would also have the opportunity

to go out um if we are receiving

complaints or as the Division of Housing

Stability is able to make a more robust

community engagement process and have

dialogues with neighbors and tenants an

opportunity to maybe flag for BCS and

others as they are going out to conduct

these. Hey, this is what we're hearing.

This is what we're seeing. Um, again, as

as the director has alluded to, the idea

here is that we are just verifying that

you are already in compliance, that what

you are testing to is annually is true.

Um, and to have an o another opportunity

to engage with individuals who, to your

point, may have fatigue or may not even

know the right place to engage. Um, and

understand their obligation as well if

there is one. If it's an issue that

perhaps is more complex than just simply

the landlord can't or won't fix it, what

other resources can we bring that are

not the obligation of code enforcement

or others to help manage that

relationship as well? Right. Thank you.

Final question, I promise at least for

this this time. Director Messer, do you

anticipate that this registration

opportunity really opens the door for

earlier conversations with property

owners and a real opportunity to instead

of waiting until you get hit with 16 or

17 code violations that you have to fix

between 15 and 30 days that you're

having that time to engage with the

department understanding what the

conditions of your property are and

really working with the department to

get into compliance.

>> Absolutely, council member. I think

that's an important component of this

proposal and why we added the preventive

education inspection is to really try to

engage with and interact with our owners

and our property uh folks who are

responsible for our properties out there

to try to come alongside. Um, not only

that, but um, you know, it's mentioned

in the legislation that um, part of the

fees are also allowed to be used for um,

trying to remediate and and trying to

solve issues that we have out in the

community possibly in emergency

situations or egregious situations. And

so, um, a big component of this is

trying to improve our properties and

make things better, uh, in the city. So,

absolutely, I think that collaborative

approach is going to be um something

that we're hopeful about coming out of

this.

>> And I just want to add um real quickly,

I know you asked me about the legal

process, and I still don't know all the

details, but in addition to publishing

our rules and regs on the website, we're

also required to publish those in the

city bulletin. And so, um there's a

variety of formal things that we have to

do. I apologize for not knowing the

timelines and the details, but certainly

any rules and regs that we do are

published and accessible and uh folks

will be able to see those.

>> Awesome. I anticipate the website is

probably a little more accessible than

city bulletin.

>> I agree.

>> It's a it's a great read if you want to

read your city bulletin. Um thank you um

housing chair Ross customer watch.

>> So one just on that communications piece

and proactively communicating. I know

we're still figuring out what that plan

looks like. I would think the easiest

thing, especially if we are going to

change rules and regulations, is to

email those who have signed up in to the

registry. So hopefully that is option

number one and we don't just put things

on the website and assume folks will

find it. So um but wanted to ask kind of

piggyback on council uh member Ross'

question around tenants and tenants

saying, "Hey, come on into my property."

I assume maybe not in this legislation,

but other parts of city code,

protections for that tenant from

potential retaliation from the property

owners if they felt like uh the property

owner is now targeting them because they

chose to speak up and point to different

issues that they were dealing with.

>> Um if your question is are are tenants

already protected from that type of

retalatory behavior? The answer is yes.

Um not as a part of this code but

separately from this code. Our typical

um you know tenant protections uh

include protection from retaliatory

action for folks calling 311 or

reporting code violations.

>> Appreciate it. Thank you. I mean my

other point which I think you and I have

discussed in terms of information being

collected kind of speaks to this review

kind of on a maybe bianually or however

we kind of finalize that in terms of

what data is actually necessary for the

city to continue to protect residents.

You know I've spoke many of times about

having information for us to make

further policy decisions. I understand

at this time it is about let's set up

the registry. let's have something that

works that um can actually accomplish

its job before we start doing additional

things. But um hopefully the departments

feel like that can be a useful tool in

the future.

>> Would you agree to that?

>> Yes. Uh council member, we've we've

we've spoken about that and there are

several um you knowformational

tools that um could be helpful as a part

of this registry. Uh things that that

you just mentioned. one, just having the

registry gives us a vehicle of

communication to our property owners

around the city and our rental folks.

So, um there's going to be an

opportunity for us to visit um what type

of information, even if some of that

information is voluntary. I know folks

have seen us refer to um uh average

rent, for example, as something we might

be asking for, but whenever we've

identified that, we've labeled that as

optional uh voluntary. There may be some

other information that we want to ask

for that'sformational and voluntary, but

really could help the city make policy

decisions and policy questions in the

future. And so this this means is going

to exist once we establish the registry

to to possibly gather information and

tools to help us in other decisions.

>> Thank you. Appreciate that. And

appreciate all of you for kind of

working through this and kind of

providing an overview of the changes

that have been made. I think the

concerns we always hear from industry,

residents, everyone is like there's

never an opportunity to help improve

legislation. I think having multiple

hearings kind of shows us making the

sausage as council member Benson

indicated at the uh beginning of the

meeting. So, appreciate your willingness

to kind of go back and forth to make

this the best possible policy uh to

support the needs of the city of

Columbus.

