Order.

This is our third hearing of the proposed creation of city rental registry.

I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me as well as our department our departments of development and building and zoning for the work they have put in during this process.

Additionally, I would like to thank Steve Dunbar from the City Attorney's Office who is here with us as well, and for all the work that he has done behind the scenes to help get us to this point.

Similarly to the last hearing to date, our office has received several emails and calls, sharing support, constructive criticism, and general comments about the registry.

Based on the feedback from our residents and stakeholders, the Department of Development and Department of Building and Zoning made a third round of changes to the proposal, which they will present followed by public testimony for this evening.

Before I pass the mic over to uh Director Messer, again, I just want to thank all sides of folks that have engaged with this.

I think this has been a very uh I would say transparent process and a sausage being made, if you will, in real time.

And so I just want to thank everyone who has uh both come out in support, but then also those who have helped, I think, strengthen uh the the proposal and where we are.

Uh before I move to uh our administration to give us presentation, any opening remarks from my colleagues?

No, okay, thank you.

And thank you again to our housing chair for being here, Councilmember Ross.

Um she's been in the space of a long time.

And so thank you again for your feedback and your leadership uh in our housing efforts.

Uh now with that, I will turn the uh floor over to Director Scott Messer with our Department of Building and Zoning, as well as Deputy Director Hannah Jones with our Department of Development for uh the presentation for today.

Director.

Thank you, uh Councilmember, other members of council.

I also would like to uh express my uh thanks and gratitude to all of you and your um staffs, as well as the city attorney's office, uh folks in development, and a lot of the stakeholders for uh their input up to this point.

Um as you mentioned, we've made a few changes um in this latest round, and I'm going to summarize a few of those and then um take any questions that you all may have, or as we uh hear from the presentations and the speakers tonight, I'm happy to answer any questions along with my uh peers here from development.

So um the first thing that I want to highlight is um, and I'm just gonna go through a few uh items that are different now from previous proposals.

Uh when you look at the information that we're requiring as a part of the registry, we have made a few changes um to that uh section, but nothing significant.

Uh primarily what we did is um a few clarifications of the information that we need, and we added a category of information that's linked to what I'm going to describe uh in a couple of moments, which is a uh inspection component that has been added, a preventative education inspection.

So, in order to carry out that inspection that I'm gonna talk about in a minute, um, we need some additional information from registrants.

So we're going to be asking for things like um what kind of shared mechanical systems they have, whether they might have a boiler system, uh identifying common areas, um, identifying uh interior um egress, retention ponds, things that exist on their sites uh are going to help us in doing um what I'm gonna describe in a moment in terms of the inspection process.

That's the major change that we made to um information that we need from the registry.

Um another big change that we made was to the fees.

So the fees um that we're proposing uh right now are fifteen dollars per unit down from twenty dollars per unit prior to this, with a maximum of fifteen hundred dollars per complex.

So a complex with a hundred units would max out on the fee uh and only have to pay the fifteen hundred.

Um we clarified that all fees collected as uh part of this uh registry can only be used for purposes connected to the registry.

They would not be going into the general fund.

Um so we made those uh clarifications.

And then as I mentioned before, we added uh what we're calling a preventative education inspection.

Uh if you recall in our previous proposal, um we talked about self-attestation and that on an annual basis uh uh folks who register would have to submit a document certifying that to the best of their knowledge um there are no violations or code outstanding code uh violations to their uh critical systems.

Um, but then once every three years, we're going to create uh conduct what's called a preventative education inspection.

This inspection is at no extra charge to the registrants.

So not only have we lowered the fee to the $15 per unit, but we have also provided an added service that once every three years we will go out and conduct an inspection.

Um the purpose of that inspection is as it's named, uh preventative and educational.

So we will not be writing orders and issuing violations during that inspection.

If there are critical problems that we identify, those will be referred to the appropriate um department or agency to handle.

Uh but the purpose of the three-year inspection is truly to provide um education, feedback, and to try to come alongside the um owner of the property to try to address any um problems that we identify in that inspection.

Um above and beyond those um issues, um, we just made a couple of um specific um changes and clarifications, nothing significant.

Um we are highlighting that um uh uh that we will be using civil action only to enforce uh this registration, so not criminal penalties will not be a part of this.

It'll be um through civil penalties and civil action through the court system.

Um we also uh have committed to a review, a full review and report of the program to city council uh on a timetable to be determined, but um rather than it be nebulous, we are making a formal commitment to review um the entire registry uh and the rules and regs associated with it and fees uh uh within a specific timetable so that we can really look at how this is functioning.

So those are basically the main changes um that we made.

Um and I'd be happy uh I'll turn it over to development to see if you have anything additional.

Thank you, Director.

The only thing that I would add is the Department of Development really sees the uh educational component of this as an area where our division of housing stability can lean in.

How do we come alongside BZS to help on the education component, both for the property owners and the tenants?

So does this give an opportunity to engage proactively with them?

Does it help us be able to communicate more effectively what the expectations are for a landlord, but also for a tenant, so that it does not become necessarily a punitive exercise, but one that's more proactive to help maintain good relationships between landlords, tenants, and the city?

And I would just also add council members that this um three-year inspection uh that we've um added to the registration, it is not an automatic inspection of any interior units.

So the inspection will be focused on critical systems, exterior areas, um, all the areas that I mentioned that we've added to uh information required from the registrant.

Um the only um way that we would be doing interior inspections is if there are violations that are referred out to the appropriate parties that already have a process to deal with actual unit inspections, or if the owner or the tenant requests us to do um an inspection of an interior unit, we're willing to do that.

Um but I just want to highlight that as a as a matter of course, that three-year inspection does not include um interior inspections automatically, but those could be a result indirectly from that inspection.

Uh thank you, Director, for that uh that overview.

Um I do want to kind of stick in that uh inspections uh piece of this.

Um really I think you know, my I think my first initial reaction and thing and many folks are are would be that uh this doesn't have necessarily teeth to it, right?

But I think that uh this idea of being proactive and going out is the thought process there that uh if there are glaring external issues, uh right, then that would improve or warrant uh code to come out or to for us to investigate even further uh versus the I think the uh more enormous task of going into every single unit.

And then I'll have uh uh our our city attorney chime in as well, kind of the legal hurdles uh around that other kind of more enforcement mechanism that folks will would want to see.

So you could just talk to more about that piece of it, being more proactive than necessarily would I think some have advocated for, even quite frankly myself, um, and how we landed there.

Yeah, thank you, uh councilmember for that.

Um I would I would answer in two separate uh responses.

The first is when it comes to the actual three year inspection that we've added, the preventive educational inspection, it it's absolutely the case that that could result in interior inspections if we find something that gives us probable cause or gives us a reason to refer that.

So, for example, if we were to do that inspection and we found that a shared heating system was not working properly, then we would refer that to code enforcement and code enforcement would go through their normal channels of getting inspections of affected units and making sure it's working properly.

If we found uh a fire code hazard, we would refer that to the fire division and they could come out and follow up on that.

So I want to be clear that we're not saying that if we find problems, uh we're just going to ignore those issues.

