Good afternoon.

Thank you for joining us.

We will call this hearing to order.

Thank you for joining us for the second hearing on the proposed creation of a city rental registry.

I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me as well as our Department of Development and Building and Zoning for the work they've put in since uh the last hearing.

On September 16th, I held an initial hearing to discuss the proposed creation of a rental registry for the city.

Since that hearing, our office has received dozens of emails, letters, and phone calls from residents, organizations, and property owners expressing their comments and thoughts.

We've also done some, I think intentional engagement with folks directly as well.

Based on that feedback, our Department of Development and Department of Building and Zoning made several changes to the framework of the proposed registry.

But before jumping into the presentations of the changes, I would like to just remind everyone that we are still in the stakeholder engagement phase of this process and welcome continued feedback as well as what as we continue, excuse me, to tweak their framework of the registry.

And so I just want to clear up some things.

There is no legislation.

There is no predetermined outcome.

We are really engaging with folks.

And so I look at this room tonight and I'm thankful because this is part of the process as having a discussion of how we get to a solution that works for Columbus.

And so I want to thank everyone for being here today.

Again, we currently do not have any draft legislation prepared, nor do we have a full uh proposed budget for the registry just yet.

So again, we are still in that stakeholder and discussion phase.

Before we move on to our directors, again want to acknowledge my colleague, Councilmember Otto Beatty, and see if there's any opening comments that you would like to offer, Councilmember.

No, thank you.

Those are the briefest opening remarks of any council member ever in the city's history.

So I appreciate you.

Uh so now I would like to uh pass the mic to Director Scott Messer with our Department of Building and Zoning, and also Deputy Director Hannah Jones with our Department of Development for the presentations.

Directors, floor is yours.

Good afternoon.

Uh thanks, Councilmember.

Um before I start, uh I just also want to introduce a couple other members of our team that are here.

Ryan Kelsey from Building and Zoning Services and Graham Bowman from Development is here as well.

Uh as a team, as questions arise, we're all here to try to answer them the best we can.

Um but I do have a few slides to go through.

Um I'll try to make it as quickly as possible to work through these slides and then be happy to answer any questions.

So uh first of all, the first slide talks about our goals in this program is to establish an annual registration process for all residential rental properties.

Um there are exceptions as we've talked about in previous uh conversations for folks who are on other licensed programs or registries, so vacant property, hotel, motel, short-term rentals, those are all covered under other uh license and registration programs.

Um it'll help to provide the city with critical information related to the number, ownership, management, and condition of rental units and um the integration of a more proactive inspection process that we'll talk about in a minute that helps to respond to critical issues with some of our more troubling and problem properties.

Stakeholder feedback.

We want to just summarize a little bit of what we've heard so far.

Um we've heard that uh there needs to be a focus on our problem properties and our bad actors without unnecessarily burdening a majority of the owners who are responsible property owners.

Um the tier system that we originally introduced seemed overly complicated to folks.

Um the fees were high uh combined with a self-inspection um requirement uh to bring in outside inspectors uh would raise costs.

The local operator requirement would be difficult for some small out-of-town owners to comply with.

Um the details that we had around uh self-assestation, the ability for folks to um self-inspect were um critical to people and proactive inspections uh are necessary for tenants who fear retaliation at properties with a history of code violations.

Um that was all feedback that we heard from our original um proposal.

So what I'd like to do is just go over some of the um summary of our revisions that we've made based on those.

We created what we now call um conditional registration.

This is how we were responding to the idea of focusing on our more problem landlords.

And so what you'll see is that uh conditional registration is triggered by a uh rolling 12-month period uh looking at code enforcement housing zoning or health orders.

For 100 units or less, um, five orders would trigger, and for over 100 units, 10 orders would trigger a conditional registration evaluation.

Umresolved emergency vacate orders, failure to disclose accurate information, or being the subject of a criminal referral to city attorney for retaliatory action, may all put you in that conditional status.

Um I just highlight down there there's an asterisk.

When we talk about code enforcement orders, um I just want to highlight that that is not numbers of violations.

Oftentimes we our code officers would go out, we will find violations, give people a chance to correct those violations.

At some point, if the violations aren't corrected, a code enforcement order may be issued, and it might list as you know, five, ten, four, however many violations there are would be included in that code enforcement order.

So I want to be clear that it's not five technical violations, it's five separate incidents, five separate times that you've been issued an order from our code enforcement office or building housing or health.

Next, you have more information about the conditional registration.

Um it reverts back to a regular registration once an owner has complied with all outstanding orders.

Um the director will determine that the owner has complied uh with the terms of any remediation plan or uh outstanding issues that need to be addressed.

And then the property um could be removed from the registry and subject to civil penalties if they fail to comply with outstanding orders within 180 days or substantially uh fails to comply with the terms of any written remediation plan.

So here's the change we made under fees.

Um we were at 40 dollars uh per unit with a $5,000 maximum, and the new proposal has been revised down to $20 per unit with a total of $3,000 as a maximum.

Um so anyone with 150 units or more would max out at the $3,000 figure and would no longer owe the $20 per unit for anything above uh the maximum fee.

Um the conditional registration that I just talked about for our more troubling properties.

And by the way, um our estimates right now are that based on 2025 and 2024 numbers that we're talking about approximately one percent of our properties that would be subject to the five and ten uh code enforcement orders or other orders that would put them into a conditional registration status.

So I I want that to be a point that everyone hears, which is you know, when we said we're gonna focus on our problem properties, we estimate that to be literally maybe one percent of our property owners.

Uh 99% of our property owners would pay the regular $20 per unit and register and move on and could self-uh um attest to the condition of their property.

It's that 1% uh of folks that are subject to the conditional registration that would have to pay an additional $250 fee and an additional $20 per unit to compensate for inspections and follow-up and uh plans that we would be initiating to follow up on those more troubling properties.

Um at the bottom there you'll see the fees that we're collecting.

Those fees are required to be used in support of the initiative.

So those fees would go to software, administrative staff, implementation costs, code officer time, uh, conditional registration inspections, enforcement, additional remediation, and discretionary mitigation programs that may be associated with this registration.

Um the fees are not going into the general fund, the fees are not going to be used outside of the program.

Um the fees will come into building and zoning services and be used for uh costs and expenses related to the program.

Um also um some of the changes that we made around inspections.

As I said, um folks who are not on conditional registration, um, they will be able to self-attest to the condition of their property and will not have to engage any outside independent inspectors.

If they do use a property maintenance company, for example, who already does inspections, we will get the results of those inspections and also have forms and a process, which we're still being developed, but we'll have forms and a process where everyone else who is not conditional can self-attest to the condition of their property.

The conditional registration, as I mentioned before, is what would kick in the possibility of third party inspections.

It would also allow us to get into 10% of the units and evaluate all the critical systems for the property.

The remediation plan that I talked about for conditional registration, that is on a limited case by case basis.

It might include agreed upon details and a timeline for abatement, schedule of proactive city or third party inspectors, relocation assistance might be necessary if uh if uh occupants have to be vacated, and there may be some other conditions that we apply for that remediation plan.

Again, conditional registration and remediation plans, we believe will apply to about one percent of our properties in Columbus.

Local operator.

This is the part where we want to collect information on ownership.

Uh all properties must have a local operator within 100 miles and must identify a natural person related to the owner.

So that's a little different.

We had some contiguous county language in the first draft, change that to a more standard 100 mile radius just because county lines and other boundaries may change, but the hundred miles is a more uh definitive uh geographic location.

Uh we clarified that any Ohio real estate license holder may be the local operator regardless of where they reside.

Um that has to do with just being licensed in all of the state of Ohio, so they do not have to be within the hundred miles.

And owners of less than 10 total units don't necessarily need to have a local operator but still need to identify an emergency contact for us.

That was uh in response to the idea that um you know some of our smaller uh property owners don't necessarily have a whole group of folks managing the property.

It might just be themselves.

Um we talk about again um there was a uh proposal originally uh that dealt with our tiers and which properties must submit a property condition report if they're trying to sell the property.

Um we've changed that to really just clarify that anything that's happening under our registration program does not get uh it does not get delayed or changed by sell selling of your property.

So if you happen to be one of those one percenters that's on a remediation plan, you can't just sell your property and start all over.

Uh the new owner essentially inherits that plan and those conditions and must still comply uh with getting the property up to speed before we are going to allow them to have a new registration that is not conditional.

And and really it does happen more than you think.

Right now, when we have to deal with just uh code orders, a lot of times uh property owners are able to just transfer property to a different LLC or do something around the ownership that makes us start the whole legal process all over again, writing all new orders and all fresh court cases, and uh properties can languish in our court system for years based on those types of uh actions by some of our uh property owners who are trying to avoid uh accountability.

This allows us another tool to try to deal with that so that their registration can be held up until the new ownership complies with whatever conditions we have on the property.

You'll see here under the enforcement uh slide, we're saying that you can lose your registration, that failure to register may have administrative fines and late fees.

Um a failure to register can also implicate uh civil penalties.

So if you're willfully refusing to register your property, um you can be subject to a civil penalty, which uh is essentially $2 per day per unit every single day that you remain in uh noncompliance with a minimum of ten dollars per day.

Um the uh uh criminal charges and public nuisance that you see here, those are currently in our statute, but we are looking at really a focus on the civil uh side of things.

We're not looking uh to have this be a criminal violation or in the public nuisance designations.

We do have code language that we'll have to change and and tweak to make sure that it's clear that for the registry, we're looking at civil penalties and fines, not criminal uh uh charges.

Um but properties who uh a lot of our properties who are uh some of our more problem properties are already in the criminal process.

So we're not saying that some of our troubling properties who are willfully uh not responding to our code enforcement uh orders and some of the worst of the worst properties, we do use the criminal process for those.

And that can still continue.

It just won't be a criminal violation just to not register.

Um so I just wanted to clarify some of that.

Um in terms of the uh information that we're asking for, this slide really talks about essentially the required information.

We're looking for the address, number of rental units, uh, possibly collecting some information on average rents so that we understand where we are around affordability in the city.

Uh name, address, email, phone number of the owner.

If the owner is not a natural person, then contact information of a natural person associated with the ownership.

Localized contacts who have care and control of the property with the ability to respond quickly.

We talked about that earlier, and other information as required um by the director by rule uh like tax EIN or real estate license number, things such as that.

So that's essentially I know I breeze through that fairly quickly.

I know we have a lot of speakers and uh like to make sure that they have an opportunity to uh get any of their questions answered.

And uh council members, I'd be happy to answer any questions uh from you.

Thank you, um, director.

Um and I have a couple of questions and then Council Murray, if you have questions, and after that, we'll go into our public comment.

If there are, I think, relevant questions, we'll make sure that we um address those uh as well.

Um and you really talked about uh what what I call the loophole, uh not loophole, but when uh the difference here that we're talking about, director, a little bit.

So I don't want to go through it again, but just want to underscore and clarify to folks that when we're talking about a difference between a code order and a code violation.

Um but I want I would say that you could go into uh the discretion that some of our code officers have, right?

I think that I do want to get more at the spirit of what we're talking about here.

I think we heard from many folks in the first hearing throughout this process that this is really about us talking about the worst of the worst actors, making sure that this is really about health and safety, right?

We're not trying to ding folks just because you have high grass, right?

You go cut the grass, it's fine.

In many cases, I think that uh our code officer try to work with that property order to remedy small things like that.

So if you could just uh again re-emphasize this difference between a code order and a code violation, but then also talk about kind of the discretion and the relationship that your officers have out in uh the community.

Sure, council member.

Uh first of all, yeah, the difference between a code violation and a code order is really that there could be several violations on a property.

So we have a housing code that might require everything from not having litter to having your property in a good condition to high weeds, as you mentioned.