>> Thank you. Uh council member

>> chair, I'm sorry. I'm gonna get so much

better at this. I promise. This last

last question. Um,

>> just don't say that.

>> What? I All right. I'm gonna try to get

better and better at this.

I do I do see something that says

conditional registration may be

implicated when complexes are declared

to be a public nuisance by the

department.

In the event that the department has not

declared the property to be a public

nuisance, but the environmental court

has declared the depart the property to

be a public nuisance and there are prior

kind of court cases on record with

regard to this. If there is an open

court case where the property has

already been declared to be a public

nuisance by the environmental court, is

that also something that the department

will consider in determining whether or

not a property should be on this

conditional?

Certainly, we can look at whether the

language was intended to just say the

department or whether it's just in

general that it's been declared a public

nuisance by, you know, a different

agency. But, but generally speaking, if

if if the court is going to declare

something a public nuisance, we've

probably already requested that or done

so as well. But I get your point and

we'll take a look at that language.

>> You're doing just fine, Council Member

Ross. This is

>> this is not Congress, okay? We don't

have like set standard meetings. It's

not gotcha, you know. As you can see,

this is why I say I don't play a lawyer.

She asked very lurally questions over

there. So, uh, with that, council

member, any questions or comments from

you?

>> Okay. Thank you. We will move into, um,

public comment. Uh, as with most of, uh,

my hearings and traditions, we do keep

track of, uh, what's happening on social

media. Um, so director, one question did

come up and I think you alluded to it,

but I think we can just re-emphasize it.

U, the question was, what can uh really

be determined from an exterior

inspection?

>> So, um, I think when we're talking about

the if we're talking about the

preventative education inspection, I

don't want to um, insinuate that it's

merely an exterior inspection. There may

be some smaller uh rental units, say a

single family home or a duplex where

there really aren't any shared systems

to look at and basically it is an

exterior inspection unless we get

permission from the residents to do a

safety inspection on the interior units.

Um, so I would I would submit that, you

know, not as much can be determined from

an exterior inspection, but generally

speaking, just speaking from experience

with thousands of properties around the

city and uh over a decade of uh tenure,

that it's very unusual to have a

pristine exterior uh and a interior that

would cause us significant distress. And

so, um, you know, you'd be surprised at

what we can tell from an exterior

inspection in terms of reflecting on the

condition of the property. That being

said, you know, our our our primary

effort of this preventative education

inspection is going to be around uh

really looking at common areas, shared

critical systems like heating and

cooling and water systems that serve uh

apartment complexes and larger

complexes, egress, retention ponds, all

the things that aren't necessarily

inside of a specific unit. Um and and I

would submit that those things can often

be indicative of, you know, the

condition of the property overall.

>> Uh thank you for that, director. Uh like

I said, we'll move into public comment.

Just wanted to uh acknowledge on the

record that as of yesterday's 5:00 p.m.

deadline, we did receive three pieces of

written testimony and those have been uh

shared with all uh offices from Greg

Lawson with the Buckeye Institute, Sarah

Holculter,

and Sarah

um Drier. Um and with that, we will move

into our uh public speakers. Um and so

first up, we have 10 uh this evening.

Uh, first up we have Dimmitri uh Hatson

Forinos. I I swear I I'm gonna get it

right one of these days. Dmitri,

followed by uh Steve uh Gladen.

Welcome back to council. Uh three

minutes and I think you know the deal.

>> Thank you, Council Member Bangston,

members of council. I appreciate the

opportunity and I have appreciated the

opportunity to meet with you, council

member, and your staff to talk about

this legislation over the last, you

know, 90 days or so. Um, and I think

that the interactions have been positive

to some extent. I represent about a

100,000 multifamily operators in

Columbus along with the Columbus

Apartment Association. Unfortunately,

I'm here today to tell you that we will

legally challenge this legislation as it

currently stands, although we haven't

seen the legislation yet. So, it's a

little premature to say that, but we're

getting we're getting very close to I

think a working product and and if this

is the working product that we see in

the code, um we have no choice but to

challenge it. And the reason we're going

to challenge it are are the reasons are

these. Uh as the director have has said,

this legislation is really intended to

target half a percent of bad actors in

the city. And so, we already have things

in place to target those bad actors. Uh

it's nice that attorney Dunar is here

because that's what he does most of the

time and I interact with him in that

capacity and he does a very good job of

that. But uh we also already have a

registry that is required by the state

and 90% of what you're asking for is

duplicative and the state statute

clearly preempts your ability to ask for

the same information that's already

provided. And since the last time I

spoke here, it became very evident to me

that neither the administration nor

council really looks at the auditor's

information and determines who has

registered and then uses it to actually

find people. And so if we're not using

the information that we already have and

about 60% of the people uh the units in

Columbus are registered, then it really

makes no sense to create a second

registry when we already have one. Um,

and that would be the first basis for us

challenging this legislation because you

can't make us register twice. Um, state

law already makes us register. Second

reason is that the fee that you're

asking to be paid is a tax. There really

has never been provided a budget or any

useful information about where that

money is going to go and how it's going

to be used. There have been some things

that have been alluded to, but

ultimately if the administration wants

to do an exterior inspection of

apartment complexes, they can just drive

around. They don't need legislation for

that. They don't need money for that.