What we're saying is those will be referred to their normal channels, and the process by which we would obtain permission to inspect interior units would be would be handled by those separate uh enforcement areas.

Um so it could still happen, it's just not going to be us, you know, randomly knocking on doors and and going into people's property.

Um secondly, um we've we didn't highlight that in my presentation because we've had it in our previous proposals, but we still have the conditional registration process, which gives uh the us the authority to um uh deem someone's registration as moving to conditional status.

When that happens, and those happens for the sort of our more problem properties, areas that have had multiple code violations, and there's four or five triggers um that would result in someone being put on conditional registration, that still does involve a component of getting into units to actually confirm that uh the units are in good uh uh condition.

And so um we still are doing inspections uh when triggered appropriately, and so the the triggers are just a little different in that we would find some kind of violation as the uh in the general inspection that we do every three years, or if we move an owner to conditional status, that triggers interior inspections.

And director speak to I think that's part of this update too was there's some clarification around uh the conditional um status and in particular, I think around violations and and and what we're looking for there.

Because I think that there was uh some consternation if folks think that we were going to go out and ding folks for things like high weeds or that kind of thing, right?

I think the the thought process uh for us and for me is it is about holding folks accountable uh absolutely, but it's also about compliance, because again, we want our residents to be in uh safe living conditions, uh and we want to ensure that we have as many units still online given our housing situation.

So if you could just talk about the conditional registration, some clarification around those violations, the cure period and some of the clarifications that we made in this updated proposal.

Yeah, so uh when it comes to conditional registration, as I mentioned, there's several triggers that would uh result in someone being put into a conditional registration status.

So properties with a hundred units um up to, so less than a hundred units, if they have five code orders, but code orders that are related to things like no heat, no water, no electric means of egress, serious safety uh violations.

So, like you said, high weeds, uh trash, things that aren't related to critical safety systems would not be included.

Um, but they would have to have more than five of those in a 12-month period.

For places with more than 100 units, they would have to have 10 of those within a 12-month period.

And in both cases, um, those would have to be orders that weren't complied with within a 30-day period.

So if someone complies with our orders within 30 days, they don't count, is what we're saying.

If they are trivial or smaller orders that aren't related to critical safety systems, they don't count.

So those triggers of how many code orders you've received in recent 12-month period, there's only a you know handful of those type of orders that are going to count because either you've complied or they're not the type of orders that we're counting.

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

If we look back historically at how many units are we talking about that historically would be in violation of those uh levels, it's less than one half of one percent.

So we're not talking about um, you know, dozens and dozens and dozens every month.

We're talking about a handful of um some of our worst of the worst, so to speak, um, that we would be dealing with on that less than one half of a percent.

And then the other triggers are, you know, if you've had vacate orders, if you're declared to be a public nuisance.

So I guess what I'm you know, trying to communicate is is that the properties that go into conditional status, I think there would be no surprises uh from folks as to who those properties might be because the condition uh is going to be evidenced by these triggers.

Gotcha.

Thank you for that.

And and just I think to that point, I think it's important to note this is not a gotcha exercise.

I want to re-emphasize that the vast majority uh of our housing providers who are landlords who are small business owners, are doing the right thing.

This is not about penalizing uh those folks, and it is not about us demonizing either housing providers, uh, because the vast majority uh are doing the right thing and doing a noble thing by providing housing uh to our residents.

Uh attorney Dunbar, if you could talk.

I mean, the uh the director alluded to this about probable cause.

Um I watch law and order, but I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one.

Uh I defer to Councilmember Ross and President Protestant Dorans for those types of things, as well as the city attorney's office.

Could you just talk about broadly?

I think some of the legal complexities I mean, what has taken us a long time to get here, I think is around the legal complexities of how we have structured this, particularly around entering folks' units uh and inspection piece.

But if you could just talk about some of the legal challenges that we have had to really overcome to get to this point, I think that would help to level set with the inspections piece in particular.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Councilman.

And um, I mean, I will tell you the short version is you cannot pass a registry that requires interior inspections of everyone's home hard stop.

Uh now the longer version.

You know, if you live in a place, you got a right to keep the government out of it, generally.

Um the ways that the government can get into your home, and in a home could be a rental apartment, it could be your your owner-occupied home, makes no difference for purposes of this legal analysis.

There's three ways.

A consent.

You can say, cool, come in, cop, firefighter, whomever.

Um, the second one is if there's an eminent emergency happening, if if someone is chasing someone in, or if if we see eminent threat of collapse or something.

Um third one is a judicial order of some sort, a warrant.

And now the the overwhelming majority of warrants happen when um police are investigating a crime and they've got to say, I have specific probable cause to believe there's evidence of a crime on the other side of that door.

Um that that's what you saw on law and order, councilman.

Um now the other type of warrant that is is much less frequently used, but is what we're talking about here today is an administrative search warrant.

Um it is it is obtained from a court just like a criminal search warrant is uh the standard is not the same.

And I will tell you this is a um it is a a kind of an area of law where there are not clear statutes that divided ABCD.

So what we as lawyers have to do is look at cases for how different courts have looked at similar laws and done that.

I will tell you it is a hotly contested issue.

There is currently pending in front of the Ohio Supreme Court uh a canton ordinance where this was challenged.

Uh so um all of that being said, you get my best shot at it, which is um you can't say rental registry government gets to go into everyone's unit regardless of what you want to hard stop.

What you can do is create a regulatory scheme where you are basing those searches on a a rational basis.

And and I don't mean that specifically for rationally, why does that person want to get behind that door?

It means if you all are rational and how you are passing this piece of legislation.

So it's not just if you've got an odd numbered rental unit, we can inspect you.

It is things like, well, we have a history of code violations.

We have the types of things that show us a more concerning thing.

You still got to go get the administrative search warrant at that point.

So um again, if you don't have consent, if you don't have the emergency.

So just high level people think of it as you got a right to keep the cops out or other law enforcement.

I mean, roughly the same rules can apply to Director Messer's crew.

Um, but uh the the most important thing we're talking about here today is in the administrative search warrant world, this entire process we are going through now.

Really good chance this whole thing gets challenged in a court of law.

Our defense is going to be we didn't blindly say, let's inspect whatever ones we want to.

What we are going to say is we put a tremendous amount of time into determining what are our most concerning units, what is the process for us to inspect those units.

Thank you for that.

I'm sure it will be more legal questions that I won't be able to answer.

So thank you for being here.

So folks who uh I know a lot of folks in this room have been following us closely.

Uh it's not been centered around legislation, but more or less a proposal because we really wanted to workshop this with the community before actually having legislative language.

And I'm going to ask you, you want to give us an update on where we are as far as actually writing a legislation, they'd be introduced to council, but then want to go into if you could have this distinction.

I think uh some of the testimony we'll hear tonight as well as what we've heard are around kind of scenarios and uh idiosyncrasies that won't be captured in legislation, but there's a whole other process around rules and how this implementation will work.

So if you could just touch both of those for me, uh so um essentially the proposal that we've been distributing to folks and that everyone's been reacting, um, in large part that proposal then gets changed into actual code updates, code language.