It could be no heat, it could be no hot water, it could be literally dozens and dozens of violations of the housing code.

Um most often all of those are dealt with in one order.

So you might have one code order with multiple violations at a specific property.

Um it is true that the way that we are proposing uh this registration is that it's really uh five code orders or building orders or housing or zoning orders, and we're not specifying what type of orders those are.

Um but again, we already use so much discretion out of our code enforcement office uh that to get to five and ten code orders in a given year.

Um for the most part.

We did an analysis, as I said, today that would result in one percent of our properties, approximately 250 properties out of 25,000 that would um be subject to five and ten threshold that we picked.

Um that notwithstanding that we also would plan to make sure that we build in uh a system that allows us to still have some discretion so that if we do come to a property that has, say, five code orders in a 12-month period, and we can quickly ascertain that those are code orders that do not cause us an alarm or cause us to worry or jeopardize the property, that there might be a way that we can administratively uh keep them from rolling into a conditional status.

So if it's five code orders on trivial violations that have already been remedied, uh we're looking at how can we make sure we build some kind of flexibility in to it's not our intention to capture those properties.

Our intention is truly to try to capture those properties and negligent uh property owners who aren't caring for their residents.

And um and I appreciate uh you given clarity um to that.

Um so thank you for that.

Um you know, we've heard I think from a lot of um folks uh uh that the $20 fee coupled with you know self-attestation uh will be passed on to residents if uh implemented, uh whether it be doc uh director or deputy director, uh if existing inspection results uh do not exist for a property uh will the property owner need to get in an official uh so I think in the original one we were saying that there had to be uh a certified person that comes out and does that inspection.

I think we heard a lot and clear that that was uh a barrier and and a cost burden in what's proposed now, is that still the case?

No.

So the big change that we made under that is uh unless you're rolled over to conditional status, as you and I just talked about, um 99% of our registrants will just be able to self-attest to the condition of their property.

They will not require a paid, you know, third-party inspector to come out.

Uh in the original proposal, we talked about um uh HVAC inspectors or some other type of inspections that we might be requiring.

The new revised proposal has none of that.

Um and the only way you would be subject to a third-party inspection would be if you're conditional uh status.

Got it.

And and talk to me about that.

What the the the self-attestation part, what are we actually talking about there?

Is that for Micah countertops?

Is that the condition of the carpet?

What are we talking about when we talk about what we're asking people to say is in working order?

So it'll be um, you know, in some cities, and and you know, we're kind of late to the game with a rental registry, to be honest.

So we have a lot of cities that um we have examples from.

In many cities, the self-attestation is literally one sentence where you're just essentially saying that to your knowledge, there are no critical system or major system violations at the property.

So your hot water works, the heat works, your major systems are working.

We're not looking for anyone to self-attest that a battery is in a smoke detector, or the grass is less than three and a half inches, or whatever minor violations people are concerned about.

That is not what we're looking for.

What we're looking for is people to be accountable for major critical systems that uh are you know harming our residents and our tenants around the city, uh, landlords who are not taking care of those critical systems.

And so we're looking for some validation from the owner that they've uh uh made sure that those critical systems are working properly.

And I appreciate that.

And I think for a lot of folks that we uh have engaged with, that should be easy.

I mean, they say that they're already doing these types of uh inspections annually or taking care of it.

So that shouldn't uh be a barrier there.

I think that is something if folks are already doing it, it shouldn't be a challenge.

So given all of that, I think when we talk about the cost now where we are, right?

If you're not in conditional status, meaning that you don't have five code orders, not violations, but orders uh for a hundred units or less, ten for a hundred above.

We're talking about the cost to you is twenty dollars per unit, all in is what the cost is to a property owner or operator.

That's correct.

Uh annually.

So it would be twenty dollars divided by twelve uh for a monthly uh charge, um, you know, less than two dollars uh a unit.

And um also I would want to highlight that we fully intend to make uh compliance extremely technologically simple.

We'll have a website, people will be able to register online, pay their fees online, uh use of technology is going to be of the utmost importance.

Um we already process you know 50,000 permits a year through the building department so we know how to make things go quickly and easily and use technology to its fullest, and so we intend to continue that process.

So the burden of actually registering and paying your fees administratively should be uh fairly straightforward.

Thank you for that.

Um just one last question, and I'm sorry, Councilmember Beatty.

Um for and this is probably more for uh deputy director uh Jones.

Uh when we talk about, you know, I another big thing that we heard through this is that this is duplicative, that this already exists at the county level.

And I think that uh my argument there would be that then why do other cities have this, right?

There's clearly some information lacking there, and so just simply not knowing who the property owner is, you know, talk to me about or talk to us about why it is that we are wanting to know who is in carriage and control, who has been an emergency person contact, and and I wanted you to speak to that because there's been many incidences where we're talking about and if you can help me help also level set.

I'm not talking about latitude.

We're not talking about colonial village.

We're talking about everyday things that happen in fourplexes and duplexes and single family homes all across the city.

Why is it critical that we know who the emergency contact is or who is responsible for just everyday communications, like how would that be helpful not only to us but also to the community?

Sure, thank you very much, council member, for the time.

Um I would take it back to the earlier question that you gave the director about the relationship between code enforcement and the property owner.

Usually when code enforcement is coming out, it is to help find a productive way to solve an issue to ensure that a resident can remain housed.

And in some scenarios, that property manager may not be on site to immediately react.

As the director said, if that's issue can be solved on site, we're not issuing the violation or the order.

We're gonna work towards a solution to keep that person housed.

So ensuring that there is timely contact is really important to be able to do that.

Um there's examples of sometimes if there's a sewer backup in one unit, we're not vacating a whole building, that one unit needs to be resolved.

Um we had uh earlier scenario where with all the water meter uh switches that we've been doing and updating as a city, um, there was a property where there was they were unable to access the water meter in order to change it out, and there was no property manager on site or that we could get in contact with in a timely enough fashion to hopefully prevent a vacate.

Uh we were able to coordinate and get there, but those are examples of where being able to engage with somebody locally and that is going to be responsive quickly, allows us to mitigate a lot of the longer term stuff that then turns into the larger scenarios for some properties, and most importantly, allows us hopefully in the best conditions to keep people safely housed.

I will say from an enforcement perspective, we do offer relocation assistance with our recent code change.

And so what we run into is for landlords where the city has taken on the expense, we need to be able to invoice and um get payment from those landlords who we've had to incur the costs, and we have to go through the exact same process as director messer does.

Um and so it's very important to us to be able to have access to the individuals that we need to hold accountable for the assistance that we had to provide as a city as well.

Thank you for that context.

Councilmember Batty, any questions for you at this point?

Yeah, I did one question for the director.

Um, in your studies of a review of the um programs in other cities, what have you found the compliance rate to be?

So it's it's thanks, council member, for that question.

It it's kind of all over the board, but generally speaking, um, you've got there's gonna be an initial startup period where compliance will be a little slower.

Um, but take a city like Cleveland, who's been doing this for a decade or more, um, they're at about 60 percent uh in terms of a compliance rate on a regular basis, and that's kind of a rolling amount.

People drop on, people drop off.

Um, but at any given time, um, there's a guess that the compliance rate is around 60 percent.

Um, but when you look at cities, and that's kind of the average, that 50 or 60 percent, it's really apples to oranges because every city is different.

Um, take Cincinnati.

Um, they probably have eighty thousand rental units, and we're guessing we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 230,000 rental units.

So when you look at a percentage of compliance, um, we expect that some of our we have a lot more larger um facilities, half of our rental units um, I believe are uh covered by how many properties, Ryan?

The top half, 140,000.

140,000 1300 properties.

Yeah, so 1,300 properties um account for 140,000 of our units.

And so if we have a much higher compliance rate at some of our larger complexes, we're hopeful that we can have a higher compliance rate in general than some of the other cities that we compare to.

Thank you.

And and to that and to that point about compliance as well, director.

So for instance, uh for folks that think that they're there are gonna be bad actors who are just not going to register.

That may be true, uh, but some of the tools that we have are our ability, uh I think some of the other databases that we have purchased aggregating the data that we're going to get, we will be able to notify someone like we we believe that you are rental property.

I mean, at some point, right, uh, to really get to that compliance that we're trying to get to.

You know, I'm I'm aggressive.

I told you I went 100%, like in day two of the registry, but I don't think we're gonna get there.

Uh but if you could just talk about how we're also gonna the technology piece of this that when we talk about the cost associated with it and why that is also important.

Yeah, so so we have the luxury of already have passing some legislation in the city dealing with um vacant and foreclosed property registry, um, which has given us a head start to really look at the software that's available and programs for these registrations and registries across the country.

And um, and we're actually excited about being able to merge a lot of that data and combine a lot of the data gathering to be useful tools in our strategic efforts in the various departments development and building and zoning.

Um we we definitely think our use of technology is going to help us.

Uh, just to give you an idea, I know we we don't have hard and fast budget numbers just yet, and we're still working on what that would look like because we're still working on the program, but for our own purposes, we are expecting uh our larger um landlords, uh say a hundred units or more, to be more around 75 percent compliance right out of the gate, and some of our smaller um one, two, three family, four-family duplexes, places like that to start out at more of a 25 percent compliance rate and build from there.

So just we are making assumptions um they're guesses, uh, but they're rational guesses based on a lot of data and information in comparison to other cities, council member, like you mentioned.

Um, so those are our assumptions that we're making um for compliance rates.

Yeah, and let me um ask this other question.

Um I think I heard you mention that um, you know, there's a lot of short-term rentals, and we do have a short-term rental registry.

Um so a unit that's used is short that's on the short term, that's a short-term rental and on the short-term registry, that they would not have to register that unit on the rental, the general registry, or is it just there's still a place for that somewhere?

That's correct.

They would not have to register on the rental registry.

The rental registry, uh, the key word, I guess for us is that it's a residential rental registry.

So, what we're really trying to accomplish are residence places where people are living.

So, hotels, motels, short-term rentals, other uh you know, licenses and uh rooming houses and boarding houses and other things that are already licensed under other parts of the code, um, they're not covered under this registry.

This is a true residential rental registry.

Okay.

All right.

I think there will be more questions uh throughout the process.

So, council member feel free to jump in.

We will now, and thank you, um uh director messer and and deputy director Jones.

Uh we will uh now move into the public comment portion of the hearing.

Uh as of yesterday's 5 p.m.

deadline, we we did receive three pieces of written testimony.

Uh so we want to acknowledge those folks and thank them as well.

So Christy Hayes, the executive director of Make a Day, uh Betty James, and uh Carol Marcino.

Um, those uh pieces of testimony will be provided to all members.

Please note that uh that these do not include, I think emails and phone calls.

Our office continues to receive day to day poor JP uh two minutes before this hearing was getting phone calls about this.

So I appreciate uh him and all the advocacy from folks that have gone into this.

Uh these submissions again have been submitted to all council offices ahead of the meeting, and we'll continue to make sure we get that to all of our colleagues.

We also received 18 uh requests for in-person testimony, so for all speakers.

Um, when you come up, please state your name and any affiliated organization if applicable, and you will have three minutes.

And first up, we have Mr.

Steve Glatman, uh, followed by and on deck is Miss Daisy Chamberlain and Deb Krantz.

So again, if if I called your name or you're on deck, just come on down and form a line.

We've got 18 folks we're gonna try to get through this as expeditiously as possible.

Mr.

Gladman, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

I think you know the rules right here, so I don't need to explain that.

Um the Columbus Apartment Association remains opposed to the rental registry and inspection protocol.

We believe a separate city registry is duplicative and unnecessary, that the proposed $20 per unit rental tax is excessive and not tied to documented program cost, and the revised inspection model requires additional refinement to ensure fairness.