They're already there. Ultimately,

anytime they inspect for code purposes,

they can inspect the exteriors. They do

that all the time practically. So,

that's duplicative as well. Um, and it's

difficult for the industry to understand

how a fee is charged without a budget,

particularly if it's only going to be

used for this purpose. And we've asked

for a budget of through public records

requests and specifically to the

director. We've been a we've been

promised that, we haven't been given it.

So that would be a second reason. Um,

the third reason is that you're really

burdening the good actors to the

exclusion of the bad actors. So the good

actors are going to register. The good

actors are going to participate. The

good actors are going to pay. It is

likely that the bad actors won't do

that. And so the people that don't

register, you're going to have to go

collect fees from administratively and

civily that you're going to charge

according to this legislation. And then

you're going to turn around and try to

find them to get inspections done and

probably sue them for nuisance because

they're not doing their job. And so all

of the good actors that I represent are

then being penalized for what the bad

actors do. Um, I'll I'll just conclude

real fast and just say what I would

suggest as an alternative to this

legislation is to focus on the

conditional registration and create a

registry for those people, for those

actors, the people that have 10 code

violations per hundred that aren't

complied with, the people that are a

public nuisance. get those people on a

list and get them to register and get

them to be inspected annually and get

them to be more compliant and continue

to work with those properties because a

lot of times when we're in environmental

court we get through our agreed entry of

compliance and then we forget about them

and they're right back there in 10

minutes. So we focus on that 0.5% more

heavily and if they need to be charged

for that then that makes more sense to

the industry. Um, we also secondarily

use the registry

that we already have. So if you're going

to pass legislation, say they can

register with the auditor or with the

city and then if they're not registered,

there's a penalty for that rather than

they have to register twice. So we would

say conditional registration is the

focus for inspections and registration

can be done at the auditor or at the

city. It's curated and and it's both are

used because both are there. Compliance

with one is compliance with the other.

And then if there's an administrative

cost burden to the city for that

information, you can proceed to add to

it if necessary down the road with

regulation or with new legislation. So

that's that's what we would propose

instead. Thank you and I'd take any

questions if anyone has any.

>> Uh thank you uh Demetri for your

testimony and I and I will say thank you

again for leaning into this process. as

I said that we've wanted to be

transparent and work with you and I

think uh you have been at the table and

I hope that through this process you

have seen that we taken it serious uh

and I think made uh significant

revisions to it quite frankly um I think

uh against some of the other advocacy

that we have seen so thank you again and

Steve Dunar is there so I guess I'll see

you in court there you go

>> all right sounds good thank you all very

much

>> thank you

>> oh I'm sorry uh

>> not not a question. I'll just note it

sounded like we need to ask more

information that's specific to Columbus.

So, I appreciate you mentioning that.

>> And after Mr. Gladman, we will have

Cynthia Flattery.

Chairman Banks, members of council, my

name is Steve Gladman. I live at 1300

Northwest Boulevard in Council District

7.

Uh I'm representing the Columbus

Apartment Association today. Uh I've

made several comments in writing and we

met several times and I appreciate the

city uh council staff and the

administrative staff. I I really just

want to touch on three points. I'll

probably have more detailed comments

when the the it's in ordinance form. Um,

and those three comments really just

center on

conditional registration,

preventative education, inspection, and

then the fee. Um, the director's done a

good job, I think, of quantifying

there's half or 1% of the properties are

really a problem. And the idea of

focusing on those uh problem properties,

I think, has tremendous merit. We're

supportive of that. We think it's

efficient, effective, and equitable. The

changes uh from the last draft of the

proposal I think capture our biggest

concern which was not just a raw count

but non-compliance. So I think that uh

is uh is very much strengthened that

section and is is is a good rewrite.

the preventive education inspection

really pivots away from focusing on 1%

and now you're going back to having the

entire population the other 99% have an

administrative cost and administrative

burden of reporting and I understand the

the purpose of that but as I read this

many of the items that are suggested

under the preventative education

inspection and when we met with uh

director Messer in the past things like

boilers were mentioned, fire code, those

are already covered. The boilers are

inspected by the state on a regular

schedule. Uh the fire department can go

in at any time and look at fire safety,

look at egress, look at whether the fire

extinguishers are current, uh if the

lighting is proper. So, a lot of this is

already there. The city could do this

anytime they want. They don't have to

wait every every three years to do it.

and they don't necessarily have to

charge

uh the $15 per unit fee. Uh as um

as you heard earlier, you know, we don't

know what the $15 we don't know what the

revenue projection is. We don't know the

expense projection of those. So, it's

hard for us to say that that's in any

way equitable fee. We know what other

other cities charges and it's from a

dollar to to several dollars. So, uh, we

look forward to having more information,

more specific information about that.