Um we have completed our proposed code language, and so that is going to be available for folks to start to review to compare to the actual policy document that we've handed around.

Um the code language, we do have a draft of that, and um we'll be able after this hearing to you know get that to folks so that they can review the actual code.

And then you are correct, part of that code language talks about how some things are not necessarily spelled out in the code itself, but refer to rules and regs that the director um may be able to implement as a result of the legislation and the code changes.

And so, for example, some of the information we might ask for.

Um, the code would say something like, here are five things you have to give, and then other information deemed necessary by the department that would be spelled out in the rules and regs and might be updated from time to time.

So if we decide that as a city we want to collect certain types of information, we can always just add that to the registry as opposed to go back and change the code.

So there'll be certain things that we'll be able to update or change that are rules and regulations, and then certain things will be codified in the code that itself.

Um after this hearing, we'll be moving forward uh to adopt uh first and foremost the code changes and then the rules and regs that go along with that.

Thank you for that, Director.

And I and I do want to uh be clear, I know I've said this on the record and will say it again that included in that legislation that I know I will move to ensure that there's a uh review period, just similar to our CRA policy to similar to our minimum wage policy when it comes to incentives, just to ensure that we are one holding ourselves accountable, but also ensuring that we're going back to make sure that as the city evolves and changes, so does our policies.

Um I just wanted to make sure I had that clarifying note.

Any uh questions from my colleagues for the administration or directors before we move to public testimony?

Chair Wells?

Yep.

I just have a couple of questions.

Uh a few, a few questions, director.

Um I'll start with the with the rules and regs since we're talking about it now.

Rules and regulations would be passed in addition to the piece of legislation.

Are those rules and regulations legally binding?

So uh the rules and regulations are when you say legally binding, they will be referred to as uh uh in the in the legislation itself.

And so they're legally binding in the sense that the legislation incorporates or gives me as the director the authority to implement those, but they aren't code language.

So um they're changeable, they're uh different than the actual code language.

Um so that's the best I can say.

And so when you decide as a director that it's necessary to change rules and regulations associated with the piece of legislation, is there a notice period?

Are you letting the public know?

Are you letting stakeholders know that there are changes in these rules and regulations?

And if so, what is that process?

So I don't I don't know the exact process.

I don't know if um Mr.

Dunbar has any information on that.

Probably not.

Uh so I would just say the answer um is that typically um we do provide plenty of notice of rules and regulations changes, and we do publish those.

But if you're asking me what's legally required, I'm not sure.

I'm just asking which what's your process is?

Yeah.

When you provide notice of those changes, you pup you said you publish them, where are you publishing them?

Yeah, typically we put those on our website so that folks are able to the website.

Our website.

Yeah.

What is it?

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

It is the Columbus.gov.

Columbus.gov and then go to BZS.

Perfect.

Yeah.

There's about 60 people behind you that are probably interested in knowing how to find updates to rules and regulations.

That's why I'm asking this question.

Sure.

Typically, people go to Columbus.gov and then they navigate to our page.

Okay.

There may be a direct uh website address, but typically people go to Columbus.gov.

Awesome.

When we um I'm gonna go back to the PEI inspections, so the every three year preventive inspections.

What what does it look like if you are doing a three-year PEI inspection and you identify uh ish critical issues that need to be addressed?

Is that property immediately moved on to kind of the conditional registration process?

Can you talk about then what that looks like and what is the plan for remediation if you are doing that three year inspection and you find that there are issues that need to be addressed?

Sure.

Uh no, it the property would not immediately be moved to conditional registration.

The conditional registration is sort of a separate, you know.

I mentioned the the six triggers that are outlined there that would trigger conditional registration.

The preventative education inspection really would be as I said, just merely referred to the relevant investigatory agency.

So right now, typically speaking, when you're dealing with properties, you have code enforcement, you would have fire, you would have the building section, uh, and you would maybe have the health department.

So let's say during that inspection we found anything that would lead us to believe there might be a code violation of one of those sections, the housing code, the health code, the fire code, or the building code.

That would be referred out to the relevant enforcement team.

A couple of those belong to me as well.

A couple of them don't.

So it just depends on what we find as a part of the violation.

Think of it like a 311 call or anything else that comes in that we use to respond to.

And so when we go out and do that investigation, I think what I just want to clarify is we're not going to have a clipboard of blank orders and just start writing orders for people.

Here's your inspection and here are 10 orders of things for you to correct.

That is not how this inspection will work.

The inspection is designed, that's why we call it a preventative education inspection.

It's really designed to come alongside the owner to rectify problems that we see uh proactively.

So they don't end up on someone's inspection list um to come back out on.

But if if we find something serious, we we also want to be clear that we're not just going to ignore that.

Right.

We're gonna refer that out to the appropriate agency to follow up.

Perfect.

Thank you.

In the changes uh for inspections relative to the three-year preventive education inspections, you said there is an opportunity for self-attestation for properties without code violations.

What is that self-attestation look like if you so there will be a form that they would have to do an attestation on, a certification form that that they would be, you know, uh essentially saying that they've to the best of their knowledge.

I know we've gotten a lot of feedback uh in recent months on well, how do I know if there's any code violations on my property?

Um and and we're we've added language that includes you know, to the best of my information, to the best of my knowledge.

We're not going to, you know, ask owners of a property to instantly become uh you know a investigatory code specialist.

We're we're basically focused on you don't you're not aware of any outstanding orders, you're not aware of any major critical system flaws, any failures in your property, that type of thing, to the best of your knowledge.

We're not again, I think council member said we've really struggled to make sure that this is not legislation that turns into a gotcha.

That's not what we're trying to do here.

We're really trying to come alongside owners to um and protect tenants from really conditions that we think need to be rectified.

There are oftentimes developments or properties that have to go through a state inspection or a HUD inspection of their physical conditions, would provide you the results of those inspections also work to fulfill the self-attestation requirement?

Yes, we have said in the in the code summary and in the legislation that you know on that annual basis, if you happen to be a complex that has um you know formal inspections done by third parties that we would get copies of those as well.

Great.

And then this might be a question better suited for Deputy Director Jones.

Oftentimes we hear from tenants who get kind of complaint exhaustion when they feel like they're not receiving responses from their landlords timely, and so they get sick of complaining not only to their landlord, but also to the city.

So there may or may not be uh complaint record of code violations or potential code violations.

Um is there a way to notify a community that a preventive educational inspection is getting ready to happen and that that could be an opportunity for you to request an interior inspection if you feel like you've got issues that haven't been addressed by the landlord.

So uh I think that that is you have provided one example of the many ways that we see a collaboration opportunity.

I think ultimately the goal is that there be an element of the registration process that is forward-facing and that the public can access.

So I would anticipate that there would be a place where you could see what properties, depending on the timeline of registration, are due for their three-year inspection.

Um we would hope that we would also have the opportunity to go out if we are receiving complaints, or as the division of housing stability is able to make a more robust community engagement process and have dialogues with neighbors and tenants, an opportunity to maybe flag for BZS and others as they are going out to conduct these.