The city states that the separate registry is needed because no one registers with the county.

According to the county uh auditors' data, the compliance rate is about 60 to 65 percent of those properties that they believe should be registered.

They use land use codes to determine whether a property is subject to rental registry or not.

So that's the numbers that they have.

And I guess the question is how will the city know if the property is not registered?

Are you gonna use the county database to help determine that?

And if you're gonna use that database, why create your own, you know, separate separate database.

The county data shows that a large number of those properties that aren't registered, single family homes that are used for rental uh along with some doubles in and four units.

Uh, most of the properties that are owned and managed by CAA members have rental offices, so it's pretty easy to get a hold of folks at those properties, and we don't believe that uh most of our members create a problem about not being able to notify and not being responsive.

Um the proposed $20 rental tax would generate about three or four million dollars.

Uh it's unclear that's thus that the problem the program would cost that much to operate.

Uh also the city uh, as indicated earlier, believes that the compliance rate in other cities is about 50 to 60 percent.

It it seems that what you're asking is for those 60 percent that comply to subsidize with the fee, the operation of this program for those people that are not compliant, which is fundamentally unfair.

We haven't really seen the budget as the director said they're still working on that, so it's impossible for us to determine you know how the 20 dollar fee is was derived and whether that it has a nexus with what it's gonna cost to operate the program.

Uh you know, this will result in some additional cost of the tenant, and you can say what's only two dollars a month.

There's also administrative fees that will be incurred by the operation, and the history over the last few years is council consistently talks about housing affordability, but continues to pass legislation, the bundle of housing for all legislation.

All of that contained things that cause owners of multifamily properties, administrative cost.

So, as a bundle, so we're you know it's layer on layer on layer.

We're not saying about oh 20, you know, it's excessive in itself, but it's the the combination of those things that become a problem.

May I just short continuation or okay?

I also submitted more detailed uh testimony to your office.

Uh I appreciate the director's willingness to use discretion, but that's nowhere in the proposal is there any discretion.

It's very clear, it talks about violations, and an owner should not be punished or for correcting an order in a timely manner.

The director did a good job of talking about orders and violations, but if you get 10 orders or five orders, depending on the size, you're gonna be thrown in this category, you're gonna be penalized, you're gonna be tainted as a bad actor.

Why would you be penalizing people that get an order and comply with it?

What we need to focus on are those orders that are not complied.

So if I get an order and then I don't fix it, then that makes a lot of sense to me.

You would proceed at an at a different level of of enforcement.

You know, large properties, especially those that are olders have significant maintenance requests every day that are complied with.

They may end up with orders in excess of 10, but if they're complying with them within a few days, why are they being penalized?

Why are they being categorized in the same way uh as someone who just ignores the city's orders completely?

So while I pre appreciate discretion, there's no discretion in the language that we've seen up to this point.

Um we appreciate the effort of your office and working with us and continuing this process.

We we still feel that uh at this point this the registry is not needed, it's it's too costly, and it's still not focused enough when really the bad actors.

It's it's the web the web the net excuse me is too wide.

Thank you.

Thank you for that, Mr.

Gladman.

I know you've been engaged with us on this, and I appreciate a lot of the feedback that you have given has really got us to this point.

I do want to just clarify some things.

We have never said that no one is registering.

We've just clearly stated that there is deficiencies in the registry that the county has.

Additionally, the county doesn't have any enforcement mechanisms or protocols.

And again, this is not simply about who owns the property.

We're trying to get at who is the person that we need to contact, who has emergency responsibilities, who has care and control of the property.

I know the apartment association and you all organization are unique in the fact that they are managed by companies or the larger complexes, and so do understand that, but there are also large complexes that have uh problems every single day, and we we deal with that.

I think that to your point about the order, we absolutely are thankful for folks that comply with orders, but if we're seeing that many orders in a single year for us, that signals a problem.

So if there's larger issues, then let's take a look at that.

You know, one of the things that uh we are thinking about, and it's in my comments later, but also want to be sure that this is not simply about a stick, it is also about carrots.

So, for instance, if there are major mechanical problems instead of just putting a band-aid on it, and you're one of our uh critical affordable housing partners.

How can we think about using our bond dollars to help with get fixing their critical piece of equipment because it's not simply about who owns the property, for us it's about who occupies that property.

We want them to be in safe housing uh that is safe, that is housing that you and I would want to be in.

Um again, I I hear some of your comments we continue to I think uh make uh adjustments to that, and we'll continue to engage with you.

So I appreciate the testimony, appreciate the the continued advocacy.

I'd like to say we are also very concerned about who lives in those properties, those are our customers.

That's our client base.

You know, uh additional cost of them is not helpful to the property, it's not helpful uh to the uh the residents.

Every dollar that's spent on compliance is a dollar that's not available to maintain the property.

Thank you.

Yep, thank you again.

Uh next we have Miss Daisy Chamberlain.

Then on deck we have Miss Deb Kranz, and then followed by her will be Beth Fetzer Rice.

Good afternoon.

I'm Daisy Chamberlain, and I'm a member of Rama Christian Center, and I have with me um Kathy Levine, and we're both we both serve on the Protect Renters Now Committee of the Bread Organization.

Um we only have one speaker here today, but we have many people here in support of the registry.

So I would like to ask the BRED members to stand as I make the presentation.

Thank you.

BRED is a Columbus area organization of 40 diverse faith um congregations that build power to press public officials to implement proven solutions to serious count community problems.

First, council member Bankston, we would like to thank you for listening to us and committing on May 13th of this year before 1,318 people to introduce legislation for a citywide rental registry that would provide regular proactive rental inspections.

Brett pushed proactive rental inspections to take the burden off members who have who um having to report a code violation to the city to get action from landlords to who refuse to make vital repairs for such conditions as no heat in the winter or major plumbing and um electrical problems.

We heard multiple stories from renters who refrain from calling cold enforcement for fear their complaint could trigger landlord retaliation, a rent increase, or an eviction.

We learned that regular proactive inspections were the only way to hold irresponsible landlords accountable.

We met with you in June and September to share our research and discuss what to include in a rental registry.

You asked us to attend the first public hearing and provide our support for your original proposal, which incorporated our main recommendations.

We turned out nearly 100 BRED members and provided multiple statements from our members in support of key provisions we wanted, especially proactive inspections to take the burden off renters for having to report unsafe conditions.

We understand that following the hearing, you heard from other key stakeholders.

We received the dramatically revised proposal and met with city staff to understand the changes.

Brad determined that we were willing to accept the greatly scaled down proposal, except for two crucial items.

First, we want the city to set clear outcome measures in the first years so we know what is working and what needs improvement.

Second, and most importantly, under the new proposal, 99% of landlords would simply attest to that property that it's up to code without any independent inspections.

Thus, the new system still depends on renter complaints when landlords refuse to make needed repairs.

The city has already recognized that the complaint driven system does not work.

Councilmember Bankston, as you committed to us before, we are asking you to include some form of proactive inspections on a on a representative sample of units in the first years of the program.

This will put all landlords on notice that they must have their properties in safe and well maintained condition or face enforcement from the city.

We want a system that protects renters now.

Thank you.

Well, uh, thank you, uh Ms.

Chamberlain, and thank you, you know, Kathy, and to the entire bread organization, and I appreciate that.

Um again, I everything for me is about context.

What I said was I would absolutely propose something that has proactive code enforcement, and that is what we did.

That has always been my intention.

I think through not only feedback from uh the uh folks that we've other engaged with, but also the process by which that is, it is a larger barrier.

But I think that we want to continue to work with you to figure out how we get there.

Uh, the biggest point of this is how are we addressing uh the bad landlords and those stories that we hear, right?

And I will be clear.

You and I know this, and we've talked about this.

There are even landlords in Bred's organization that had stepped up and testified here.

99 percent, I would say, just as much as there's 99 percent of our tenants, 99 percent of our landlords are good folks doing what they're supposed to do.

Right.

Maybe it's not necessarily again, maybe it's not granite countertops and stainless steel property, stainless steel appliances, but they are providing safe and decent housing.

That is not what this is about.

This is about that one percent that comes to us, comes to you all that every single day that this is happening.

So that's where we I think that this proposal focuses that.

But again, I will say this is still a proposal.

We're gonna continue to engage with you all.

I know that what I wasn't able to be at this last update meeting, and I apologize for that because I had a conflict, but my aide was there, and we did talk about what does it look like to have proactive code enforcement for uh the portfolio that is the rental registry.

Right now, that doesn't give us the insight of what's happening in the building, but I think if we can see uh huge glaring issues outside, that helps us to get to a place where we can talk about what is the condition on the inside.

So I think that we still uh have uh room to talk, uh room to get to a place that helps uh meet middle ground.

But I said to this room uh the the the last time that I want when we don't get what we want to continue to engage.

So I want to thank Brett and all of you for being here for continuing to engage because that means a lot to us.

It means a lot to the process uh as we move forward, right?

I I told folks on the call the other day, I was like, they were all cheering for me in the first hearing.

Now they're gonna come up with pitch uh forks and tar for this.

That's fine, because that's what we said was going to happen.

Um, but I think that this is a part of the process.

So I want to thank you all for engaging in it from the very beginning uh and being uh I think leaders out front on this issue and continue to push us.

We announced this, um, and I think that you all made sure that we held it accountable to it.

And so we're going to continue to do that.

So thank you again uh for being here.

Thank you very much.

Uh next we have Deb Krantz, followed by Beth Fetzer Rice, uh, and then on deck we have Raymond Holser in that order.

Hi, um, I'm Deb Kranz.

I'm a member of the Central Ohio Real Estate Entrepreneurs.

I am here speaking on my own behalf, though, not as a part of the organization.

Thank you.

And I want to thank you, Councilmember Bankston, for the opportunity to testify on this proposal.

I didn't expect to be called up quite so soon, but I would expect that I would echo many of the sentiments against the implementation of the rental registry and the inspection requirement.

I am both a rental housing provider and a lender to other rental housing providers.

If my borrowers all sell their properties in Columbus, as some have already and many plan to do as a result of this, and they pay off their loans due to the onerous and largely unnecessary regulations, that will negatively impact my business.

If Columbus is no longer an attractive investment location for small investors, which is who I lend to, I would have no choice but to look elsewhere for business prospects.

Um population, and I love that that's the population that is being identified and focused on.

I think that makes perfect sense.

Somebody mentioned uh somewhere between two and a half and four million dollars to be uh uh uh gathered as a result of the the fees, but I haven't seen how those are actually going to be dispensed.

Um as has been pointed out, the registry won't make rentals any more affordable.

It won't prevent a water line from bursting or a furnace from failing at the worst possible time.

These things happen, and responsible property owners take care of them post-haste.

Irresponsible property owners don't and likely have violations that provide the story that should be followed.

In my experience as a lender, I personally observe the failing of code enforcement and City of Columbus prosecutors to hold egregious violators accountable for the collateral that secures the loans that I've made, accepting excuse after excuse for repairs not being made in a timely manner.

I would ask you to make better laws and less bureaucracy for the departments to follow.

Like many property owners, property taxes on my rental properties increased substantially in 2025.

In my case, property taxes rose between 175% and 325% across my portfolio.

It's quite a windfall for Franklin County.

It's a windfall that amounts to approximately 18 million dollars to the Franklin County General Fund.

Rather than duplicating a rental registry, I urge this committee to demand that Franklin County alter and enforce their rental registry for properties in the City of Columbus, and within demonstrated reason and law, make it more useful for your purposes.

More support should be allocated to pursue the most problematic property owners through diligent and timely code enforcement.

Thank you again for your time.

Thank you, uh Ms.

Kranz.

I do have one question which you said you know of being someone who lends to folks.

What about this makes our market unattractive?

