05-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING MaV 9, 2016 Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston stated she questions the email that Councilmember Scott read because everything Glenda Rae shared in her earlier emails and then even the first part of the email sounds like the Commission has not made a decision. She made it clear the Commission has not studied nor considered this specific bill or taken a position on it. Individuals may have strong feelings one way or another. She also stated in an email that if the Council is interested in the opinion of the Commission then the Council needs to understand they have not taken a formal opinion on the matter. Councilmember Tim Scott stated all he was doing is sending on the email he received. Lonnie Douglas has been on TV with the media in favor of this and Fred Harris was part of crafting this bill and has supported it. Councilmember Williams- Preston expressed that from the original bill filed to what changes were made in this substitute bill is a completely different experience. The sponsors have worked very hard to reach out and talk to people to make positive changes. One of those changes she appreciates is the reduction of fines which was a big concern for her. Councilmember Scott thanked Councilmember Williams- Preston for that opinion because we can respectfully disagree with issues and have civil discussion. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked if they intended to add the language regarding the one (1) year review into the actual bill itself. Councilmember Scott responded it doesn't need to be in the actual bill itself just like all the other committee meetings we hold. He stressed that he has done similar things with other ordinances he has written and will absolutely do so as well with this bill. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated it is something she would like to see in the bill and it is an easy fix. She asked because we have a problem with contacting owners, how can they successfully fill out the section of the registration asking for their code violations if they have not been contacted and told if they have violations. Councilmember Scott stated that was modeled following practices in Indianapolis and South Bend has had similar language in other ordinances as well. The idea is if there are any issues that are there they can be addressed immediately with Code Enforcement. He granted that Councilmember Williams- Preston has a valid point regarding if the person does not know and there may need to be an option to select unknown where the penalty would not apply. Councilmember Jo M. Broden thanked the sponsors for addressing the questions and concerns she did have with the original bill. Councilmember Scott stated they did look into her suggestion of changing the name of the bill but the Indiana Code uses the term "Landlord" and we wanted to be consistent. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked what is the rational of initially penalizing late fees because if a person pays late on their federal or state taxes they simply pay the original amount plus a set late fee. Councilmember Scott responded the compromise there is that there is a thirty (30) day warning period built into the bill so you have that time after the deadline before any penalties are assessed. There are many different types of options related to the fees and this is what they decided to go with. Councilmember Davis asked what in this bill guards against aggressive enforcement. Assistant City Attorney Tasha Reed Outlaw responded this bill addresses the fact that the City is going to give them an opportunity to cure. Also, the City has the discretion to work with individuals. Councilmember Davis asked if the people in cases where aggressive enforcement was argued did they have that cure provision.