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

Um again, as as the director has alluded to, the idea here is that we are just verifying that you are already in compliance.

That what you are testing to is annually is true.

Um, and to have an up another opportunity to engage with individuals who to your point may have fatigue or may not even know the right place to engage.

Um, and understand their obligation as well if there is one, if it's an issue that perhaps is more complex than just simply the landlord can't or won't fix it.

What other resources can we bring that are not the obligation of code enforcement or others to help manage that relationship as well?

Thank you.

Final question, I promise, at least for this this time.

Director Messer, do you anticipate that this registration opportunity really opens the door for earlier conversations with property owners and a real opportunity to instead of waiting until you get hit with 16 or 17 code violations that you have to fix between 15 and 30 days, that you're having that time to engage with the department, understanding what the conditions of your property are and really working with the department to get into compliance?

Absolutely, council member, I think that's an important component of this proposal and why we added the preventative education inspection is to really try to engage with and interact with our owners and our property uh folks who are responsible for our properties out there to try to come alongside.

Um not only that, but um, you know, it's mentioned in the legislation that um part of the fees are also allowed to be used for um uh trying to remediate and and trying to solve uh issues that we have out in the community, possibly in emergency situations or egregious situations.

And so um a big component of this is trying to improve our properties and make things better uh in the city.

So absolutely I think that collaborative approach is going to be um something that we're hopeful about coming out of this.

And I just want to add um real quickly, I know you asked me about the legal process, and I still don't know all the details, but in addition to publishing our rules and regs on the website, we're also required to publish those in the city bulletin.

And so um there's a variety of formal things that we have to do.

I apologize for not knowing the timelines and the details, but certainly any rules and regs that we do are published and accessible and uh folks will be able to see those.

Awesome.

I anticipate the website is probably a little more accessible than the city bulletin.

I agree.

It's a it's a great read if you want to read the city bulletin.

Uh thank you, um housing chair Ross.

Customer watch So one just on that communications piece and proactively communicating.

I know we're still figuring out what that plan looks like.

I would think the easiest thing, especially if we are going to change rules and regulations, is to email those who have signed up in to the registry.

So hopefully that is option number one, and we don't just put things on the website and assume folks will find it.

So wanted to ask kind of piggyback on Council uh member Ross's question around tenants and tenants saying, hey, come on into my property.

I assume maybe not in this legislation, but other parts of city code protections for that tenant from potential retaliation from the property owners if they felt like uh the property owner is now targeting them because they chose to speak up and point to different issues that they were dealing with.

Um if your question is, are are tenants already protected from that type of retaliatory behavior?

The answer is yes.

Um, not as a part of this code, but separately from this code, our typical um you know, tenant protections uh include protection from retaliatory action for folks calling 311 or reporting code violations.

Appreciate it, thank you.

I mean, my other point, which I think you and I have discussed in terms of information being collected kind of speaks to this review kind of on a maybe biannually or however we kind of finalize that in terms of what data is actually necessary for the city to continue to protect residents.

You know, I've spoken many of times about having information for us to make further policy decisions.

I understand at this time it is about let's set up the registry, let's have something that works that uh can actually accomplish its job before we start doing additional things.

But um hopefully the departments feel like that can be a useful tool in the future.

Would you agree to that?

Yes, uh council member, we've we've we've spoken about that.

And there are several um you know informational tools that um could be helpful as a part of this registry.

Uh things that you just mentioned.

One, this having the registry gives us a vehicle of communication to our property owners around the city and our rental folks.

So there's going to be an opportunity for us to visit what type of information, even if some of that information is voluntary.

I know folks have seen us refer to um uh average rent, for example, as something we might be asking for.

But whenever we've identified that, we've labeled that as optional uh voluntary.

There may be some other information that we want to ask for that's informational and voluntary, but really could help the city make policy decisions and policy questions in the future.

And so this this means is going to exist once we establish the registry to possibly gather information and tools to help us in other decisions.

Thank you.

Appreciate that and appreciate all of you for kind of working through this and kind of providing an overview of the changes that have been made.

I think the concerns we always hear from industry, residents, everyone is like there's never an opportunity to help improve legislation.

I think having multiple hearings kind of shows us making the sausage as Councilmember Bengkson uh indicated at the uh beginning of the meeting.

So appreciate your willingness to kind of go back and forth to make this the best possible policy uh to support the needs of the City of Columbus.

Thank you, uh Councilmember.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I'm gonna get so much better at this, I promise.

This is the last last question.

Um just don't say that.

What I all right, I'm gonna try to get better and better at this.

Uh I do I do see something that says conditional registration may be implicated when complexes are declared to be a public nuisance by the department.

In the event that the department has not declared the property be a public nuisance, but the environmental court has declared the depart the property to be a public nuisance and there are prior kind of court cases on record with regard to this.

If there is an open court case where the property has already been declared to be a public nuisance by the environmental court, is that also something that the department will consider in determining whether or not a property should be on this conditional?

Certainly we can look at whether the language was intended to just say the department or whether it's just in general that it's been declared a public nuisance by you know a different agency.

But but generally speaking, if if if the court is going to declare something a public nuisance, we've probably already requested that or done so as well.

But I get your point, and we'll take a look at that language.

You're doing just fine, Councilmember Ross.

This is this is not Congress, okay?

We don't have like sent standard meetings.

This is not gotcha, you know.

As you can see, this is why I say I don't play a lawyer.

She asked very lowly questions over there.

So uh with that, uh council member, any questions or comments from you?

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh we will move into um public comment.

Uh as with most of uh my hearings and traditions, we do keep track of uh what's happening on social media.

Um so director, one question did come up, and I think you alluded to it, but I think we can just uh re-emphasize it.

Uh the question was what can uh really be determined from an exterior inspection.

So um I think when we're talking about the if we're talking about the preventative education inspection, I don't want to um insinuate that it's merely an exterior inspection.

There may be some smaller uh rental units, say a single family home or a duplex where there really aren't any shared systems to look at, and basically it is an exterior inspection unless we get permission from the residents to do a safety inspection on the interior units.

Um so I would I would submit that you know not as much can be determined from an exterior inspection, but generally speaking, just speaking from experience with thousands of properties around the city and uh over a decade of uh tenure that it's very unusual to have a pristine exterior uh and a interior that would cause us significant distress.

And so um, you know, you'd be surprised at what we can tell from an exterior inspection in terms of reflecting on the condition of the property.

That being said, you know, our our our primary effort of this preventative education inspection is gonna be around uh really looking at common areas, shared critical systems like heating and cooling and water systems that serve uh apartment complexes and larger complexes, egress, retention ponds, all the things that aren't necessarily inside of a specific unit.

Um and and I would submit that those things can often be indicative of you know the condition of the property overall.

Uh thank you for that, Director.

Uh actually we'll move into public comment.

Just wanted to uh acknowledge on the record that as of yesterday's 5 p.m.

deadline we did receive three pieces of written testimony, and those have been uh shared with all uh offices uh from Greg Lawson with the Buckeye Institute, Sarah Holt Holse Sculptor, and Sarah Dryer.