If again everything is on the up and up and it's 20 bucks, what what would make that in unattractive for investors?

I I speak for myself and I would also speak for my borrowers.

I don't force inspections upon them as the lender.

It's not really something that we do.

There is a trust factor, and we would rely on code enforcement to provide us with any violations, of course, that that would be occurring.

Part of that problem is as the lender, I I don't get copies of those, so I don't really have a way of uh enforcing it myself.

So there are a lot of uh I think we spoke on a call.

Uh there are uh housing providers that are saying this is just one more thing that I'm gonna have to comply with.

There's an expense associated with it that I'm already allocating a small amount, but some amount to uh having someone responsible on the Franklin County registry.

Uh it it's just one more obstacle.

We're we're doing our best to provide a very good product, and we're selective about the people that uh are able to enjoy that product, and we expect some things of them as well.

So there's there's a push and pull, and when it feels like there's too much push or a little more push than there is pull, then some people will just say, you know what, it's just not worth it.

I've seen it happen in other communities.

I've seen it happen in Cincinnati in particular, and I've seen it happen in in Cleveland as well.

I don't want to see that happen in Columbus.

I think we have a vibrant community, and 99% of us are well within the regulations and and providing good housing for folks.

The one percent are the are the people that um are making it bad for everybody.

Again, the collective punishment is really what I push that into.

Got it.

Thank you for that.

And um just for that clarification, I do want to say to one thing that you mentioned that we have mentioned in previous hearings that I didn't mention this time is that we are working uh to ensure that uh if you submit information to us that that will go to the county registry and that those compliances work together so that helps to relieve some of that administrative burden.

But absolutely hear um some of your concerns, and thank you again for engaging with us.

My pleasure, thank you.

Next we have uh Beth Fetzer Rice, uh Raymond Holser is on deck, and then Aaron Sink after that.

Good to see you again.

Good to see you.

Uh good evening, council members, Bankston and Batty, and important city staff behind me.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in favor of Columbus's proposed rental registry.

My name is Beth Fetzer Rice, and I'm the CEO of a local nonprofit called Home for Families.

As a valuable partner agency working within Columbus's homelessness response system, Home for Families rehouses more than 1,200 families per year who are experiencing homelessness and severe housing insecurity.

We are proud partners of the city's resilient housing initiative and the city's vacated tenants program, where we work with partners to stabilize and rehouse Columbus families displaced by code enforcement action.

As a front line provider, we see every day how critical safe stable housing is to the health of our families, our youth, and our community.

Working with landlords, uh, low-income housing landlords is a really important part of our work at home for families.

These landlords are essential allies in our mission, and we are not proponents of regulations that would place undue burdens on them, anything that would lead to rent increases, or for them to stop working with us entirely.

Of our extensive landlord base, the majority are kind, they're responsible, and they treat our families with fairness and dignity.

There are, however, a percentage who do not meet these standards.

These are the landlords who repeatedly neglect our tenants and our requests for maintenance.

They ignore code enforcement, and they put our family safety and security at risk.

Families that struggle to find housing in the first place, and then also are highly, highly vulnerable.

That is why I believe a rental registry is so important.

We have seen what can happen when accountability is diminished or absent.

Colonial village latitude 525 are painful reminders of the damage that can occur.

Hundreds of residents displaced, families and individuals forced into shelters that are already stretched to the breaking point, and millions of dollars spent on emergency damage control.

Millions of dollars that could have gone toward proactive and preventable solutions supporting homelessness and affordable housing.

A rental registry is an important initiative that can help us shift from reaction to prevention.

It protects families by holding landlords accountable before conditions deteriorate to a community crisis, and it supports responsible landlords by distinguishing them from those with habitual violations.

I'd like to acknowledge and thank City Council for your commitment, your ongoing commitment to addressing our region's affordable housing crisis through your suite of housing for all policy proposals and initiatives.

You've demonstrated leadership and vision for our community.

I see the rental registry as a natural complement to these efforts.

In closing a rental registry is a powerful step forward.

One that's needed to help ensure the housing we fight so hard to create and preserve is truly safe and sustainable for our families and our community.

On behalf of my organization, Home for Families and the Families and the Youth We Serve, thank you for your time tonight and your commitment to housing justice.

Thank you again, Beth and Thank you for all the work that you're doing on the front line.

As you know, we were partners in this work when I was at Gladden Community House.

And I know that we talk about those glaring things of uh colonial village and latitude and what happened there.

And I would say to folks, although those are outliers, if we had a registry uh in place, the repetitive cycle of properties like that that just transfer from one LLC to the other LLC without addressing any of the concerns just to squeeze as much profit as they can out of it and then resell it again, that wouldn't have been able to happen.

Absolutely.

And I think those code orders that were there, they wouldn't have been able to transfer that registry without addressing those first.

Yes.

And so also we would have been able to get ahead of it and been able to be more proactive and not spend eight million dollars of taxpayer dollars.

That's right.

That's eight million dollars that honestly could have gone into our emergency rental assistance program that has gone back to help very good landlords who are probably in this room today.

Absolutely.

That has gone back to help very good landlords who were probably in this room today.

So that is, I would want to say when we talk about those outsized ones, because everyone thinks that those are just anomalies.

Yes, they are, but they are very much get at even some of those vacates that we see every single day at the single family and duplex level.

So I just want to clarify that this again is not the same as the county registry.

It is not just checking a box, it is giving us a tool that really can help to set an atmosphere here that if you were going to be a housing provider, that there are stipulations to providing that housing.

And so I just wanted to clarify that point.

I wanted to underscore that because I think that we kind of just gloss over it sometimes because we don't want to just pick at those two because it's not what the majority of folks are, and we know that, but those are clear examples that would show us that if this was in place, it could have been avoided.

Right.

I'm sorry, I think I interrupted you when you know that's okay.

I I I completely agree.

I think one of the things that I think is is most important is that not being able to just kind of transfer your pro your problems and have you know kind of sell your way out of it.

Um providers knew for a very long time that both of those um complexes they had issues and they just kept getting sold and and really felt powerless to do anything.

And we're still um as a community dealing with the the fallout from that.

We lost hundreds and hundreds of units that will not be replaced, you know, um, and colonial villages back it up and and hopefully doing well.

But um affordable housing crisis is so real, and our families have you know what I think it's now four units or maybe even five low-income units for every one family that needs it.

We need to preserve and take care of every single one we have.

So that's why I'm in favor of this.

I know you know I'm not trying to punish good good landlords, we have lots of them, but um, it's really the ones that are you know when we're working with code enforcement, you know, we see the effect on families and kids.

Uh, that's it's not necessary.

Yeah, thank you again for for all your work.

Thank you.

Uh next is uh Raymond Holser, followed by Aaron Sink and then Michael Goosman in that order.

Raymond Holser going once.

Nope.

Councilman.

Oh, go ahead.

I'm sorry, Commentary.

The the issue of the um county registry keeps um coming up.

Um as I recall from the first hearing, we had some testimony and also a written document from the county auditor, which um spoke to the uh I would almost it was almost a report of self-deficiency as to that um the the current county registry.

I don't know if you or the director could speak, could think back to that hearing and what were the high points of that testimony about what they said was missing.

And and I'll let uh Deputy Director Jones uh opine on that because I think she probably has some more details, but I would say to your point, I think overwhelmingly what we heard from the Franklin County auditor himself is that there were uh limitations to what he is able to do, uh, and that he also gave us even recommendations to strengthen what we were even uh proposing.

So even our county auditor who manages uh the registry per the ORC understands its limitations, but also more importantly, I think understands the limitations of his office from an enforcement compliance standpoint, and also that their job is just simply to check a box and to collect information.

It is not to get at some of the health and safety issues that we're trying to adjust with ours.

Uh Deputy Director Jones, I don't know if you want to you probably may have some more details that than I do.

I don't have no, I think uh council members, you both recall correctly, and um this team is here with us because they just passed down the letter to us.

So um, I mean, I will just read directly from his letter, which was to reiterate that due to the statute um for which the ORC governs the rental registry at the county level is constructed, it has limited enforcement authority and minimal penalties for a non-compliance as a result of these shortcomings.

It is difficult to ensure adequate participation, which then undermines the registry's effectiveness for the county.

Um flexibility to create requirements and collect information that's valuable to the municipality versus what the ORC outlines.

So back to them not being duplicative because it is different information that we are requesting, different opportunities to integrate data.

And then as the auditor has pointed out and others have, the ORC limits his ability to actually make any improvements and create better alignment for efficiency of one singular registry countywide.

Thank you for that, um Deputy Director.

And shout out to Graham.

I'm like, that wasn't even uh like a plan.

Quase just had the letter just ready to go.

So there you go.

Um so I think we said Raymond Halster is not here, so we'll move on to Aaron Sink.

There we go.

Um Michael Goosman, you were on deck, and then followed by Michael will be Remington Lyman.

So if you all could just get in that order.

Aaron, floor is yours.

Yes, I'm Aaron Sink.

So I uh a local landlord and um I've had properties for quite a few years here in Columbus, and any time we've ever had an issue with code enforcement, you know, I call them directly, reach out to them, and send them an email and say, hey, tell them what tell us what we need to do, let's get this done and closed.

So I've actually bought in a handful of the problem properties that you know have gone through the environmental process and stuff like that.

So I'm very familiar with a lot of the issues that exist.

And while I'm all for change, I feel like we need to go after that one percent on a greater level.

So a perfect example, I have a rental property, and two years ago, the house next door was hit by the SWAT team.

And I mean, it was a drug house.

It was it was a lot of problems.

My tenants were calling 311.

I had called 311.

So the SWAT team hit the house, blew out all the windows, cleared the people out.

Two years later, they have not fixed those windows.

That house is still a vacant house.

There's unhoused folks going in and out all the time.

The city's constantly out there.

The city's in contact with that property owner, they just do nothing.

So is there a way, you know, if if you do something along the registry, is there a way that you can put penalties on this one percent, you know, special assessment taxes, whatever it might be, so that these folks, I mean, honestly, in a way to kind of push them to sell, right?

If you're not gonna fix up the property, get rid of it.

I mean, you know, it's been two years, and we have to look at that every time we go over there.

And I feel like, you know, uh charging a fee, you know, to the to the good folks that really aren't causing a problem could, you know, that that that's kind of it's treating everybody in the same bucket, but I think we should go after the bad actors on a deeper level that you know than we have in the past.

I mean, there you could drive by today and there's code violations on the door.

I I mean I who has a house that has broken windows for two years.

It's an out-of-city investor, a local Ohio investor.

Code enforcement knows them, they've spoken with them, they just refuse to fix it.

Yeah.

And thank you for that.

Um your testimony, Mr.

Sink, and thank you for uh being one of our good housing providers that are investing in our neighborhoods.

I think that is some of the deficiencies we see with the current system and the legal process.

And I apologize if our city attorney isn't here because then they could probably give you all the legal lease.

Uh Director Messer, I don't know if you want to speak to again that that lengthy process that we typically uh uh have to go through uh with the court system and and and we're when we're talking about these kinds of situations.

Yeah, sure, thank you.

Um it is true that um we struggle sometimes with enforcement on some of our more um irresponsible uh landlords around the city, but we are aggressive.

We do partner uh regularly with the city attorney to hold folks accountable, uh, go through our environmental court system, but but yes, the the legal process can be laborious and um a lot of technicalities and a lot of notice requirements and a lot of hearings and a lot of court schedule issues uh and attorneys get involved and it just can become very cumbersome, as you point out.

Um we're very hopeful that this registry will be another tool in our toolbox to be able to deal with uh some of those uh landlords.

Um but I also want to focus on while that is a big part of this, uh, we're also very excited about a lot of the information and data collection and other uh things that we're gonna get from this registry that can help us as a city uh being more strategic and and moving forward.

