Subject to Approval June 4, 2001

The Common Council of the City of West Lafayette, Indiana met in the Council Chambers at City Hall on May 7, 2001 at the hour of 7:30 p.m.

Mayor Margerum, who presided, called the meeting to order.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes called the roll:

PRESENT: COHEN, KEEN, MILLS, O'CALLAGHAN, SATTERLY, SPARBY, WINDLER

ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Bauman, Director of Development Andrew, City Engineer Snyder, Fire Chief Ford, Police Chief Marvin, Parks Superintendent Payne, Street Commissioner Downey, Wastewater Treatment Utility Director Darter, and Assistant Director of Development Grady.

The Pledge of Allegiance was repeated.

Councilor Sparby moved to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2001 Pre-Council Meeting and the April 9, 2001 Common Council Meeting as distributed. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly and passed viva-voce.

Street and Sanitation: Councilor Satterly presented this report.

The Street Commissioner reports that the curb and sidewalk reconstruction on Salisbury Street from Stadium to Meridian is just about complete on the east side and the west side of the street has now begun. On US 231 roadwork, the bridge across the river, the connection to the bridge I should say, may be open by May 31, 2001. The Harrison Street bridge is now open to four lanes of traffic, two lanes in each direction. Kalberer Road is under construction and the road is closed to through traffic. The resurfacing specifications have been advertised for this year.

Councilor O'Callaghan said Mayor, I would just like to thank Street Commissioner Downey for figuring out a way to keep the west side of Salisbury Street open for the children to walk home from school in the interim of the east side being completed to the west side. It was a creative solution.

Street Commissioner Downey said thank you.

Planning and Zoning: No report.

Public Safety: Councilor Keen presented this report.

I think it comes as no surprise that the West Lafayette Fire Department and the West Lafayette Police Department were rather busy last month. Both of them were up by about 25% on their calls, but, in the words of Fire Chief Ford, they were able to handle it. We appreciate that.

Purdue Relations: Councilor Windler presented this report.

Once again, summer's upon us and while most of the Purdue students have already left, next weekend is graduation. I would like to remind all the residents that there will be thousands of visitors on campus, many of whom are not familiar with West Lafayette, where things are, and flow of traffic patterns. There are going to be parents that haven't been here very often trying to move out their now college graduates. So, I would ask, if you are driving around next weekend and commencements are going on that you exercise a little caution. Give yourself an extra five or ten minutes as you are travelling around the City to get to places and if you see somebody with an out of state or out of town license plate and they are looking a little lost, offer them a helping hand and leave them with a good impression of the City and the citizens of West Lafayette.

Parks and Recreation: Councilor O'Callaghan presented this report.

Construction has begun on the Lilly Nature Center addition and the Arbor Day program was held there April 28^th. The Park Board Foundation will meet there May 15^th. The Park Board will meet there May 21^st. I'd also like to note that the Park Board has been working with the developers for the University Place development and we'll hear more about that later. The MorDanc'n performance was held at the Elliot Hall of Music and was a great success.

Department of Development: Councilor O'Callaghan presented this report.

The Redevelopment Commission did approve funds for the City's share of the Lindberg Road and it is on the May INDOT bid list. It's very exciting that we're finally getting this project under way and the State is finally getting this project under way. The Redevelopment Commission will meet on May 17^th at 10:30 a.m. in the Wabash Landing parking lot for a walk-through of Wabash Landing and then at noon, back up here at City Hall for their regular meeting. And, the Development Committee met a week ago Friday to take more public input about the rental ordinance and made some suggestions and we will be discussing the amended rental ordinance later this evening.

PERSONNEL: Councilor Cohen presented this report.

The Personnel Committee met with the Mayor, Diane Foster, and the Clerk-Treasurer, with the result of updating certain City policies, with the primary purpose is some consistency of compensatory and overtime policies to all employees in every department. This would be a part of Resolution No. 11-01, later on this evening.

BUDGET AND FINANCE: No report.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT UTILITY: Councilor Satterly presented this report.

During the month of March there was no overflow. All flow was treated through the sewage treatment plant. The report on the treatment of sewage is on file with the Clerk-Treasurer.

REPORT OF APC REPRESENTATIVE: Councilor Mills presented this report.

I have just two items tonight. At the last APC meeting, we have two items that concern us tonight, Z-2003 which is McCormick Place PD, which we'll talk about a little later in the agenda, and Z-2006 University Place PD, which we will also talk about tonight. So, I won't comment until then.

REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES: No reports.

Mayor Margerum said I have one item on Public Relations and that is to report that the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting has been awarded to the City of West Lafayette by the Government Finance Officers Association in the United States and Canada. Also, an award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been awarded for the individual primarily responsible for preparing the award winning CAFR. This has been presented to Judy Rhodes, Clerk-Treasurer and this is the CAFR.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said thank you.