Um with that we will move into our uh public speakers.

Um and so first up we have 10 uh this evening.

Uh first up we have Dimitri uh Hatson Fortinos.

I I swear I I'm gonna get it right one of these days, Dimitri, followed by uh Steve uh Gladden.

Welcome back to council.

Uh three minutes and think you know the deal.

Thank you, Councilmember Bankston, members of council.

I appreciate the opportunity and I have appreciated the opportunity to meet with you, council member and your staff to talk about this legislation over the last you know 90 days or so.

Um and I think that the interactions have been positive to some extent.

I represent about a hundred thousand multifamily operators in Columbus, along with the Columbus Department Association.

Unfortunately, I'm here today to tell you that we will legally challenge this legislation as it currently stands, although we haven't seen the legislation yet, so it's a little premature to say that, but we're getting we're getting very close to I think a working product, and and if this is the working product that we see in the code, um we have no choice but to challenge it.

And the reason we're gonna challenge it or are the rezons are these.

Uh as the director have said has said, this legislation is really intended to target half a percent of bad actors in the city.

And so we already have things in place to target those bad actors.

Uh it's nice that attorney Dunbar is here because that's what he does most of the time, and I interact with him in that capacity, and he does a very good job of that.

But uh we also already have a registry that is required by the state, and 90% of what you're asking for is duplicative.

And the state statute clearly preempts your ability to ask for the same information that's already provided.

And since the last time I spoke here, it became very evident to me that neither the administration nor council really looks at the auditor's information and determines who has registered and then uses it to actually find people.

And so if we're not using the information that we already have, and about 60% of the people, uh the units in Columbus are registered, then it really makes no sense to create a second registry when we already have one.

Um and that would be the first basis for us challenging this legislation because you can't make us register twice.

Um state law already makes us register.

Second reason is that the fee that you're asking to be paid is a tax.

There really has never been provided a budget or any useful information about where that money is gonna go and how it's gonna be used.

There have been some things that have been alluded to, but ultimately, if the administration wants to do an exterior inspection of apartment complexes, they can just drive around.

They don't need legislation for that, they don't need money for that, they're already there.

Ultimately, any time they inspect for code purposes, they can inspect the exteriors.

They do that all the time practically.

So that's duplicative as well.

Um it's difficult for the industry to understand how a fee is charged without a budget, particularly if it's only going to be used for this purpose.

And we've asked for a budget through public records requests and specifically to the director, we've been out we've been promised that we haven't been given it.

So that would be a second reason.

The third reason is that you're really burdening the good actors to the exclusion of the bad actors.

So the good actors are gonna register.

The good actors are gonna participate, the good actors are going to pay.

It is likely that the bad actors won't do that.

And so the people that don't register, you're gonna have to go collect fees from administratively and civilly that you're gonna charge according to this legislation, and then you're gonna turn around and try to find them to get inspections done and probably sue them for nuisance because they're not doing their job.

And so all of the good actors that I represent are then being penalized for what the bad actors do.

Um I'll just conclude real fast and just say what I would suggest as an alternative to this legislation is to focus on the conditional registration and create a registry for those people, for those actors, the people that have 10 code violations per hundred that aren't complied with, the people that are a public nuisance.

Get those people on a list and get them to register and get them to be inspected annually and get them to be more compliant and continue to work with those properties.

A lot of times when we're in environmental court, we get through our agreed entry of compliance, and then we forget about them and they're right back there in 10 minutes.

So we focus on that 0.5% more heavily, and if they need to be charged for that, then that makes more sense to the industry.

Um we also secondarily use the registry that we already have.

So if you're gonna pass legislation, say they can register with the auditor or with the city, and then if they're not registered, there's a penalty for that rather than they have to register twice.

So we would say conditional registration is the focus for inspections, and registration can be done at the auditor or at the city.

It's curated and and it's both are used because both are there.

Compliance with one is compliance with the other, and then if there's an administrative cost burden to the city for that information, you can proceed to add to it if necessary down the road with regulation or with new legislation.

So that's that's what we would propose instead.

Thank you, and I'd take any questions if anyone has any.

Uh thank you, uh Dimitri for your testimony.

And I and I will say thank you again for leaning into this process, as I said, that we wanted to be transparent and work with you, and I think uh you have been at the table, and I hope that through this process you've seen that we've taken it serious, uh, and I think made uh significant revisions to it, quite frankly.

Um I think uh uh uh against some of the other advocacy that we have seen.

So thank you again, and uh Steve Dunbar is there, so I guess I'll see you in court there you go.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh not a question.

I'll just note it sounded like we need to ask more information that's specific to Columbus.

So I appreciate you mentioning that.

And after Mr.

Gladman, we will have Cynthia uh flattery Chairman Banks, members of council.

My name is Steve Gladman.

I live at 1300 Northwest Boulevard and Council District 7.

Uh representing the Columbus Department Association today.

Uh I've made several comments in writing, and we met several times, and I appreciate the city uh council staff and uh administrative staff.

I I really just want to touch on three points.

Uh I'll probably have more detailed comments when they it's in ordinance form.

Um those three comments really just center on conditional registration, preventative education inspection, and then the fee.

Uh the director's done a good job, I think, of quantifying there's half or one percent of the properties are really a problem.

And the idea of focusing on those uh problem properties, I think has tremendous merit.

We're supportive of that.

We think it's efficient, effective, and equitable.

The changes uh from the last draft of the proposal, I think capture our biggest concern, which it was not just a raw count, but non-compliance.

So I think that uh is uh as very much strengthened that section and is is a good rewrite.

The preventative education inspection really pivots away from focusing on one percent, and now you're going back to having the entire population, the other 99% have an administrative cost and administrative burden of reporting.

And I understand the purpose of that, but as I read this, many of the items that are uh suggested under the preventative education inspection, and when we met with uh uh director messer in the past, things like boilers were mentioned, fire code, those are already covered.

The boilers are inspected by the state on a regular schedule.

Uh the fire department can go in at any time and look at fire safety, look at egress, look at whether the fire extinguishers are current, uh, if the lighting is proper.

So a lot of this is already there.

The city could do this anytime they want.

They don't have to wait every every three years to do it, and they don't necessarily have to charge uh the $15 per unit fee.

Uh as um, as you heard earlier, you know, we don't know what the $15, we don't know what the revenue projection is.

We don't know the expense projection of those.

So it's hard for us to say that that's in any way uh an equitable fee.

We know what others other cities charge us, and it's from a dollar to several dollars.

So we look forward to having uh more information, more specific information about that, and again would encourage the focus of this legislation to be on that one percent or less and have strong compliance and enforcement uh in that area and not so much burden the entire population.

I was talking about properties that would be one or two years old, having a proactive inspection and with a 15 bow.

Thank you.

Uh thank you again, Mr.

Glavin, and appreciate you calling out uh uh those points and some things that we have made and uh appreciate you leaning into the process as well.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next we have Ms.

Cynthia.

I'm sorry, were any questions or comments?

So Miss Cynthia Flattery, followed by uh Jerry O'Neal good to see you again.