But um the enforcement piece is definitely something that's gonna be uh an extra tool in our toolbox that I'm looking forward to.

And one other thing that uh Mr.

Sink um mentioned, director, if you could speak to it.

I think you've spoken to it before.

I probably can't probably can't speak to it as a city attorney, but the targeting um of certain type of properties and why we have to have a program that looks at an entire portfolio or looks at the entire city and why uh there's been case law and things that we've come up against when we simply try to just target certain folks.

Yeah, I think that's a good summary.

It's very challenging for us as a government entity to uh we have to comply with a lot of the uh state law and court cases and case law that have been passed, and and you know some of our more problematic landlords have been very successful at challenging um efforts that we take that are targeted type of efforts, where um you know we can all sit in here and say, well, why don't you just spend all of your time on the one percent uh and just ignore the 99 percent?

Well, that does have some legal challenges.

There's some legal issues that arise from that, where um you know uh just targeting folks that we think are bad actors ends up uh with some constitutional uh problems.

Thank you for that.

But but I will say I I definitely took a note here around uh to your point around the penalty and fines piece.

How do we again we make it more painful for those bad actors to operate in our city?

So again, thank you for that and hope you continue to engage in the process.

Thanks for your time.

Absolutely.

Next is Michael Goosman.

Michael, don't think I see him.

Um Remington Lyman, let's see, Remington, come on up.

Also, then on the deck, I'm sorry, is Michael P.

Edwards, followed by Donnie Thompson.

Remington, welcome to council.

Yeah, thank you, Councilman Bankson.

Um good evening.

My name is Remington Lyman.

I'm a small business owner, and I'm the broker of Reefco Real Estate on Parsons Avenue.

We have about 40 licensed real estate agents, and many of them are also small business owners, landlords, and independent real estate professionals.

I'm asking you to oppose this proposal because it adds fees, paperwork, and bureaucracy without actually fixing the properties that cause the problems.

Ninety-nine percent of landlords, like you said, already maintained their units, follow the rules.

This registry creates new costs for responsible operators while barely affecting the small number of true problem properties.

The city already has enforcement tools.

Please use those before creating a system that repeats information that the city already has.

These added fees and compliance requirements will raise rents, push out small mom and pop owners like myself, and make Columbus less attractive for new housing investments.

When those owners leave, large institutional buyers move in and affordability drops.

And relying on self-attestation doesn't stop the bad actors.

The city should focus enforcement on the handful of addresses with repeat violations instead of creating new rules for everyone.

I urge you to slow this down, target enforcement where it is actually needed, and avoid a registry that will reduce affordable housing and increase costs for Columbus residents.

Thank you.

Thank you, um.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh Lyman, and I appreciate you engaging.

I know that we've had uh several conversations, and so uh I think a lot of that feedback uh has been incorporated in this review and will continue to engage with you.

Uh next we have Michael P.

Edwards, followed by Donnie Thompson, and then and I pronounce uh my mood, Samuel Dioff, and I apologize if I butchered that, please correct me.

Michael, thank you for coming to council.

Good evening, Councilman, and thank you.

Um thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Um, my name is Michael Edwards, and I am a housing and community economic development attorney at legal aid.

Uh much of my work at uh legal aid focuses on representing tenants facing housing conditions problems and other struggles with their landlords.

I want to start to say that Columbus has many excellent landlords, people who fix problems right away and take pride in providing safe homes.

But our current rental safety system doesn't distinguish them from the minority who chronically neglect their properties or retaliate against tenants.

And because code enforcement is reactive, usually responding only to after a tenant complaint, the city never sees many dangerous units.

Tenants are often too afraid of retaliation to report issues, meaning some of our worst properties have no document documented violations at all.

I refer to you, I refer you to the client that we mentioned at the last hearing, Irene.

Previously homeless, Irene sought assistance from a community organization to get connected to a landlord with an available single family house for herself and her family.

Unfortunately, from the moment she entered that property, the conditions were uninhabitable.

Irene was too afraid to contact code enforcement.

It was only after legal aid got involved that they were brought in, and when code enforcement stepped in, that landlord retaliated against her.

Shutting off her water.

That's why relying on landlords self at a station, while is useful, can be risky.

Under the current proposal, many properties can simply certify that they meet housing code standards, even if no inspector has set foot in the building.

We already know affidavits can't be relied on.

Our own TEF District Court of Appeals and its eviction by affidavit in 2020 because affidavits alone weren't trustworthy.

We shouldn't rely on them to certify housing safety either.

So we're proposing three possible improvements.

Option one, keep self at a station but as accountability by placing all self-attested units into a pool and randomly inspect a small percentage each year.

This increases visibility to code and test the accuracy of the landlord's certifications.

Option two requires the city to eventually inspect every self-attested property on a rolling basis over several years instead of one.

This again gives code enforcement the capacity to continue focusing on higher risk properties, the one percent, while still ensuring full oversight.

Option three eliminates self-addestation altogether and requires an inspection for every property.

Recognizing capacity limits of code enforcement, landlords could use licensed third party home inspectors to ensure honesty, the inspectors must be licensed.

The city, not the landlord, should pay them and increase the fee for registration to cover those costs.

Code enforcement must set strict inspection standards for those third party inspectors so every inspector follows that same checklist.

Any of those options would dramatically improve the reliability of the registry and prevent unsafe units from slipping through the cracks.

If I could, Mr.

Minutes, three seconds more.

Also, the local operator requirement we would like to address.

The current proposal allows a landlord with 10 or more units to designate any Ohio licensed realtor, even one who lives out of state as a local operator.

A tenant with a flooded apartment can't rely on someone in New Jersey to manage an emergency.

We propose requiring that the licensed realtor, Ohio licensed realtor who also lives within 100 miles of the rental unit.

This would ensure the tenants have someone nearby who they can respond to.

And also a local operator must have authority to start repairs, at least for emergency violations.

Many times our tenant clients get caught between a property manager who blames the owner for not authorizing repair and an owner who blames the property manager for not requesting authority.

The safety of Columbus residents should not be left up to who wins the blame game.

Requiring authority to start repairs, speeds remedy, promoting safe housing and legal compliance.

These reforms don't punish responsible landlords, they protect them.

They stop negligent operators from undercutting those who play by the rules.

And most importantly, they protect tenants who have been afraid to speak up.

Again, I thank you for our time today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Edwards, for the work you do with uh legal aid as well as for those recommendations that did take note of those.

One thing that you did bring up that I think was a change that I'm gonna have either uh Deputy Director Jones or Graham talk about is that local operator piece.

Yes.

That was specifically, I think, tied to some of uh engagement that we had, particularly with our real estate individuals about licensure and that type of thing.

But I'm gonna let Graham or uh Deputy Director Jones speak to that because they can speak to it much more eloquently than I can.

Sure.

Yeah, so the exceptions we have for the local operator are there's two of them.

One is that if you have an if you're a licensed real estate agent in Ohio, um there is no local operator.

And the the thinking behind that was that a person with a license essentially has skin in the game, that even if they're living in New Jersey, their license is at risk if they fail to maintain the property.

So we felt a little bit more comfortable giving them leeway because they do have a license.

There is kind of an existing accountability structure there.

Um and for the the second one was for small owners if you own less than 10 total units, you have um you don't necessarily need a local operator who is you know has taken on legal responsibility for the property.

A lot of these smaller owners are just simply not going to have uh a professional property management company.

They're kind of handling stuff on a case-by-case basis.

I think code feels pretty confident that in those those kind of one-off situations, you know, they they can handle them.

Um we don't want to burden kind of your typical snowbird who might be running out to a family member or something like that, requiring them to go out and hire a company.

Understood.

Uh thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

And if if I may um just wanted to respond to that, that um the expediency is something that we've uh experienced with our clients as far as uh having someone available, and and that's why we bring these proposals because there are a lot of often times where our clients will not have anyone to talk to uh reach out to in those emergency situations, um, regardless of the size of the property.

And so that's why we were even with someone who has skin in the game, have someone nearby or at least within a general radius of being able to respond.

That's that was all I got.

And I I will just add, I don't know if that was in the slide, and I apologize if it wasn't.

Even if you don't have a local operator who is like legal can care control of the property, you still have to identify an emergency contact.

We would be flexible in who that is.

There needs to be someone local that picks up the phone.

Um, we're flexible as who that would be in those in those situations when it's a smaller on air.

And who would have authority to do the repairs?

That was something else that was important too, because sometimes we talk to people say they talk to them and they say, Well, we don't have the authority, we have to get back to you, and that becomes something more of a delay.

Yeah.

Thank you for that call out.

Thank you.

Uh next we have Donnie Thompson followed by Mama Do Samuel Diofa.

I think uh hopefully pronounced it better that time.

And then followed then by Christopher Jackson and Donnie.

Yeah, good evening.

Thank you so much for allowing me the time to speak here tonight.

Uh my name is Donnie Thompson, realtor and property manager with Real Solution Realty.

I have been a residential property manager in Columbus since 2005 and also an investor in the same market.

I currently manage over 1,600 units in the Franklin County with more than 400 owners worldwide that own those actual properties.

A large majority of my clients have come from other property managers or brokers who prefer not to handle the type of housing that my team specializes in, primarily affordable housing and Section 8 rentals.

We currently manage over 400 Section 8 homes here in Columbus.

Every one of my clients understands both the risk and the potential costs associated with purchasing and maintaining these properties.

I understand them as well, both as an investor and as the owner of a property management company.

Nearly 20 years ago, I knew that this would be my niche, and I've worked very hard to achieve that type of business.

In two decades, I have raised my management fees only once.

I know the financial pressures investors face, and I strive to provide the best service possible at a reasonable rate to give them every opportunity that to remain profitable.

And I also ensure that owner understands the value of maintaining a quality home, doing so allows us to rent units faster, retain tenants longer, and reduce turnover costs.

Our company receives over 200 city code violations per year.

I believe we maintain an excellent reputation with City Code officers.

Many of them contact me directly when they see that I am the registered local contact on the county's required registry.

Over the past year, we have seen declines in rental amounts for both self-pay and section eight tenants, while property insurance and taxes have increased significantly.

These pressures have created a major burden for my owner clients.

Several have already chosen to sell their portfolios because of the profit margins have dropped so drastically.

I mention all this because any additional costs imposed by the city, whether on management companies or property owners must be paid from somewhere.

These increases will not result in a free pass for the tenants.

If my costs rise, my management fees will have to increase.

If owners' costs rise, rents will have to increase.

And when the rents rise, we lose a large portion of our applicants who cannot afford the so-called affordable housing.

And we work extremely hard to prevent these situations from turning into evictions by securing rental assistance.

The majority of our tenants never get evicted.

However, if rents rise to offset new costs combined with the challenges of placing new tenants at a higher price price points, we could easily see that number double.

While rental assistance approvals decline, the results will be more displacement and fewer housing off uh options for low income residents.

At the end of the day, it is not the owner's responsibility to create a financial safety net for tenants who cannot pay, but increasing operational costs for landlords and management companies inevitably results in higher rents, reduced housing availability and graze and greater instability for the very households that they are trying to protect along with myself.

I just thank you for the consideration and having me talk.

No.

And thank you for that, Mr.

Thompson.

I think throughout this process, uh the cost and burden to renters has been uh loud and clear and is uh front of mind for me.

And so thinking through uh that budget, how much this costs us, we're going through that with a fine tooth and comb.

Um we haven't done this before, and so it's really hypothetical.

And so before we're not at that phase just yet, as well as finalizing this.

Uh, I will say to folks that even after that, uh, there will be a process by which we review this and look at it before we get to what that true final price is.