Councilor Sparby moved that the financial report be approved as distributed. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly and passed viva-voce.

Ordinance No. 15-01 An Additional Appropriation (Clerk-Treasurer, Police) (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer). Councilor Sparby read the Ordinance in part and moved that Ordinance No. 15-01 be passed on second and final reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum said we need to have a public hearing because this is an additional appropriation and the purpose of this is implementation of the TickeTrak system for parking, ticket issuance, and tracking in the Police Department and interfacing with the collections database in the Clerk-Treasurer's Office. Are there any comments on the additional appropriation as presented?

There were no comments.

Mayor Margerum closed the public hearing and asked for the second and final reading, by roll call.

Ordinance No. 15-01 passed second and final reading, 7-0.

Ordinance No. 16-01(Amended) An Ordinance To Amend West Lafayette City Code Chapter 46 Concerning Bicycles (Prepared by the City Attorney). Councilor Sparby read the Ordinance by title only and moved that Ordinance No. 16-01(Amended) be passed on second and final reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

There was no discussion.

Ordinance No. 16-01(Amended) passed second and final reading, 7-0.

Ordinance No. 17-01(Amended) An Ordinance To Amend The Provisions Of West Lafayette City Code Concerning Rental Certificates And Their Regulation (Prepared by the City Attorney). Councilor Sparby read the Ordinance by title only and moved that Ordinance No. 17-01(Amended) be passed on second and final reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum said we had a hearing on Friday, at which we asked for input into this rental certificate regulation ordinance, and there were some questions raised at that time and some amendments. So, I would like to ask the City Attorney if he would summarize those amendments. I believe you all have copies of them but if he could just summarize them for you.

City Attorney Bauman said I'll skip over the minor corrections and verbiage changes and deal with the substantive ones. In Section 117.02, we added a definition for condominium rental. In Section 117.05, we added a provision for the owner or manager to go ahead and submit an occupancy affidavit without the signature of the occupants, if the occupants have refused to timely sign, in which case, the City would pursue that violation against the occupants. We've also made some adjustment to the dates in subsection (c), which corresponded with the request at the Committee meeting, and we've also added a streamlined provision for submission where there are no changes from the previous occupancy affidavit. In Section 117.06, we've added a Category 7 and 8 for condominiums. Again, in Section 117.07, on the rental fees and term, we've added a provision for Category 7, which is a condominium where it's under the same management as the entire condominium development. It's $150 per structure, and $2 per unit. Category 8 would be where it is not under common management and that'll be $75, plus $10 for each additional unit. We have added a section (j), on reinspection and no show fees. That was inadvertently omitted last time. The fees are the same as in the current ordinance. Another area that got a lot of discussion was Section 117.10 (a) (2), one of the bases for probation. That has been substantially changed. It now provides that it will be a bases for probation if there was a "refusal by an owner to attend a mediation noticed by the program administrator to resolve repeated conflicts involving neighbors and public nuisance allegations through voluntary cooperative agreements facilitated by the program administrator between any complainant, property owner, or group of tenants." So, that was changed so there is no judgement about whether it's a nuisance or a conflict. It's simply whether they refuse to attend. Throughout the ordinance, we had changed the term "owner's legal agent" to, simply, "owner's agent." In Section 117.17, something that was discussed quite a bit at the previous Council meeting and again at the Committee meeting was the transfer of the rental certificate. We've now provided that, upon furnishing the new owner and agent information and paying a fee of $50, the rental certificate would be transferred to a new owner. In Section 117.18, we have removed the requirement for the owner to furnish a snow shovel or a lawnmower, and we've added specific provisions that the owner is responsible for providing proper trash receptacles, which is already required in the City Code, but also specifically providing that the occupants are responsible for the proper use of them and keeping the property clean. In Section 117.19, there was some concern about general advertisement for an apartment complex and how the trust in advertising would apply to that. We've changed that to provide it applies to an advertisement for a specific unit. We deleted the previous section (c). Finally, in Section 117.20 (e), we've provided that it's a defense to an overoccupancy violation if the owner or agent can prove they were diligent in monitoring occupancy and that the overoccupancy occurred without their knowledge and that the rent would have been reasonable for a legal occupancy of the unit. Those are the substantive changes that have been made.

Mayor Margerum said all right, I'll first give the Council an opportunity to comment on this and then we will take input from the audience. We'll ask for five minutes and each person is only allowed to speak once. Then, as it moves on, we ask that if a point has already been made that that not be repeated. So, I'll ask the City Attorney if he'll keep track of the time. Council, do you have any questions or comments about this?