Welcome back to council.

Councilman Bangston and members of City Council.

My name is Cindy Flaherty, and I'm here representing Bred, an organization of more than 40 religious organ congregations in central Ohio.

I'm currently serving as Bred's Vice President, and I'm a member of the St.

Josephine Baquita Parish in North Columbus.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the most recent draft proposal to create a City of Columbus rental registry.

In the interest of time, I'll jump right to the point.

The current compliant complaint-based system of code enforcement is not adequate to address the issues of today's housing market.

Research shows that to protect renters and to hold irresponsible landlords accountable.

You must also have regular inspections by the city.

The most recent draft proposal for the rental registry would put Columbus on the right path by instituting regular health and safety education inspections in common areas.

The city will identify many problems by the worst landlords.

When the problems are found, they will be referred to the appropriate yet regulatory division for further action.

We support the proposal and commend City Council for working through the complex legal issues that must be considered.

At the same time, we think that the legislation could be even stronger.

And I'll address these points in order.

In the information section, rather than giving owners the option to report the average rent, we think the city should ask for a range of rents.

This will provide more granular data that will be useful for the city and the public to track rent and affordability.

The legislation should also clarify that the affirmation must be submitted at the time of registration.

Under preventative education inspections, we recommend establishing a publicly available tracking system with time frames and referrals for follow-up action by the appropriate agency.

The preventative inspection should include infestation and mold.

The legislation should address how inspections will occur for properties that have common that have no common areas, such as duplexes and single-family homes.

Under conditional registration, the threshold for properties with more than 100 units should be set at six or more units with violations in the last 12 months rather than 10.

Otherwise, there's a significant drop in the standard of properties that are just over 100 units.

And under enforcement, it's unclear whether there will be any changes to the existing structure of fines for noncompliance with codes, including escalation for continued non-compliance.

We hope this will be addressed in the final draft.

In summary, we believe that the most recent draft proposal is strong, but it could be made even stronger with the addition of our suggestions.

And we thank you for the opportunity to speak about in support of the rental registry.

Thank you again, Cindy, and uh thanks uh Brett as well for all your uh advocacy in this space.

And as you said, I think as I said from the beginning, uh there were going to be things that none of us got all that we wanted, but I will say that that is why we're putting in this, I think, look review period, so that every few years that we are looking at this, uh, getting to a place where this is up and running.

I think we can continue to have those conversations, and so thank you for your advocacy and uh look forward to continue working with you.

Uh next we have uh Mr.

Jerry O'Neill, followed by John Myers.

Council members, my name is Jerry O'Neill.

I'm a third generation real estate broker and property manager.

We've been in business for 105 years here in the city of Columbus.

We currently manage for over 231 small landlords, over 600 doors.

Um New Philadelphia, Ohio, Judge Elizabeth Lee Tomakos has ruled that Yurksville, Ohio's landlord's registration fee is illegal and an unconstitutional tax.

Taxes collected and not used for the betterment of the taxpayers that paid them are unconstitutional.

Landlords are now they won that case, and the landlords are now currently suing the city of Yuriksville to refund all the monies that were paid.

So that's already case law.

From the Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution, a think tank, whose mission is to advance free market public policy in the United States.

I quote, the proposed ordinance will be more harmful than beneficial.

It will raise housing costs for Columbus renters, particularly those least able to afford them, without delivering any meaningful benefits that cannot already be achieved.

The goal of imprimant improving and housing conditions and safety is laudable and understandable, but the proposed rental registry's design is flawed and expensive.

It mandates annual registration fees, inspections, and administrative burdens that will increase rent prices and negatively affect renters downstream.

So this is actually eliminating affordable housing in Columbus, which I believe is a goal of this council is to increase affordable housing in Columbus.

So adding costs is the opposite of what should be happening.

Iram, the Institute of Real Estate Management, NARPAM, the National Association of Residential Property Managers.

The Columbus and Ohio Apartment Associations coined the Central Ohio Investors Network, all oppose this rental registry.

Doesn't that tell you something when everyone across the board is opposed to it?

Rather than creating a costly new municipal registry that duplicates state requirements and adds additional compliance layers, the Columbus City Council should strengthen enforcement of the existing state mandated county registration system and asks the General Assembly to increase penalties for non-compliance.

A higher, more consistent penalty for failing to register at the county local rental registry would provide an effective deterrent.

Importantly, it would not target honest property owners and would not risk needlessly raising rents for lower income residents.

So we I oppose this legislation.

Thank you, Ms.

Renault.

Any questions from Mr.

O'Neill?

Thank thank you, uh Mr.

for your testimony, and also thank you for being a housing provider in our community.

Thank you.

Next uh was Mr.

John Myers, followed by Aaron Lance.

Mr.

Meyer, welcome to council.

You have three minutes.

Uh the floor is yours.

Understood.

Uh members of council, my name is John Myers.

I've been a licensed realtor in Columbus for over 40 years, and have served as a past president of Columbus Realtors.

I'm the broker owner of a property management company.

On the rental property management side of our business, we manage nearly 600 units in the Columbus area.

And 90% of those over 90% of those are residential.

Our clients are small investors who may own one or a handful of properties.

Our clients are small investors who may own one or a handful of properties that like a house, a four-family, that type of thing.

Basically, your mom and pop investors are who our clients are.

So I'm speaking for them as well as for myself.

Let's be honest about what this is.

A sweeping new regulatory mandate imposed on every rental property owner in Columbus, regardless of whether they've had ever had a code violation, failed inspection, all of that.

By your own numbers that we heard today, the problem is only with a half a percent.

Yet they're going to be affected negatively by this.

But don't build an entirely new bureaucracy that treats reasonable small landlords, responsible small landlords, like they are presumed to be guilty.

In a housing market already strained by rising cost, those expenses will not be absorbed by the landlords.

They will be passed on to renters.

Every new regulatory layer becomes another line item in the cost of housing.

And let's talk about the consequences.

The people most affected by this will not be the large firms who already have people in place to handle this unnecessary burden.

The people most affected will be local independent property owners, the family that owns a duplex, a retiree that owns a four-family.

When the regulations pile up, they sell.

Next we have uh Aaron Lance, followed by Brian Bainbridge.

And Aaron, I'm going to listen intently, but I have to go to the restroom.

So I didn't get what he said to have to wait.

No worries.

Chair Bingston had to rent to the restroom.

I can't see.

I I'm legally blind, so I can't see anything.

No worries.

Can you hear me?

I can hear it.

Awesome.

Chair Banks then had to run to the restroom.

Okay.

You can either wait for him to return or you can provide your testimony in his absence.

You still have Councilmember Ross and Councilmember Weish.

I'll wait.

Okay.

Okay, sir.

Chair Bangkson is back.

Hope you felt better, Banks.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

And I am a tenant.

I have an apartment.

That's my home.

And my landlord was great.

They fix things right away.

But what I want to talk to you about is I have friends who are not in the position that I am in.

They have runs the gamut from leaking roofs to leaking windows to heating not working.