But I think that we've done some good research, but we're looking at it as well to make sure that the costs do align uh and that we are trying to minimize as much as the burden as possible on uh landlords, but we definitely hear you on that, and so appreciate your advocacy.

Sure, thank you.

Uh next is Mama Do Samuel D.

Of course, I think the more I say it, I get better at it.

Uh Christopher Jackson is next, and then Terry uh Summers.

Awesome.

All right, good evening, counsel.

And it's uh Mama Doo Samuel Juf.

Um that's my name.

So I'm a real estate agent and investor here in Columbus.

Um I work with a lot of clients, you know, from all walks of life.

Um of the biggest things that I've seen in other markets, so I work in Cleveland as well, where there already is those regulations, um, is the strain that it puts on small investors and everyday people that are trying to get into real estate.

Um I'm working on a deal right now up in Cleveland where the owner bought the property a year ago.

Without the he did not know the severity of how the city worked with the rental registration.

He bought the property from another investor who sold it to him that didn't take good care of the property, and there was already a tenant in place.

So he essentially bought someone else's problem, and now he was responsible for fixing that.

Um, once he got into this situation, the city started coming after him for the property and making the repairs that he needed to do.

Um, but the way that they did that was very bureaucratic.

Um, and he has been in the core process for the last eight months, figuring out what he needs to do.

And uh his sense just decided to sell.

Even in the process of him selling, he needs the approval from the city, and that is already taken four months when someone could have already came in and bought the property and made it up to college so these tenants that are living there could have had a better quality of life.

So that's one of my biggest concerns with this, that that might happen in Columbus.

Um, another thing is for people who are in real estate 24 hours, you know, 24-7.

It's not gonna be that big of a deal for them.

It's just gonna be another you know, obstacle that of many for people who haven't been able to get into real estate who are trying to build wealth for themselves or trying to build wealth for families.

This might just be you know another obstacle that just discourages them even further for getting into this industry and trying to produce wealth for their family.

Um with that also being said, these costs as they continue to increase, which I've seen in Cleveland, them continuing to get more and more expensive rents will also rise, which will make it harder for tenants to pay their rents, and it'll just be harder for them to you know eventually create wealth for themselves as well.

They'll stuck, they'll be stuck in the cycle of living paycheck to paycheck, and that's not you know what I would I'd want for you know, everyday people.

I'd want everybody to have a chance to eventually get into the position where they can create wealth for themselves as well, and not for someone else.

So I don't think the big corporations is gonna affect them at all.

And if one percent of the people are the reason that this is even becoming a thing, I think it's still could it's still something that needs to be addressed, but I just would that think that making it more efficient and more directed towards the people who are responsible for this even being at issue would be a better matter to go.

So, yeah, thank you.

And thank you, Mamadou, for your uh testimony, and I think for that unique perspective, particularly of uh those that are trying to create wealth for themselves.

Uh, we definitely don't want to create obstacles there.

You know, you mentioned Cleveland, and I think that has been a big reference point for us uh because they have been the longest probably standing one, I believe, in the state of Ohio.

There's also a learning uh point from us, right?

Uh why we're going through this process the way that we are is that this is not Cleveland.

This is not Cincinnati, this is not Dayton, uh, this is Columbus, and we are going to do things uh our way that works for us.

And so I thank you for pointing that out.

I I'll just I'll clarify with that that sale and what we have.

Uh the fact that you're talking about in Cleveland where he can't even sell it without city approval.

That is not anywhere in our proposal.

Uh, what that registry would do is when that person uh sells their property and and they get ready to go transfer that registry, uh, they would become immediately aware of what those orders are and be brought into compliance, right?

This is not simply about trying to, I think uh uh intervene in the real estate and transactions.

That is not what this is at all.

Um, also, I will say uh interesting that you because you've been doing business up in Cleveland, right?

Those fees are much higher than what we're talking about here.

I think the inspections and a lot of things that they require are much more invasive than we are here.

Talk to me about if there's any other things or guess what you see in the change ones uh that we should point out or be aware of that you have seen in Cleveland that aren't working or other places that you may be operating.

Yeah, one of them just being the inspections and then what goes on after the inspection.

So in Cleveland, I've just seen it kind of be a creep where they set one, they set you know, set up one standard, and then they continue to add on to it.

So, for example, in certain municipalities of Cleveland, there's the point of sale inspection that's required that basically requires the unit to be inspected before it's sold.

Um, but with that inspection, certain items need to be taken care of for them to even sell the property.

And a lot of these owners who are selling, maybe they're in you know financial burdens to where they can't afford to make those repairs before they sell.

Um, but the person that's purchasing them now needs to assume those violations, and with that, they're assuming additional risk because it has to be done through the court of law, and with that, it's decreasing property values in some of those areas and making it a lot more challenging for repairs to be done.

They also have to oversee, you know, every single step of the process with those.

So if it's just you know a small item it that would usually take you know two weeks to be done.

I've seen it take you know one to two months.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

Well, thank you for that call out.

And I like I said, we want to make sure that uh this is something that works for uh Columbus.

So again, thank you for being here.

And ask that you continue to engage with us as we continue move forward.

Yeah, well, thanks for letting me speak.

Absolutely.

Next is Christopher Jackson, then again, Terry Summers, uh, followed by Daryl Jacobs.

Do you guys need a higher lectern?

This is for short people.

We'll we'll pick you, Abis.

Uh good evening, Councilmember Bingston.

Uh, my name's Christopher Jackson.

I serve as the vice president of operations for 601 West Companies, a New York based company, but I'm a proud uh resident here in Columbus.

I stand before you in strong opposition to the proposed Columbus rental registry.

While I fully support safe, quality, and equitable housing across our city, this registry does not move us closer to that goal.

Instead, it creates a new layer of bureaucracy that will burden responsible property owners, increase operating costs, and ultimately harm the very residents it's intended to protect.

First, the registry adds another financial and administrative mandate at a time when the Columbus is already facing a rising housing cost.

Inflation, uh inflation pressure and layer uh labor shortage across the property management industry.

Many of us are working hard every day to maintain properties, respond to residents' needs, and create stable communities.

Additional fees and reporting requirements will not improve housing conditions, they will simply increase operational expenses that by necessity flow down to residents in form of higher rent.

We cannot claim to support affordability while passing policies that directly undermined it.

Second, this registry duplicates systems that already exist.

Property owners are already required to simply uh to comply with local code enforcement, state uh landlord and tenant laws, federal fair housing, and numerous layers of reporting.

Columbus has multiple tools to address problem properties today.

Instead of building another database, expand oversight um of staff.

We should strengthen the enforcement processes that we already have and focus resources on the minority of actors who are truly negligent rather than penalizing the entire industry.

Third, this registry does not address the root cause of housing instability.

Poor property conditions are often linked to aging housing style, lack of resources and outdated infrastructure.

If this goal is better housing, the solution is investment, not paperwork.

What we need are collaborative programs that encourage reinvestment in older communities, support rehabilitation, expand the inspections where necessary, and build partnerships with owners who are willing to improve their properties.

A registry alone does not produce safer homes.

Finally, we must consider the broader impact on Columbus's competitiveness.

Our city is growing, and we must continue to attract developers, housing providers, and investors who will help meet that demand.

Policies that create additional friction undermine that progress.

A registry may seem simple on paper, but in practice, it is simple, that it's just not gonna work to help combat the difficult environments that we operate in.

We got two more seconds.

Absolutely.

Let us focus on collaboration, not complication.

Let us invest in what works, not hinder the people doing the work.

And let us continue to choose policy that protects residents without unintentionally pricing them out.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Jackson, for your advocacy and all the work you do in our community with all the many hats that you wear.

I will say this.

I think you brought up a point that has been very clear to us, and we are talking about that as a city as well, that this isn't just simply about a stick.

It is also about uh how do we direct our investments.

So when we talk about very limited resources that we have now from emergency rental assistance, right?

Compliance with the registry would allow you, as even the landlord to have access to those types of things.

We think about our bond dollars from a preservation standpoint, it's not simply uh about our homeowners, which is very critical when I think about our low-income homeowners and or those on a fixed income like seniors, but it is also housing providers to make sure that they have access uh to help with uh uh uh mitigating standards, right?

So that is major damages that are done to a property.

Let's talk about what we can come up with to make sure that that unit stays affordable and stays in uh operations because for us, uh any unit that's not in productive use is adding to our crisis.

And so I think for us, we are having those active conversations now that again, compliance with this registry would also uh allow you access to other incentives that we are working on.

So I want to make sure that we continue to engage with you on that, but absolutely hear you uh on the compliance piece and particularly uh the competitive piece.

As the economic development chair, um, I take that seriously.

I don't want to necessarily jeopardize our economic competitiveness, uh, but I also uh think about again our tenants uh and our residents as well and making sure that we have that balance.

So we hopefully we'll get to something that is balanced and that we can uh all necessarily live with, may not like, but something that we can all live with.

And I appreciate that.

I I think um as some of the speakers before, like uh homes for family.

We we have our company has worked uh to make sure that we do what we need to do with them.

Um but compliance, I think when I hear compliance for landlords, compliance also starts uh in a uh back at the home base, keep your house clean, you know, do do these different things, and uh a code enforcement is not gonna change that.

I think that for us, we we work real hard to make sure we do what we need to do.

Um, but when we um are hearing uh you know all these check marks that have to be done, it just it's hard to want to do business.

Yeah, um, and you know, for us, we we have uh nine markets.

Uh I love the Columbus market the best, but to go back to my investors and say, hey, this is what's going on, um, they're already raising eyes.

Thank you so much for the question.

Well, thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

Uh next is Terry Summers, followed by Daryl Jacobs, and then Rosalind Mae.

Terry Summers, no Terry Summers, okay.

Darrell Jacobs.

Come on up.

And then Miss Rosalyn, followed then by uh Mr.

Nathaniel Wilkins.

Darrell, welcome to council.

Thank you, uh Councilman.

Thank you, Director Messer and Director Jones for allowing me to speak today.

Um my name is Daryl Jacobs.

I am the pop in that mom and pop uh landlord category.

I have a handful of single family homes.

Um as it relates to the rental registry, uh, I am registered with the county, as you've heard.

Um they collect and have collected the data for um landlords.

I hope that the city can export that data and to another portal and then go ahead and modify it to suit your needs.

And I hope that you could do it free of charge, realizing as many have said before, that any type of expenses is going to ultimately impact the rents.

Well, that's not relevant to what we're saying the purpose is.

So, and I've heard others talk about well, it would be nice to gather this information.

And I'm sure there are a lot of information that it would be nice to gather, but I think for the integrity of the program, we should stick to the things that are relevant so we stay true to what we said the purpose of the registry is for.

Okay, what are the fears that you have?

Because in order to get to where we want to get to long term, we need those tenants to call in and report it.

So if they have fears, let's work with them, let's find out why.

And if landlords retaliate, then let's deal with that.

But to circumvent that call, first of all, I don't think it strengthens your legal position.

Having those calls, having those complaints on record helps your legal position.

Skirting around those calls is just going to create a bigger mess.

Then tenants are going to no longer believe that it's their responsibility to make those calls.

So I think we should look at that stakeholder, much like we look at the others, and let's just talk about a little bit about accountability.

And again, I love my tenants.

I can say that, and more importantly, they will tell you that.

And I know that because they've told me, and they refer their friends and family to me.

I can fill this half of the room with current and past tenants, and they all will attest to what kind of a landlord I am.

And the only reason I can't fill the other half is because my tenants stay with me so long, I haven't gone through that many tenants.

I have tenants where I have not raised rent in seven years, and I don't intend to, I don't want to.

I could, but I don't.

So I know we talk a lot about the landlords and the shortcomings of them, and there are some, but they're one percent.

I heard someone say.

