05-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING May 9, 2016 Ms. Outlaw responded she did not specifically look at that ordinance in respect to those cases. There actually was not a cure provision in a lot of the municipality ordinances we looked at to craft this bill so we added that as an extra benefit for individuals who are not in compliance. Councilmember Davis stated he was concerned about using those ordinances as examples because they are relatively new to Indiana. However the federal government in regards to Ferguson, have made recent rulings about penalties and fees and therefore we have to be a lot more cognizant and do our due diligence at the start and not wait a year. So we should look to other states on how they have dealt with these bills because the cities in Indiana were late to the game. Councilmember Davis asked what cities outside of Indiana did the sponsors look at when crafting this bill. Ms. Outlaw responded they did not look at other states but specifically looked at other municipalities within the state. They were careful to make sure they inserted the cure provision that is not included in other ordinances to give the City some type of blueprint and individuals some type of warning so that the City is not aggressively trying to seek out civil penalties against individuals. All the City is asking for is compliance and all they are asking for is a repository so the City has their own information and not rely on the inefficient information of the County. Councilmember Davis stated a lot of these human rights issues are not only taken to state court but are also taken to federal court and it does not look like we have done our due diligence in regards to federal law because the group that would study that is the Human Rights Commission and they have not even given an opinion. They have clearly not studied the federal law in this matter. Councilmember Davis also asked if they had conversations with the Human Rights Commission attorney and could that person provide us with any information. Ms. Outlaw responded they would have to ask her for her opinion but she will not speak on her behalf. Councilmember Davis expressed concern about having the penalties pay for the curbs and sidewalks program because when you have a bill that states where the money will go for certain penalties it can be seen as funding city projects. Councilmember Scott deferred to Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand. Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand responded this is similar to other ordinances where certain funds have been earmarked for certain departments such as noise violations have been earmarked to law enforcement and their continuing education fund. Here it is not required it is only an option where only the penalties may be earmarked for sidewalks within residential areas that would be affected. This is not unique to the City of South Bend. Councilmember Davis stated just because it is not unique does not mean there are no issues with it because the ruling regarding Ferguson is relatively new and since were making this ruling after Ferguson, we need to do our due diligence and look into that. Council Attorney Cekanski-Farrand stated we did look at communities who passed landlord registrations post Ferguson and we did look into that provision. Councilmember Davis asked about the application fraud consequence and how it relates to Indiana law. He shared concern that fraud is difficult is prove. Ms. Outlaw responded that she was not at the meeting when that specific provision was added into the bill but under the bill the owners will still have to prove fraud. What this ordinance states is that the City will forward any information if they believe fraud has taken place over to the Prosecutors office and they have the discretion either to accept the case or deny the case. We are not saying that the City is creating this new definition of fraud, what the bill states is that anything we believe is fraud will be forwarded to the Prosecutors office and it is up to them to make a decision. Councilmember John Voorde stated he is anxious to hear from the public and real estate community. Those from the public wishing to speak in favor of the bill: p7