For example, my nephew, he um actually has been living for the past three years, and his heat never gets above 54, but it runs continuously and hard to keep at 54.

So he's paying 400 a month.

But needless to say, I'm just saying there's there's protections are out there, and some people are nervous.

Um friends are first generation immigrants, and they are fearful to reach out and get the additional help beyond their they think they pay their rent every month, and that's they should get their um issues addressed.

But they're they can't, or they don't know how to.

Um so I think it's a well disingenuous what I hear earlier about um paying fifteen dollars a month, how that will hurt the uh tenants.

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

But what it will do is give them a home with heat without um uh and have them that ability, their rent is already going up fifty dollars a month, they typically is what they're saying.

So um $15, if they want to add it, which would be what $2 a month at most to their um monthly rent?

I don't think that would be an issue.

And also I think um maybe two violations is way too many um on a uh landlord.

So I I just want to make that note.

So I'm sure mine has zero violations because they're on it.

So um I uh also um it is a right, it's a human right for everybody to have a home and a home with heat.

And I enjoy that home.

I think everybody else does.

And when you own your own home and you pay a contractor to come in to fix your heat, you expect it to get done.

So that's all I'm saying is people pay for this house or this apartment, and they should have that right to have heat or not have a leaking faucet.

Um that's it.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Lance, and also thank you for allowing me to go to the restroom.

And just to put a finer point on that, uh, at $15, uh, that is a dollar twenty-five per month.

Uh and uh is a is four cents per day in a year.

With that, uh Brian Bainbridge uh is next, followed by uh Sarah Dreyer.

Good evening, Councilmember Bankston and members of council.

Um my name is Brian Baamers.

I'm a uh 17-year licensed real estate professional serving buyers and sellers and property owners and tenants throughout the city of Columbus.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.

It's been an honor here.

Um in this room agrees that uh to provide safe, well-maintained housing is the goal we all share.

Realtors especially, and I know landlords too.

We work daily to uh provide uh responsible housing and to take pride in maintaining the the quality and serving tenants professionally.

I'm also a landlord.

I have 14 properties, and is it a community uh focused agent uh council member uh day Al Qaeda knows me personally, um, and a real estate agent.

I aim to provide a nicer quality housing for all my tenants.

Uh plainly uh put the current registry uh is a regulatory scheme as it currently sits.

As currently structured, it's uh creating new layers of regulation that uh risk uh harming housing supply, affordability, and small property owners without clearly demonstrating measurable safety gains.

The proposal imposes a mandatory annual registration requirement on all residential properties.

This is not just a targeted enforcement tool, it is a blanket regulatory expansion, creating double enforcement with the Columbus uh code department, and therefore screams big government inefficiency.

The overwhelming um before said before, the only overwhelming majority of rental um providers in Columbus already comply with the existing uh safety building and housing codes.

This ordinance presumes systematic noncompliance and imposes new administrative burdens uh regardless of the performance history.

Second, the excessive cost.

This is not just about the $15 as said um along with the Gestapo style inspections uh will not only be absorbed by the property owners, um, but in today's tight housing market, the regulatory costs will be often passed through the form of higher rents, and modest annual fees multiplied by um across thousands of units can materially affect the housing affordability.

I mean, I quite honestly go off script here.

Um my rentals, I make very little money each month as is.

There's a handful of them.

You know, I'm I'm I'm in it for the the equity gain.

Uh I'm not making a ton of money.

So that's you know, for for us small people, it hurts I would say one of my uh last points here is that regul the this legislation hurts small business.

Um for those that I know there's an exemption with those who follow smaller than uh 10 units, it also creates a regulatory frame framework that disproportionately impact small to mid-sized providers like myself.

I'm doing this for retirement for me and my wife.

Fourth, the compliant uh property owners will bear the um the administrative costs.

And back the bad actors will not listen.

I this is you guys are your hearts from the right place.

I just don't think this legislative um initiative is the way to go about doing it.

So do you have any questions?

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Absolutely, and thank you, uh Mr.

Bambers for uh your testimony today, and also again for being a housing provider in our our uh community.

Thank you.

Uh next we have Miss Sarah Dreyer uh followed by Deb Kranz.

Good evening to the council, and I want to applaud applaud you, Council Member Bankston, for your leadership on this rental registry.

I moved into my current residence in 2022 because I thought it was a safe place to live for my son and my two nieces who I've adopted.

In 2021, my sister, their mother, was shot and killed by her husband, their father.

At the time, my nieces were out of town.

I adopted them and brought them to Columbus.

I was living on the Near East Side, furthering my education.

And the gunshots that were happening in the neighborhood were very triggering, and I did not want the children to be even further traumatized.

So I thought, where could I live?

Where it was a nicer part of the town, and I moved to Clintonville.

The children set up school there, they really love it at Indianola.

And my neighbors were great.

The children could play outside without fear.

We live right by Glen Echo.

It's so therapeutic.

The current owner of that home was a person who's not involved in a lot of real estate.

I heard a lot about small uh rental uh the the loan number.

So I this testimony is about someone who only owns one, I think maybe two properties.

It was an older woman, and she did great the first two years.

She, and after the first two years, she passed away and gave it to her son, who's um I am 40.

I think he's in his 50s, so not too much older than me.

At that time, things changed drastically.

He changed property managers to a cheaper company who was very ineffective and very unattentive.

The uh maintenance men that were come wouldn't come back because they realized they weren't gonna get paid constantly, consistently.

He was not approving the funds needed to maintain very essential repairs in the home.

Quickly, my illusion of living in a nicer neighborhood and it being safer was um that that dream was a night became a nightmare because of this landlord.

Eventually I called 311 and multiple co-violations were found against him.

And by multiple, I mean more than three.

I think it's about five.

I have to look back over the course of the last 14 months.

It's been numerous times, including piping black mold, structurals outside that were completely unsafe, that it should have never been on the home in the first place when I moved into it.

And that is why I say I believe that you should move forward with this, because it could have possibly prevented me from going through what I'm going through now.

I'm actually working with 311.

There's a tenant protection clause set up by Shaila Favors.

That is the only thing that is helping me seek retaliation, uh, seek justice for them retaliating against me.

I just believe that if this ordinance were there in place ahead of time, that this would not have happened.

And I would hope and pray that this ordinance put in place will prevent others from going through the hell that I had to go through.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Let me just say thank you for uh being vulnerable and giving us your personal story.

Yes.

Um and sorry, that is your experience.

Yes.

Um, you know, this piece of legislation won't be the silver bullet, but I think it's the package of everything that has been done under uh Councilmember Shayla Favor, now under Councilmember Ross that we want to continue to get this right.

It's not about I think uh penalizing or being burdensome, but it is these types of stories uh that we want to prevent.

So thank you again for sharing your story with us, and uh I appreciate it.

Thank you both.

Uh next is Deb Kranz, and then finally rounding this out will be Miss Sarah Holsk Holskalter, which I'm probably butchering and I apologize.

Welcome to Council.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bankston, other council members.

I'm Deb Krance.

I am a rental property provider in Central Ohio and Columbus specifically.