Who's documented, who isn't?

That's not the way to do it.

And I hope we don't go down that path.

And lastly, please engage or include some small operators when you have your you know study sessions or conversations.

Um commercial landlords are different.

When they have expenses, it impacts their PL.

But when it comes to the mom and pop operators, it impacts their dinner table.

And there's there's a difference.

And I'll give you one example where that really came true with a lot of my investor friends during COVID.

There's an eviction moratorium, which makes sense.

We didn't want people on the street during that um pandemic.

But what that did for the mom and pop landlords is that to their tenants, you don't have to pay your rent.

And where did that leave the mom and pop landlords?

Now, with their larger commercial companies, okay, it's gonna hurt their PL.

But everybody, the employees are gonna go home and eat.

But for the mom and pop organization, it's not the same.

So I ask that you look at that and make sure we include it from a mom and pop uh point of view as well.

And lastly, I am here to help.

I'll be more than happy to sit down with anyone for at any time to talk about this.

I want us to find a solution.

I love my tenants, I love tenants.

I think people should be able to live in nice homes.

So I'm all for it and anything that we can do to get there, but I want to do it in an efficient way.

And thank you for your time.

No, and thank you for that, Mr.

Jacobs.

And I think some of your comments, particularly around uh our mom and pop or or smaller housing providers, are some of the changes that you've seen uh that we've made.

I know my office has engaged, we've had uh some round table, smaller round table discussions with organizations like core, which are smaller organizations, not necessarily larger complexes, uh, as well as just personal conversations that I've had with folks, some of my friends who text me, uh, their actual friends, like what are you doing?

And I've had conversations with them.

So absolutely, I think everyone has to be engaged.

And I think that you did hit a point.

Um I I want to be very, very clear for us.

When we're talking about bad actors, that is on both sides.

There are absolutely uh some tenants who are not good tenants.

It is true.

Now that does not mean that that is a certain type of tenant.

I want to be clear with folks.

That doesn't mean just because you're on section eight that that makes you a bad tenant.

My mom is on section eight, her her place is a place that they actually take people through the tour because it's so clean.

My mom got OC uh got OCD, so she I mean, you can brush your teeth on the floor.

That's how clean her place is, right?

But there's also then some there's also some folks that are market rate folks who are good painter, just bad tenants, and that happens.

And so that's part of the ecosystem.

So I do want to make sure that we're not demonizing anyone.

There absolutely you're right.

There's responsibility on both sides uh of the equation.

And I think there's work to do there, and I think that we can be talking to some of our providers that work with folks to figure out how we have that that larger conversation.

This is just one piece of it when we talk about accountability, it's the one side of it.

But I think there's a larger conversation that we have to have about uh relationship with uh our uh when you get into that lease agreement, right?

That's a relationship that you have to have there, and we have to figure that out.

So thank you for pointing that out uh as well, and thank you for uh being uh a good landlord our community.

Happy to reach out uh to you and have some offline conversations as well.

I'd love to for you to do that.

Thank you very much.

Next is Ms.

Rosalyn, and pronounce your last name for it because I don't want to butcher it.

No, when you get a I can't hear you from here.

Bye, bye, okay.

Okay, good evening, uh Councilman Baxton.

As a as a housing provider in Columbus, I'd like to share some of the concerns that I have about this initiative.

I think we can all agree that um costs have gone through the roof.

My real estate taxes have quadrupled in some cases, insurance doubled, materials.

I remember in a former hearing you say that there is no affordable housing aisle in Lowza Home Depot.

So that's the reality that we as housing providers are living with.

Now, the part that really baffles me, if we are trying to um increase affordability, how does adding to these expenses help with affordability because inevitably that cost will be passed down to uh tenants?

The other concern that I do have is just the general overburdening of landlords.

When I look at the city's past initiatives, um it seems like housing providers are I hate to use a strong word as demonized, but we're not painted in the best light.

What I've heard here today repeated over and over again, it's that one percent.

And I think the effort needs to be concentrated on that one percent, not to demonize a whole community, because the vast majority of landlords, as we can all agree, are very responsible.

And the vast majority, not just in Columbus, but in America, own just one or two properties to subsidize their income in retirement.

And so just as the prior speaker said, issues like COVID and uh the rental moratorium really burdened landlords, and some of those people, their lives are forever changed because of the legislation that was passed and affected against them.

So I think we need to keep this in mind that the majority of landlords are not millionaire, billionaire uh owners with bottomless pockets.

We too are facing an affordability crisis, and that really needs to be kept in mind.

If this uh initiative um is passed as it is, without really um revising it, I think inevitably all it will lead to is what we did not want, and that is increased rents.

And more than that, I think you can only push back a community so far before it mobilizes the very people who are the only people really providing housing, the majority of us who are the private owners.

So I think we need to keep that in mind.

I feel that we need uh smart, sustainable, and inclusive initiatives, just like my other um investors uh friends have said here tonight is that the rent the housing provider community needs to be heard, they need to be heard and included.

I've heard a lot from the other side, and I and I I sympathize with that.

However, when we speak inclusivity, let's also include the views presented here, and I appreciate that you know this process accounts for them.

And contrary to popular belief, we have the same goal safe and affordable housing, because that's the only way we can stay in business.

I will I'll finish by saying this.

There's an African proverb that says if you want to go fast, you can go alone, and that would be the city passing initiatives that constantly uh punish land uh housing providers.

But if we want to create sustainable long-term solutions, actual solutions, then I think we need to work together and not um punish, collectively punish just a small percentage.

Thank you very much.

Thank thank you, Ms.

Bay.

And I think that's what this process is.

We're trying to work with folks.

And and I and I just want to be clear.

I think punish is a harsh word.

It is when we're talking about if, in fact, everyone is up and up, again, 20 buc per unit, a max out, right?

These are for larger ones.

I get it.

We can we could talk through and and figure out the numbers piece of this.

But to simply say that we're just not we don't, we're just opposed to anything, is not us working together.

That is that is one side wanting only one thing.

So I would just say that if we want to work together, we're creating a table for folks to work together.

Absolutely.

And I think the concern is not necessarily the 20 bucks.

It starts at 20, and before long, like the other cities, it will keep increasing, and that that cost would just be passed on to tenants.

That's the concern, not the 20 dollars in itself.

No, and and I understand that, and and I I will not speak to uh to other cities and what they do and what they fees.

Our city attorney has been very, very clear with us.

This can only be used for the operations of the registry.

So this is not a money grab for us, this is not money that's going into the general uh um uh fund.

So I just want to make sure I clarify that for you all.

But I hear I hear those concerns for sure, because inflation is real, and so uh I I I I get you, I I hear you.

So thank you for the opportunity.

Absolutely.

Um next is Mr.

Nathaniel Wilkins, followed by Joshua Frazel or Fravel, sorry.

And then uh finally is Dimitri Hudson Fautinos.

First of all, I want to thank you for having me.

I've been waiting on this a long time.

Um say George Wilkins, 1612, and then the North London area.

Um I want to talk about the bad actors here for a minute.

And uh I'm gonna give uh three criteria.

You know, for a while there we we are talking this, and this is long overdue.

This is long overdue.

What I want to propose is a hefty find in jail time of 180 days in jail.

For larger properties, uh rental property, 100 units or more.

The fee needs to be more than 150 dollars instead of 10 dollars.

A unit that you have down here for 40 dollars per unit, it needs to be about $80.

The maximum would be about $25,000 instead of $1,000.

This is the time to look at a new era in time.

You know, we we we do all this big talk, Cleveland's uh is kind of ahead of this.

Now is the time.

You know, like I said again, we want things to be moving kind of quickly.

I know what you heard today, people don't like this idea.

I think it's a great idea, and it's time to move in the right direction.

People don't like change, change is coming.

That's what I say.

Change is coming now.

We all had to agree to this.

Some people might not like it back there, but it's too bad.

Now is the time to keep the city moving.

Is we're because we have to realize and understand what we're doing for the city is a great thing.

Now is the time to look at a registry form.

You know, I don't know what that looks like.

I don't have numbers in front of me, but now is the time.

And like I said again, if people's not on board, I'm on board because I'm moving them in my community and fine bad landlords and other entities out of town investors.

In closing it, you talk about this 525 latitude.

Yes, it has changed hands.

People might not like it, but now is the time to move it in the right direction.

Uh Nicholas Banks.

I would say I will graduate you, and I will stand right along with you to get this poll ahead.

This fee is gonna have to be more.

I don't care.

If people don't like it, like I said, it's too bad.

I'm living in a community and fine property that's not listed, names, telephone numbers on the Franklin Ghana Autos website.

I spent my time at the library 10 to 12 hours a day and looking at property after property.

Who owns this?

Where's this person at?

I was saying in closing, I don't know if um Judy Spilock was here, but maybe she had retired, and we looked at one property and we could not find that owner.

Now is the time to get this done.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh Wilkins, for your continued advocacy.

Uh Mr.

Wilkins is down here every Monday.

I call him the 10th council member, so I appreciate that.

Uh next is Joshua Fravel, and then finally Dimitri Hatson Voltinos.

Oh, is Joshua not with us?

Good evening, Council Member Banks, and I don't think Mr.

Fravel's here.

I don't see him.

No worries, thank you.

Appreciate it.

My name is Dimitri Hotsifotino, so I'm an attorney at Willis Law Firm.

Would all the people in the room I represent, please stand up.

I represent, and I'm here on behalf of Oakwood Management Company, Harbor Group, 5812 Investment Group, and many, many others, which are representative of about 25,000 units in the city.

It seems to me from the testimony from Director Messer and from comments you've made, Councilmember, that you believe that this will be targeted towards the 1% of noncompliant landlords while being a minimal burden on everyone else.

Well, it's 20 bucks, right?

Ultimately, I thought it would be a good idea here tonight to explain to you and to Director Messer and to the people behind me and to educate you about what the burden is to the 99%.

So I brought some statistics with me.

And I'm going to use 5812 investment group as a case study.

5812 manages 6,600 units in the city and in the surrounding area, 5,000 of which are in the city limits.

5812 investment group is affordable under 60% of AMI standards, would be which would be eligible for a low-income housing tax credit, but it is a conventional apartment owner.

So these are affordable units that are maintained.

5812 is here, and a gentleman named Kane Vandal, who's sitting behind me, who's the vice president of 5812, told me today that they have 77,173 maintenance requests every year.

They fulfill 76,759 maintenance requests every year.

That's 6,431 requests a month and 6,397 completed every single month.

Ultimately, the burden of this legislation is not 20 bucks.

The burden is that if we end up as a condition conditional registrant, so in a 58-12 analysis, you have 6300 people making maintenance requests.

Maintenance requests presuppose that something is wrong in a unit, or why would you make one?

So those maintenance maintenance requests, if given to 311 first, which happens plenty of times, go straight to a notice of violation.

The city then has discretion to give a notice of violation or an order of violation.

If that happens to 5812 10 times in a calendar year on its 5,000 units, it is now subject to 500 units being inspected every year.

Just to be clear, that is per property.

And I think that you know that.

That's not what the proposal that was given to me said.

It is, you know that.

I'm not here to argue with you, council member.

I'm really not.

Okay.

Ultimately, the biggest property in Franklin County that 5812 manages to my memory is 759 units.

In those 759 units, there are almost a thousand maintenance requests on a routine basis.

Ultimately, those maintenance requests can translate into orders very easily.

So if you take 10 orders per property, the same situation exists.

The risk to an operator who's invested so much money, hundreds of millions of dollars in this city, to make units that are good, the 99%, is that the city now has selective discretion to choose to make it a conditional registry.

If the city did that, which of course the city would never do, but if the city did, the city would then come and inspect 10% of 759 units, which would be Cornerstone Crossing apartments at Bryce Road.