Councilor Satterly said on Section 117.06 (c), it says "Category 3 is occupancy by one unrelated person as roomer, along with a family, one or more of whose members owns the property." I had a call from a constituent that said that she believed that, under the old ordinance, two roomers were allowed. I don't know whether you need a motion or not, but I would ask that that one unrelated person be changed to two unrelated persons as roomers.

City Attorney Bauman said it probably should say "not more than two unrelated persons."

Councilor Satterly said not more than two.

City Attorney Bauman if that is what you want to change. A point of clarification, it's not that two roomers aren't allowed, but they just wouldn't fall in this category as presently written. But, if you want to change that, you could change that to say...

Councilor Satterly said yes, I would like to do that if we can.

City Attorney Bauman said I would suggest then, if you want to do that, the vote would be to change it to "is occupancy by not more than two unrelated persons as roomers."

Councilor Satterly said I'd like to move that.

Motion was seconded by Councilor Windler

Councilor O'Callaghan said if we didn't change that, which category would that fall under, Mr. Bauman?

City Attorney Bauman said it would fall under 6, I think.

Councilor O'Callaghan said 6. So, the difference there would be...6 is $300 and Category 3 would be $150.

City Attorney Bauman said certainly, whether it's one or two, you still have an owner who resides there and is on the premises.

Councilor Windler said I like the motion because it still observes the zoning requirements that say no more than three unrelated people. So, it allows some flexibility as far as housing goes, but it doesn't violate our existing codes. That's why I seconded it and support it.

The motion to amend Ordinance No. 17-01(Amended) to change the wording in Section 117.06(c) to "occupancy by not more than two unrelated persons as roomers" passed by voice vote, 6-1.

Mayor Margerum said that will then be part of the ordinance, as amended.

Councilor Sparby said I had a point of clarification I wanted from Mr. Bauman. As I understand this, if I own a single home and I rent it out to a family, then I'm going to pay $150 for inspection fees every two years. But, if I rent that same house to two people that are unrelated, then that would fall under Category 6, is that correct?

City Attorney Bauman said that'd be correct.

Councilor Sparby said so, if people cohabitate, then they're going to pay more money.

City Attorney Bauman said yes.

Councilor Sparby said I guess to me, it just points out the discriminatory nature of this ordinance. I think if we are going to raise the fees to make this program self-supporting, then probably the most equitable way to do it would be to make the inspection fees $300 across the board and one year, for everything. That way we are not singling out students or people that are not legally married, or whatever their lifestyle is. That there is no discrimination involved. Because, I guess, potentially you could have a family where the parents are not married and they may have three or four children and they are going to end up paying the $300 every year. And they could be 40 years old and I doubt if they are going to keep the rental inspection people all that busy. But, if they go out and get the legal paper, then they can only pay $75 a year, $150 for every two years. So, I guess I would like to make a motion that we just take everything down to one category and have the inspection fees be $300 per year.

Motion was seconded by Councilor Keen.

Councilor Windler said Councilor Sparby, question, is that per unit?

Councilor Sparby said per structure, with the $2 fee for each additional unit.

Councilor O'Callaghan said part of the reason for having the categories was actually in response to concerns that we make it such that we can protect the neighborhoods and have the rentals be to single families and have that protection in there. And, it is weighted towards those residences that cause the most problems for the Department of Development for the inspection program and they will then bear the brunt of the program. So, I feel like it's more fair this way.

Councilor Sparby said I'm sorry, but I do disagree. I just think it's really singling out, in particular, the students, and I think West Lafayette needs to accept the fact that the reason most of the people are in this community is because of the University. Either they're here as students, or they're affiliated with the University. They've come here, they've graduated, and they've stayed in the community because they like being close to the University. It's almost like with this ordinance, we're trying to drive all the students out. We're telling them, "We don't want you living - you live in the dorms or you go live in Lafayette or you go live in the County - but we don't want you living in our City."

Councilor O'Callaghan said we want them living in safe housing and we want the neighborhood to be a combination. We don't want all students and we don't want all families. We want a combination. That's why people like to live here, close to the campus, and with good, safe housing that's inspected, and it's not overoccupied, and it doesn't deteriorate the housing stock, and it doesn't increase the nuisance violations, and it makes it a thriving neighborhood that will encourage people, all sorts of people, students and families, to live in.

Councilor Sparby said well, let's treat all sorts of people the same way then.

Councilor Keen said I agree. I would say let's not discriminate by this ordinance, the way it is.

Councilor Windler said well, there's been a lot of talk about discrimination and I remember November of 1999. At that Council meeting, we passed a noise ordinance that was voted, which Councilors Keen and Sparby voted in favor of, that specifically targeted vehicles with loud music. That was targeted to student vehicles. If they're so worried about defending the students and discriminating against students, I wonder if they are interested in reversing their vote and getting rid of that ordinance.