And again, would encourage the focus of

this legislation to be on that 1% or

less and have strong compliance and

enforcement uh, in that area and not so

much burden the entire population. He's

talking about properties that would be

one or two years old having a a

proactive inspection and with a $15.

>> Thank you.

>> Uh thank you again, Mr. Grain, and

appreciate you calling out uh uh those

points and some things that we have made

and appreciate you leaning into the

process as well. So, thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Uh next we have Miss Cynthia. I'm sorry.

Were there any questions or comments

from Okay, so Miss Cynthia Flattery

followed by uh Jerry O'Neal.

>> Good to see you again. Welcome back to

council,

>> Councilwoman Bangston and members of

city council. My name is Cindy Flareity

and I'm here representing BRED, an

organization of more than 40 religious

organ congregations in central Ohio.

I'm currently serving as BRED's vice

president and I'm a member of the St.

Josephine Bakita Parish in North

Columbus.

We appreciate this opportunity to

comment on the most recent draft

proposal um that to create a city of

Columbus rental registry. In the

interest of time, I'll jump right to the

point. The current compliant

complaintbased system of code

enforcement is not adequate to address

the issues of today's housing market.

Research shows that to protect renters

and to hold irresponsible landlords

accountable, you must also have regular

inspections by the city. The most recent

draft proposal for the rental registry

would put Columbus on the right path

by instituting regular health and safety

education inspections in common areas.

The city will identify many problems by

the worst landlords. When the problems

are found, they will be referred to the

appropriate yet regulatory division for

further action. We support the proposal

and commend city council for working

through the complex legal issues that

must be uh considered. At the same time,

we think that the legislation could be

even stronger. And I'll address these

points in order in the information

section. Rather than giving owners the

option to report the average rent, we

think the city should ask for a range of

rents. This will provide more granular

data that will be useful for the city

and the public to track rent and

affordability.

The legislation should also clarify that

the affirmation must be submitted at the

time of registration.

Under preventative edi education

uh inspections, we recommend

establishing a publicly available

tracking system with time frames and

referrals for follow-up action by the

appropriate agency. The preventative

inspection should include infestation

and mold. The legislation should address

how inspections will occur for

properties that have common that have no

common areas such as duplexes and single

family homes. Under conditional

registration, the threshold for

properties with more than 100 units

should be set at six or more units with

violations in the last 12 months rather

than 10. Otherwise, there's a

significant drop in the standard of

properties that are just over a 100

units. And under enforcement, it's

unclear whether there will be any

changes to the existing structure of

fines for non-compliance with codes,

including escalation for continued

non-compliance. We hope this will be

addressed in the final draft. In

summary, we believe that the most recent

draft proposal is strong, but it could

be made even stronger with the addition

of our suggestions and we thank you for

the opportunity to speak about in

support of the rental registry.

Uh thank you again uh Cindy and uh

thanks uh Brett as well for all your

advocacy in this space and and and as

you said I think as I said from the

beginning uh there were going to be

things that none of us got all that we

wanted but I will say that that is why

we're putting in this I think look

review period so that every few years

that we are looking at this getting to a

place where this is up and running I

think we continue to have those

conversations and so thank you for your

advocacy and uh look forward to continue

working with

Uh, next we have uh Mr. Jerry O'Neal

followed by John Meyers.

>> Council members, my name is Jerry

O'Neal. I'm a third generation real

estate broker and property manager.

We've been in business for 105 years

here in the city of Columbus. We

currently manage for over 231

small landlords over 600 doors. Um, in

New Philadelphia, Ohio, Judge Elizabeth

Lee Tamakos has ruled that Eurville,

Ohio's landlord's registration fee is

illegal and an unconstitutional tax.

Taxes collected and not used for the

betterment of the taxpayers that paid

them are unconstitutional.

landlords are now s they won that case

and the landlords are now currently

suing the city of Uricville to refund

all the monies that were paid. So that's

already case law from the Buckeye

Institute, an independent research and

educational institution, a think tank

whose mission is to advance free market

public policy in the United States. I

quote, "The proposed ordinance will be

more harmful than beneficial. It will

raise housing costs for Columbus

renters, particularly those least able

to afford them, without delivering any

meaningful benefits that cannot already

be achieved. The goal of impro improving

an housing conditions and safety is

laudable and understandable, but the

proposed rental registry's design is

flawed and expensive. It mandates annual

registration fees, inspections, and

administrative burdens that will

increase rent prices and negatively

affect renters downstream. So, this is

actually eliminating affordable housing

in Columbus, which I believe is a goal

of this council is to increase

affordable housing in Columbus. So,

adding costs is

the opposite of what should be

happening.