That's 76 units.

First of all, the city doesn't have those resources.

Second of all, the invasion of privacy to 76 tenants on that property would be astronomical.

Third of all, and maybe most importantly, that is not the intention of what we're trying to accomplish as a team in engagement.

Engagement would mean that we all sit down at a table and we figure out what's actually going on.

So let me try to explain what's actually going on.

What's actually going on is that there exists a registry that 60% of the landlords in this city use.

I don't think.

And Director Messer can answer that question.

But at the end of the day, if the people against whom code orders are registered, then the registry is ineffective.

If the people against whom code orders are not registered, then we can target those people by not being registered.

Either way, we do not need to have conditional inspections.

We don't need a fee to target the 99%.

And we certainly don't need a registry because, as I think you're aware, state law says that registering with the county is effective to register with the city.

So you can't make someone registered with Columbus that is already registered at the county level without a court order.

Because 532304B of the Ohio Revised Code says that a municipality cannot force registration on somebody that's already registered with the county.

Can't be done.

So registry cannot be penalized.

That $2 a day that Director Messer put up there can't happen unless they go to court and somehow figure out that Columbus is not preempted by 532304B.

It can't be done.

So we don't have an effect of the registry.

We have the potential for conditional registration at Cornerstone to cause 76 tenants to have to get a warrant to inspect inside of their units, and we have a 20 dollar per door fee that can only be used to effectuate a registry that is not required.

I do have a solution for you though.

You said at the very beginning of your comments that you wanted solutions.

So here are the solutions that I propose on behalf of my clients and on behalf of the landlords that are the 99% in the city of Columbus.

Solution number one.

That list is used to do a collaborative meeting with members of the city attorney's office and refuse and fire and trash and the police.

I would expand that list.

I would then take the county auditor's registry and I would correlate that with those that have orders, and that I would take that information and I would give it to the apartment association, who already has a cross-reference list of people that actually have management offices here.

And then I would take all of that data and come back and try to engage in a meaningful way with the real data, trying to figure out if the people that were trying to make register aren't the same people that are the people that are doing the violations.

Because if that's true, the registry will be completely ineffective.

And then everything, all this fight, all this disagreement, all of this legislation will not be effective.

I have not seen the city in my representation of most of the landlords in Columbus sue for failure to give a receipt or for other things that were in the housing for all legislation, some of which has been tossed by the environmental court.

The way to enforce this registry provision would be to file a nuisance action or to file a civil action.

If that would happen, the city would lose.

So we're trying to pass something that has no practical effect while potentially burdening 75 tenants at Cornerstone Crossing, while 5812 does 6300 maintenance requests per month in the city of Columbus.

Council member, I would offer this.

I would be more than happy to take Director Messier and yourself on a tour of thousands of apartments in this city that do it right.

And if we can all sit down together on that tour, I'll rent the bus.

We can all go together and see how many people, I'll take bread with us too.

And they can come and see how many people are doing a quality job of providing affordable housing here in the city of Columbus.

And this particular legislation will not impact the people that are not.

It will just cost the people that are.

And that's what we're trying to prevent.

The city can pass a registry if it wants to.

I don't think that that in and of itself is going to be so problematic.

But fees and inspections will not result in anything but further issues between landlords and tenants.

Costs that cannot be ascertained.

It is not 20 bucks.

It is the possibility of having 500 inspections on 5,000 units when it's at the city's selective discretion to do it.

I've already been there with my clients.

I've already seen the city overstep without giving proper notices to the right people in code issues.

I've already seen code enforcement officers change hands on campus, where one person had a modus operandi between 2012 and 2015 to do this, and then the person retires and somebody else comes new, and there's a whole different set of rules.

All of those things are discretionary at the administration.

But when you codify it legislatively, you create a huge problem for landlords that are doing it right, because we have to think about the worst case scenario at that point.

Well, the city's never gonna do that.

We can't we can't commit to that, we can't rely on that.

You know, council member Bangston and Director Messer aren't gonna be here forever.

Once that legislation is on the books, it's gonna stay, and to the point of someone who said it earlier, that fee's only gonna increase.

Steve Gladiman's been in this business 40 years, and he's never heard of a city of the city reducing a fee.

The city's not going to reduce the fee.

And ultimately, if more inspections have to occur, because the city uses its discretion to make 10% of the 58-12 units get inspected, there aren't enough resources in the entire section of code enforcement to do that.

So we've got to go back to the drawing board.

We've got to hold on to this for a second.

We've got to get more information, get the county registry, figure out the correlation between code orders and the county registry.

Sit down with the apartment association, come out with me and drive around all those units.

Take six months and go through this in a very meaningful and very thoughtful way.

And then let's sit at the table and figure out if we can actually write a law that will have some impact for the citizens of the city of Columbus.

Thank you for your time, and I appreciate you giving me a little bit of extra.

Thank you, Dimitri, and the offer still stands.

Always happy to sit down with you.

We've sat down with Mr.

Gladman many times.

The apartment association, the doors open to them as well.

Again, that is what we've said from the beginning.

Now, if that is the case, what I would ask for you and your association is to also tell the truth to the folks when you pass the information along.

And so if we're going to do have this conversation, let's do it in a true and open way.

So again, I appreciate you being at the table, the doors always open, and I want to continue to dialogue.

That is why we're taking this process the way that we are.

There is no legislation.

I've said that many, many times.

But yet you've told your members that there's legislation.

We've told you that we are working on the fees, but then you come up with these numbers.

That is not the case.

We want to work with you.

But I am committed to that.

And so I want you to be at the table.

And then my door is always open.

Would you mind if I responded to that?

Sure.

I would ask Director Messer because I know Mr.

Gladman has four of the numbers.

We still haven't gotten any.

So one of the difficulties that we have right now is that we don't have numbers exactly about what's being quantified.

And I know Steve Gladman has asked for those numbers.

I'll ask right now.

I would like to see every code order for the 1%.

I would like to see that, and I would like to be able myself to correlate it with the auditor's office, because I think that's a big component of the disagreement, right?

If you're going to be at the table, then we all need to be looking at the same data because there is a disagreement.

And ultimately, if if code wants to provide all the people that they've given orders to, whether that's a public records request or otherwise, and we want to look at the auditors' data to see who's registered and who's getting the code orders, then we'll be able to see what the practical effect is of what you're proposing.

Until we do that, I agree that there's not legislation right now, but these proposals that are in this executive summary are troubling because what they potentially mean is that warrants are issued for 76 people that live on Bryce Road for potentially code violations that we don't even know about.

That seems pretty rough.

So do the folks on Bryce Road have five code orders every single year?

No, but they have 759 units.

And in those 75, 759 units, any code order can be issued at any time without their knowledge.

That's what I'm trying to explain to you.

That's what I want to have a dialogue about.

When you call 311 and 311 has a code officer come out, and a code officer issues an order, sometimes in 5812's case specifically, they'll issue that order and send it to some address in Minnesota, even though 5812 has a corporate office on Good Ale and also has a management office at Cornerstone.

They won't even give it to Cornerstone.

Other times they do.

I'm not saying that they do it all the time.

It's just random.

Sometimes it happens one way, sometimes it happens another.

Sometimes I've seen transitions between one code officer and another.

Sometimes people have different territories.

There's some inconsistency there.

So it is very possible, and I've been doing this 21 years, and I've seen it a million, not a million, but a hundred times at least, where there's a code order that goes to somewhere and doesn't actually get to the rental office, and all of a sudden an order is issued, not a violation notice, an order, and the landlord never even had notice in the first place.

I would like to know from Director Messer how many times that happens, because I know it does.

And that's what we're trying to help you out here because if we had the actual contact information in our registry, we would send it to the right person.

So thank you again.

Look forward to engaging with you.

Thank you.

With that again, I want to thank everyone uh for their public comments uh and engaging with us.

Again, this is one step in the process, and we continue.

Uh our door continues to be open.

We continue to have conversations with whoever wants to have conversations with us.

Um so again, thank you uh to the those that showed up today to voice support.

Also those that decided to voice concerns or questions and more.

Uh prior to the closing, I would also like to make a few things clear.

A rental registry is not a new concept.

Uh many cities throughout Ohio have established them despite having access to a county registry in their area.

Clearly, the county registries statewide, uh, which are a product of state code are lacking across the board.

Hence why municipalities have opted to create their own.

I believe that we are on solid legal standing here and creating it because they exist in other places.

I am well aware that housing providers in this city are business owners.

I have said that time and time again.

As the chair of small business, I see that clearly.

And as inflation and property taxes rise, so does the cost of doing business.

But that said, providing housing is not just any business.

It is not simply a commodity.

It is a relationship in which you are providing a basic need to human beings in our community.

So it is only natural that the city ensures that the quality of that is being provided it uh is best as it can be.

I am committed to continuing to listen to both sides on this issue so that the financial proposal the final proposal is the best it can be for Columbus.

This is not about copy and paste.

And I know that that uh is concerning on folks that are proponents of this as well as those that are opposed to it.

But we want to make sure that we get this right for the city.

I will say I'm also committed that making sure that in that legislation that we have a review and look back period, that every three years, two years, whatever the cadence is that we are evaluating it to make sure that it is continuing to work.

Because what may work today.

It may not work in the future, and we want to make sure that we get it right ongoing.

I'm also committed to working with the administration to develop ways to support property owners in keeping their units affordable, whether that be through preservation and repair dollars or via incentives or emergency rental assistance.

That said, what I ask of my housing providers is to meet me halfway.

Our current system is simply not working, and renters are being left behind every day in this city.

If the mechanisms of the registry as currently proposed are an issue for you.

Work with us to improve them.

This is not a question of if we will do this or not.

It is a question of how we will do this.

And I hope that we can do it together.

And to our housing advocates, no policy is perfect from the start and compromise as part of the policy making process.

As I always say that we wanted to throw throw things, something out there that was very, very strong.

That is going to evolve and change.

And so I hope that you all stick in the process with us as well.

As a legislator, I need to strike a balance between what is strong in theory and what is effective in practice.

And engagement with those who may oppose this from the start is how we get there.

All the feedback shared tonight will be taken into consideration as we continue to make edits to the proposal.

And I hope that folks see that we are taking that seriously from the first proposal to this one.

Again, we are not trying to ram something down folks' throats.

We are trying to work with folks.

There have been substantive changes made.

Changes that quite frankly I didn't even want to see made, but I understand from the feedback that I've gotten that that is how we make policy.

And so I would say continue to engage with us.

We are saying that and we are being authentic about it.

My office is open, and let's continue to dialogue.

I have asked my team to plan for a third hearing on this topic near the top of next year, which will go over uh any revisions made to the proposal or any draft legislation language that may come about.

This is already past uh my very aggressive timeline because I the we have announced this well over two years ago.

So when we talk about taking our time to get to this point, it was a lot of work with our city attorney's office, a lot of work with our department of building and zoning service, a lot of work with our department of development, a lot of work with advocates and uh and opponents that got us to this point over two years.

And now I'm not going to meet my deadline, and I'm gonna tell folks the bread right now.

I ain't gonna meet the deadline.

But we are not giving up.

We're gonna make sure that we get it right, not just simply move at speed.

And so I will ask you to continue on that journey for us because that is what we're striking to do.

So please be on the lookout for the date and time for the next hearing.

And in the meantime, I look forward to the ongoing conversations.

Uh, and thank you again.

Truly thank you again for everyone for the dialogue today, even the spirit of dialogue.

Uh, me and Dimitri, at some point, we're probably gonna have a bourbon after this at some point when it's all said and done.

Um, but I appreciate uh all of you all, and we'll call this hearing to a close.

And uh I probably won't see many of you all before it then, so happy Thanksgiving to everybody.

Good night.