I'm also a private lender to other rental housing providers in Columbus and elsewhere in addition.

I thank you for the another opportunity to provide comments on the proposed legislation.

Uh last time I was here, Councilmember Bankston, you asked me why did I think housing providers would sell their Columbus portfolios if the rental registry was implemented.

Um and at the time it was a $20 chump change, now it's $15.

But what's a couple more bucks and uh an inspection, the cost of an inspection.

Uh and I thought you were joking, to be honest.

Um, but you had just heard hours of comments uh in opposition to the proposed legislation, but you were serious.

So I came prepared with a couple of things that might help you understand um what rental housing providers are living in real time.

So I wanted to talk about maintenance for a second.

Um, generally speaking, my own experience as a rental housing provider, uh, we generally do two preventive maintenance calls each year, and then we budget for another unexpected expense.

I'm gonna use for my example um uh a backed up drain because that happens.

Um so I wanted to give you a sense that basic survey call service calls.

I look back to 2020, those are about 75 dollars for each one.

In 2025, we're at about 130 dollars.

That's uh about a 75 percent increase.

Snaking a main drain in 2020 was 185.

In 2025, it's about 280 dollars.

It's a 51% increase.

So uh overall, it's about 17 dollars a month for the maintenance that we generally provide.

Water and sewer, and I'm quoting from the um uh Columbus water sewer utility, whatever you guys rebranded that.

Um, quote, overall average increase for 2026 will be about 11.72 percent for a three-person household, which is pretty common in my case.

That's about a 27 dollar a month increase over last year.

Property insurance, average increase of 7.3 percent for 2026, it's about $7 a month.

Property tax.

Um, I think I had mentioned last time I was here over my portfolio.

My increase has been between the range was 175% to 325 percent overall.

Our average increase is about 275% across our portfolio.

It's $93 a month.

All of that is $144 a month increase.

That's about a 10% increase if if we use $1,500 a month for average rent.

That's about as much as any tenant can tolerate for uh a rental increase, and I would agree.

Um, it's a lot.

Uh and my point is it doesn't take much more cost or uncertainty about legislation for investors to go elsewhere.

It invites the housing providers that communities like less who buy from those who are better informed about local business conditions.

Those who are selling their Columbus properties will sell at market rates, as we should, uh, but deep pocket investors, often from out of the area, can better afford those rents, those uh rates.

Um and I think it's been mentioned.

Uh I attended the Ohio Supreme Court on January 8th, and I heard the oral arguments on rental inspections without warrants being there no probable cause.

I do think that there's going to be a constitutional question here, and I invite the opportunity to to defend that.

Uh, this legislation assumes that all housing providers are guilty of something until the city decides otherwise.

I believe the expense of defending good maintenance is time and money wasted that could have gone to creating more quality housing.

I thank you again for your time.

Thank you, Miss Kranz, and thank you for uh being a part of the process and coming back in and testifying.

Also, I just want to say thank you for being a responsible um housing provider in our community.

Um last but not least, we have uh Miss Sarah.

Come on up, you won't have to teach me how to say it.

They didn't they didn't give me a phonetic spelling on here, so I'm short.

Good evening, council members.

My name is S.

Holsketer.

I use they them pronouns.

I'm still working on changing my identifiers.

I got it.

It's long, I get it.

Um for three years, I ran a pilot project at the eviction court.

I saw up to 200 people per day, and I have confirmed with the current eviction court social workers that the situation I described remains the same today.

The threat of an eviction filing, even if it's baseless and will get thrown out as soon as it hits the court, is enough to cow a person into not following up on conditions and repairs.

There is zero proof required of late payment or of any lease violation when a landlord goes to actually file an eviction.

Retaliatory eviction filings will still show up on a tenants' record for the next five to seven years, barring that tenant from at least at least 50% of the available rentals in the city should they want to move.

This filing remains on FABCO and other credit reporting agencies' records, even if the landlord drops the case the next day, even if the tenant has the eviction filing removed from the public record, and even if the tenant wins the eviction case.

More often than not, and by a wide margin, eviction court tenants with even severe conditions and habitability issues that I met had not pursued them with the city because they feared that their landlord would file an eviction in retaliation for their complaint.

I have seen photos of truly deplorable conditions that tenants endured for months before being reported to the city.

Mushrooms growing in somebody's living room, sewage up to somebody's knees, holes in the ceiling.

Even the escrow process does not block a landlord from simultaneously filing an eviction and offers the tenant no protection from having that filing on their record.

I recently attended a webinar by run by Shelter Forest, a national housing focused publication, which focused on habitability issues.

The links to the resources I mentioned were provided in the email I sent.

They gave many examples of municipalities where proactive inspections have hugely impacted the quality of life tenants can expect.

And they don't cost the city significantly more money.

New Orleans is an example of how registries and permits can be used to neutralize bad slum lords and improve housing conditions while maintaining compliance with statewide laws similar to ours that prohibit rent control, interference with tenant landlord relationships, and etc.

For this reason, proactive inspections are a crucial non-disposable component of the rental registry, especially all of the indicators that were proposed by Bred, are again going towards that idea of proactive tenant safety focused um components.

A complaint-based system will not catch all the bad actors.

Focusing on what we currently have will not catch all of the bad actors, and I would submit to you that it would cost less, that it will provide far less protection to renters.

Sorry.

It will provide far less protection to renters than a proactive system.

And most renters, myself included, would rather pay one and a half dollars extra per month for the safety of knowing that when I call and am in deep distress, I'm going to get some sort of support, and that you know, I'd rather pay a dollar and a half per month knowing that it's not going to come down on me if my landlord needs to fix something.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony and advocacy and everything that you're doing in the eviction court to help our residents.

I really appreciate that.

And I'm gonna save you a little bit of money, it's a dollar twenty-five per month.

Um that concludes all of um our public uh speakers for uh this afternoon's hearing.

Again, want to thank everyone who came to get public testimony.

Uh my office will again take this feedback and continue uh to work with folks, and and I will say that this isn't the end of a conversation.

Continue to please reach out to to my office uh because we want to continue to be engaged.

As I said, that we will ensure that there is a a uh review period and a look back period for this policy because we want to continue to uh strengthen it and to evolve it to make sure that it meets our needs as a community.

Uh again, please keep an eye out for additional information from my office regarding next steps, uh, which will most likely involve official consideration by council by uh March.

Uh so we will have, of course, a first reading and then a second reading.

So again, there will still be more time uh for dialogue and discussion.

Uh, before we wrap up any uh closing comments from any of my colleagues, um, I also want to um thank uh she left and I was trying to get her before she left, but also she was here.

I wanted to thank Jessica Klinger uh in Council President Harden's office.

She's done a lot of work uh behind the scenes as well to get us to this point.

Uh as you know, council president was the uh interim housing chair um before council member raws.

And so I just wanted to make sure I acknowledge uh Jessica and thank her uh for all her work.

Also want to again thank uh my team, uh Mr.

Brown and Mr.

Dorval for all of their work as well and continue to reach out to us uh engage with us.

With that, I will conclude this here.

Have a great evening, everybody.