Um, IRM, the Institute of Real Estate

Management, NARPAM, the National

Association of Residential Property

Managers, the Columbus and Ohio

Apartment Associations, Coin, the

Central Ohio Investors Network, all

oppose this rental registry. Doesn't

that tell you something? when everyone

across the board is opposed to it.

Rather than creating a costly new

municipal registry that duplicates state

requirements and adds additional

compliance layers, the Columbus City

Council should strengthen enforcement of

the existing statemandated county

registration system and ask the general

assembly to increase penalties for

non-compliance. A higher, more

consistent penalty for failing to

register at the county local reent

registry would provide an effective

deterrent. Importantly, it would not

target honest property owners and would

not risk needlessly raising rents for

lower income residents.

So, we I oppose this legislation.

>> Thank uh thank thank you, Mr. O'Neal.

Any questions for Mr. O'Neal? Thank

Thank you, Mr. join him for your

testimony and also thank you for being a

housing provider uh in our community.

>> Thank you.

>> Uh next uh was Mr. John Myers followed

by Aaron Lance.

>> Mr. Mayor, welcome to council. You have

three minutes. Uh the floor is yours.

>> Understood.

>> Uh members of council, my name is John

Meyers. I've been a licensed realtor in

Columbus for over 40 years and have

served as a past president of Columbus

Realtors. I'm the broker owner of a

property management company. On the

rental property management side uh of

our business, we manage nearly 600 units

in the Columbus area and 90% of those uh

over 90% of those are residential. Our

clients are small investors who may own

one or a handful of properties

uh that like a house, a four family,

that type of thing. Basically, your mom

and pop investors are who our clients

are. So, I'm speaking for them as well

as for myself.

Uh let's be honest about what this is. a

sweeping new regulatory mandate imposed

on every rental property owner in

Columbus, regardless of whether they've

had ever ever had a code violation,

failed an inspection, all of that. Uh

this is not targeted enforcement. It is

a collective punishment

by your own numbers that we heard today.

Uh the problem is only with a half a

percent.

not, you know, the other 99 and a half

are not the problem yet. They're going

to be affected negatively by this. Uh

Columbus does not have a rental registry

problem. It has an enforcement problem.

If uh if there are bad actors, enforce

the laws already on the books. But don't

build an entirely new bureaucracy

that treats reasonable small landlords,

responsible small landlords, like they

are presumed to be guilty.

The ordinance adds annual reporting

requirements, compliance risk, and new

fees.

In a housing market already strained by

rising cost, those expenses will not be

absorbed by the landlords.

they will be passed on to renters.

Every new regulatory layer becomes

another line item in the cost of

housing.

And let's talk about the consequences.

The people most affected by this will

not be the large firms who already have

people in place to handle this

unnecessary burden. The people most

affected will be local independent

property owners. the family that owns a

duplex, a retiree that owns a for

family,

when the regulations pile up, they sell.

And when they sell, they sell to larger

institutional

investors.

If council's goal is affordability,

local ownership, neighborhood stability,

this policy moves us in the opposite

direction.

Thank you.

>> Uh thank you uh Mr. Meyer and also thank

you uh for uh your service to the

community as a past president and for

being a housing provider. Uh, next we

have uh Aaron Lance followed by Brian uh

Banebridge.

And Aaron, I'm going to listen intently,

but I have to go to the restroom. So,

>> sorry, I didn't get what he said. Do I

have to wait?

>> No worries. Chair Bankston had to run to

the restroom.

>> I can't see. I I I'm legally blind so I

can't see anything.

>> No wor. Can you hear me?

>> I can hear him.

>> Awesome. Chair Banks then had to run to

the restroom.

>> Okay.

>> You can either wait for him to return or

you can provide your testimony in his

absence. You still have Council Member

Ross and Council Member W.

>> I'll wait.

>> Okay.

>> I don't mind.

Okay, sir. Chair Benson is back.

>> Hope you felt better, Banks. Thank you.

Thank you everyone. Um,

>> yeah. Well, my name is Darren Lance, of

course, and um, I am a tenant. I have an

apartment. That's my home. And my

landlord is great. Um, they fix things

right away. But what I want to talk

about is I have friends who um, are not

in the position that I am in. Um they

have uh runs the gamut from leaking

roofs to leaking windows to heating not

working. For example, my nephew, he um

actually has been living for the past

three years and his heat never gets

above 54, but it runs continuously and

hard to keep that 54. So, he's paying

$400 a month. But needless to say, I'm

just saying there's those protections

are out there and some people are

nervous. Um, some of my friends are

first generation immigrants and they are

fearful to reach out and get the

additional help beyond their they think

they pay uh their rent every month and

that's they should get their um issues

addressed but they're they can't or they

don't know how to. Um, so I think it's a

was a little disingenuous what I hear

earlier about um paying $15 a month, how

that will hurt the uh tenants.

No, they and it won't even hurt them.

But what it will do is give them a home

with heat without um and have them that

ability. Their rent is already going up

$50 a month. typically is what they're

saying. So, um $15

if they want to add it, which would be

what, $2

a month at most to their um monthly

rent. I don't think that's would be an

issue. And also, I think um maybe two

violations is way too many um on a

landlord. So, I I just want to make that

note. So

I'm sure mine has zero violations

because they're on it. So um I also um

it is a right. It's a human right for

everybody to have a home and a home with

heat. And I enjoy that home. I think

everybody else does. And when you own

your own home and you pay a contractor

to come in to fix your heat, you're

expected to get done. So that's all I'm

saying is people pay for this house or

this apartment and they should have that

right to have heat or not have a leaking

faucet. Um, that's it. Thank you.

>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Lance. And also,

thank you for allowing me to go to the

restroom.

And just to put a finer point on that,

at $15,

uh, that is $1.25 per month, uh, and a

is a is 4 cents per day in a year. With

that, uh, Brian Banebridge,

uh, is next, followed by, uh, Sarah

Drier.

Good evening, Council Member Bangston

and members of council. My name is Brian

Bainbridge. I'm a uh 17-year licensed

real estate professional serving buyers

and sellers and property owners and

tenants throughout the city of Columbus.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak

today. It's been an honor here. Um,

everyone in this room agrees that to

provide safe, well-maintained housing is

a goal we all share. Realtors especially

and I know landlords too. We work daily

to uh provide responsible housing and to

take pride in maintaining the the

quality and serving tenants

professionally. I'm also a landlord. I

have 14 properties and as a community fa

uh focused agent uh council member Dire

knows me personally um and a real estate

agent. I aim to provide a nicer quality

housing for all my tenants. Uh plainly

put, the current registry uh is a

regulatory scheme

as it currently sits

as currently structured u creating new

layers of regulation that uh risk uh

harming housing supply, affordability,

and small property owners without

clearly demonstrating measurable safety

gains. The proposal imposes a mandatory

annual registration requirement on all

residential properties. This is not just

a targeted enforcement tool. It is a

blanket regulatory expansion creating

double enforcement with the Columbus uh

code department and therefore screams

big government inefficiency.

The overwhelming um as before said

before the overwhelming majority of

rental um providers in Columbus already

comply with the existing uh safety

building and housing codes. This

ordinance presumes systematic

non-compliance and imposes new

administrative burdens uh regardless of

the performance history. Second, the

excessive cost. This is not just about

the $15 as said um along with the

Gestapo style inspections

uh will not only be absorbed by the

property owners um but in today's tight

housing market the regulatory costs will

be often passed through the form of

higher rents and modest annual fees

multiplied by um across thousands of

units can materally affect the housing

affordability. I mean I quite honestly

go off script here. Um my rentals I make

very little money each month as is.

there's a handful of them, you know, I'm

I'm I'm in it for the the equity gain.

I'm not making a ton of money. So,

that's, you know, for for us small

people, it hurts

la I would say one of my last points

here is that regulation

hurts small business. Um, for those that

I know there's an exemption with those

who fall smaller than uh 10 units. It

also creates a regulatory frame

framework that disproportionately impact

small to midsize providers like myself.

I'm doing this for retirement for me and

my wife.

Fourth, the compliant uh property owners

will bear the um the administrative

costs and back the bad actors will not.

Listen, I this is you guys are your

hearts are in the right place. I just

don't think this legislative um

initiative is the way to go about doing

it. So, do you have any questions? Thank

you. Thank you for your time.

>> Absolutely. And thank you u Mr. Bers for

uh your testimony today and also again

for being a housing provider in our our

community. Uh next we have Miss Sarah

Drier at followed by Deb Cray.

Good evening to the council and I want

to appla applaud you council member

Bankston for your leadership on this

rental registry.

I moved into my current residence in

2022 because I thought it was a safe

place to live for my son and my two

nieces who I've adopted. In 2021, my

sister, their mother, was shot and

killed by her husband, their father. At

the time, my my nieces were out of town.

I adopted them and brought them to

Columbus. I was living on the near east

side furthering my education

and

the gunshots that were happening in the

neighborhood were very triggering and I

did not want the children to be even

further traumatized. So I thought where

could I live where it was a nicer part

of the town and I moved to Clintonville.

The children set up school there. They

really love it at Indianola

and my neighbors were great. The

children could play outside without

fear. We live right by Glen Eko. It's so

therapeutic.

the current owner of that home was a

person who's not involved in a lot of

real estate. I heard a lot about small

uh rental the low number. So I this

testimony is about someone who only owns

one I think maybe two properties.

It was an older woman and she did great

the first two years she and after the

first two years she passed away and gave

it to her son who's um I am 40. I think

he's in his 50s, so not too much older

than me.

At that time, things changed

drastically. He changed property

managers to a cheaper company who was

very ineffective and very unattentive.

The uh maintenance men that would come

wouldn't come back because they realized

they weren't going to get paid.

Constantly, consistently, he was not

approving the funds needed to maintain

very essential repairs in the home.

Quickly my illusion of living in a nicer

neighborhood and it being safer was um

that that dream was a night became a

nightmare because of this landlord.

Eventually I called 311 and multiple

code violations were found against him.

And by multiple I mean more than three I

think it was about five. I have to look

back over the course of the last 14

months. It's been numerous times,

including piping, black mold,

structurals outside that were completely

unsafe, that it should have never been

on the home in the first place when I

moved into it. And that is why I say I

believe that you should move forward

with this because it could have possibly

prevented me from going through what I'm

going through now. I'm actually working

with 311. There's a tenant protection

clause set up by Shayla Favorvers. That

is the only thing that is helping me

seek retaliation uh seek justice for

them retaliating against me. I just

believe that if this ordinance were

there in place ahead of time that this

would not have happened and I would hope

and pray that this ordinance put in

place will prevent others from going

through the hell that I had to go

through. Thank you.

>> Um Mr. Dryer, let me just say thank you

for um being vulnerable and giving us

your personal story.

>> Yes. Um, and sorry that that is your

experience.

>> Yes.

>> Um, you know, this piece of legislation

won't be the silver bullet, but I think

it's the package.

>> Yes.

>> Of everything that has been done under

Council Member Shayla Favor now under

Council Member Ross that

>> yes,

>> we want to continue to get this right.

It's not about, I think, penalizing or

being burdensome, but it is these types

of stories uh that we want to prevent.

So, thank you again for sharing your

story with us and um I appreciate it.

>> Thank you both.

Uh, next is Deb CR. And then finally

rounding us out will be Miss Sarah Hol

Go Holter, which I'm probably butchering

it. I apologize.

>> Welcome to council.

>> Thank you, council member Bankston,

other council members. I'm Deb CR. I am

a rental property provider in central

Ohio and Columbus specifically. I'm also

a private lender to other rental housing

providers in Columbus and elsewhere. In

addition, uh thank you for the another

opportunity to provide comments on the

proposed legislation. Uh last time I was

here, Council Member Bankston, you asked

me why do I think housing providers

would sell their Columbus portfolios if

the rental registry was implemented. Um

and at the time it was a $20 chump

change. Now it's $15. What's a couple

more bucks than an inspection? the cost

of an inspection. Uh, and I thought you

were joking to be honest. Um, but you

had just heard hours of comments uh in

opposition to the proposed legislation,

but you were serious. So, I came

prepared with a couple of things that

might help you understand um what rental

housing providers are living in real

time. So, wanted to talk about

maintenance for a second. Um, generally

speaking, my own experience as a rental

housing provider, uh, we generally do

two preventive maintenance calls each

year and then we budget for another

unexpected expense. I'm going to use for

my example, um, a a backed up drain

because that happens. Um, so I wanted to

give you a sense that basic service call

service calls, I look back to 2020,

those are about $75 for each one. In

2025, we're at about $130. That's about

a 75% increase. Snaking a main drain in

2020 was $185. In 2025, it's about $280.

It's a 51% increase. So, uh overall,

it's about $17 a month for the

maintenance that we generally provide.

water and sewer. And I'm quoting from

the um uh Columbus water sewer utility,

whatever you guys rebranded that. Um

quote, "Overall average increase for

2026 will be about 11.72%

for a threeperson household, which is

pretty common in my case. That's about a

$27 a month increase over last year.

Property insurance, average increase of

7.3% for 2026. It's about $7 a month.

property tax. Um, I think I had

mentioned last time I was here over my

portfolio, my increase has been between

the range was 175% to 325%.

Overall, our average increase is about

275% across our portfolio. It's $93 a

month. All of that is $144 a month

increase. That's about a 10% increase.

If we use $1,500 a month for average

rent, that's about as much as any tenant

can tolerate for a a rental increase.

And I would agree. Um it's a lot. Uh and

my point is it doesn't take much more

cost or uncertainty about legislation

for investors to go elsewhere. It

invites the housing providers that

communities like less who buy from those

who are better informed about local

business conditions. Those who are

selling their Columbus properties will

sell at market rates as we should. Uh

but deep pocket investors often from out

of the area can better afford those

rents those uh rates. Um and I think

it's been mentioned uh I attended the

Ohio Supreme Court on January 8th and I

heard the oral arguments on rental

inspections without warrants being there

no probable cause. I do think that

there's going to be a constitutional

question here and I invite the

opportunity to to defend that. Uh this

legislation assumes that all housing

providers are guilty of something until

the city decides otherwise. I believe

the expense of defending good

maintenance is time and money wasted

that could have gone to creating more

quality housing. I thank you again for

your time.

>> Thank you, Miss Cran, and thank you for

uh being a part of the process and

coming back and and testifying. Also,

just want to say thank you for being a

responsible um housing provider in our

community.

Last but not least, we have uh Miss

Sarah.

>> Come on up. You won't have to teach me

how to say it. They didn't they didn't

give me a phonetic spelling on here, so

>> I'm short. Good evening, council

members. My name is S. Holter. I use

they them pronouns. I'm still working on

changing my identifiers.

>> I got it.

>> It's long. I get it. Um, for three

years, I ran a pilot project at the

eviction court. I saw up to 200 people

per day. And I have confirmed with the

current eviction court social workers

that the situation I described remains

the same today.

The threat of an eviction filing, even

if it's baseless and will get thrown out

as soon as it hits the court, is enough

to cow a person into not following up on

conditions and repairs. There is zero

proof required of late payment or of any

lease violation when a landlord goes to

actually file an eviction. Retaliatory

eviction filings will still show up on a

tenants's record for the next 5 to seven

years, barring that tenant from at least

at least 50% of the available rentals in

the city should they want to move. This

filing remains on Fabco and other credit

reporting agencies records. even if the

landlord drops the case the next day,

even if the tenant has the eviction

filing removed from the public record,

and even if the tenant wins the eviction

case. More often than not, and by a wide

margin, eviction court tenants with even

severe conditions and habitability

issues that I met had not pursued them

with the city because they feared that

their landlord would file an eviction in

retaliation for their complaint.

I have seen photos of truly deplorable

conditions that tenants endured for

months before being reported to the

city. Mushrooms growing in somebody's

living room, sewage up to somebody's

knees,

holes in the ceiling.

Even the escrow process does not block a

landlord from simultaneously filing an

eviction and offers the tenant no

protection from having that filing on

their record.

I recently attended a webinar by run by

shelter forest, a national housing

focused publication which focused on

habitability issues. The links to the

resources I mentioned were provided in

the email I sent. They gave many

examples of municipalities where

proactive inspections have hugely

impacted the quality of life tenants can

expect and they don't cost the city

significantly more money. New Orleans is

an example of how registries and permits

can be used to neutralize bad slum lords

and improve housing conditions while

maintaining compliance with statewide

laws similar to ours that prohibit rent

control, interference with tenant

landlord relationships, and etc.

For this reason, proactive inspections

are a crucial non-disposable component

of the rental registry,

especially all of the indicators that

were proposed by bread are again going

towards that idea of proactive

tenant safety focused um components. A

complaint-based system will not catch

all the bad actors. focusing on what we

currently have will not catch all of the

bad actors. And I would submit to you

that it would cost less that it will

provide far less protection to renters.

Sorry, I'll wrap up. It will provide far

less protection to renters than a

proactive system. And most renters,

myself included, would rather pay $15

extra per month for the safety of

knowing that when I call and am in deep

distress, I'm going to get some sort of

support and that, you know, I'd rather

pay a dollar and a half per month

knowing that it's not going to come down

on me if my landlord needs to fix

something. Thank you. Uh, thank you for

your testimony and advocacy and

everything that you're doing in the

eviction court to help our residents. I

really appreciate that. And I'm going to

save you a little bit of money. It's a

$1.25 per per month.

Um, that concludes all of um our public

uh speakers for uh this afternoon's

hearing. Again, want to thank everyone

who came to give public testimony. uh my

office will again take this feedback and

continue uh to work with folks and and I

will say this isn't the end of a

conversation. Continue to please reach

out to to my office uh because we want

to continue to be engaged as I said that

we will ensure that there is a a review

period and a look back period for this

policy because we want to continue to uh

strengthen it and to evolve it to make

sure that it meets our needs as a

community. Uh again, please keep an eye

out for additional information from my

office regarding next steps uh which

will most likely involve official

consideration by council um by uh March.

Uh so we will have of course a first

reading and then a second reading. So

again, there will still be more time uh

for dialogue and discussion. Before we

wrap up any uh closing comments from any

of my colleagues, um I also want to um

thank uh she left and I was trying to

get her before she left, but also she

was here. here. I wanted to thank

Jessica Clinger uh in Council President

Harden's office. She's done a lot of

work uh behind the scenes as well to get

us to this point. Uh as you know,

Council President was the uh interim

housing chair um before Council Member

Ross. And so, I just wanted to make sure

I acknowledge uh Jessica and thank her

uh for all her work. Also want to again

thank my team uh Mr. Brown and Mr. Dval

for all of their work as well and

continue to reach out to us uh engage

with us. With that, I will conclude this

here. Have a great evening everybody.