Councilor Sparby said I don't believe it said - you're making the assumption that the only people that crank up their stereos are students.

Councilor Windler said yes, there are a lot of people that drive around with loud Lawrence Welk.

Councilor Mills said I have a comment, please. I want to say that the point is not to have an effect on the students here. The point is to go after the landlords that are not taking care of their properties. We're not going after any students. We're going after landlords that aren't taking care of their properties, regardless of who they rent to. So, that's the point of this ordinance revision.

Councilor Sparby said I guess the one thing that bothers me about it, though, is that if I have a rental property and I rent it to students, then I'm going to pay $300 to have it inspected every year. But then, after the next year, if I rent it to a married couple, then it's going to go to $150 for two years. But, if I only rent it for one year and then I bring in students for that second year of that two year inspection, am I going to have to call the Development Office and say, "Oh, I've changed my tenants."

Councilor O'Callaghan said every six months, they have to do an affidavit of occupancy.

Councilor Sparby said so, they're going to have to be bouncing from category to category, depending on whom they are renting to. That's why I think it just makes far more sense to just make it one category.

Councilor Keen said I would just like to comment to Councilor Mills's suggestion that this is not targeted to any one person or group, which I don't believe it is necessarily a target, but, just because you're not targeting doesn't mean you're not going to affect these people that are involved. It may not be the design, but that is exactly what is happening here. We are affecting the students. We are affecting the property owners, whether that's by design or not. Another real concern I have here on this ordinance between last week, Wednesday, Thursday, when I got my copy of this last Wednesday, this amended version offers 13 or more substantive changes to the ordinance. I'm really kind of concerned here that the inclusion of condominium owners and other inclusions that have been put in here, I question whether we are giving these people the opportunity for due process and having their opportunity to voice their opinions on this, when probably the majority of them probably haven't heard anything about this. And I question whether we can even continue with this without giving it another month's reading.

Mayor Margerum said these were a result of the questions that were raised at the hearing and that's why they were submitted. So, that was the purpose of that, to bring that to the attention of the Council and all of those affected by it.

Councilor Keen said OK, most of the people, a lot of the people, that are going to be affected by this have not been properly notified, I don't believe, by due process.

Councilor Windler said if I may point out, there's been a series of articles in the Purdue Exponent. I mean this affects students. This is what we're talking about, is students. And out of 37,000 students, I've been contacted by four people, one in favor and three against. You know if this was a hot button issue, if students felt that they were being discriminated against, they would call me, because they have in the past.

Councilor O'Callaghan said and we did have plenty of opportunity for input. The Department of Development did send out 600 letters to landlords to give them a heads-up that they were working on this. A lot of the responses that we got were specifically from that letter, so I know people got that letter. We have received lots of letters and phone calls. We have had input at the last City Council meeting. We had the special Development Committee meeting and also took more input. And I think that the changes reflect the input that we've gotten and it's a very normal procedure to have a first reading on an ordinance and to present some amendments and have the second reading on the amended version. We did that with the bicycle ordinance as well. And that's a reasonable way to proceed and I think that at this time it is the appropriate thing to do, is to proceed.

Councilor Keen said well, I think that there are so many changes to this ordinance and a lot of them were developed since last Wednesday, as of even last Friday.

Councilor O'Callaghan said but based on the comments.

Councilor Keen said whether or not the people had an opportunity to put in their comments on that, the final version of this just came out last week. I don't think we can proceed with something that people have not been properly informed of. This is substantially different than the original version and I think we need to give the public an opportunity to voice their opinion on this, especially condominium owners. Since we've thrown that category in there, I think we owe them their right. My fear is simply that, if we pass this ordinance as is, there's going to be litigation.

Mayor Margerum said all right. The point right now, we want to just concern ourselves to the amendments, whether there were any more amendments.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said we have an amendment, with a first and second. There is a motion on the floor.

Mayor Margerum said yes. Is there any other discussion on this one? Councilor Sparby wants $300 for every structure across the board.

Councilor Sparby said $300 per structure plus $2 per unit and the rental certificate shall be valid for a term of one year.

Mayor Margerum said is there a second?

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said there was.

Councilor Windler said there was.

Mayor Margerum said all right. Is there any discussion of this amendment?

Councilor O'Callaghan said just the comments that we made already.

Mayor Margerum said yes. This would be a very substantial change.

The motion to amend Ordinance No. 17-01(Amended) to set inspection fees at $300 per structure plus $2 per unit and the rental certificate term to one year failed, 3-4.

Mayor Margerum said all right. Then we'll move on to the ordinance, as amended. Are there any other amendments?

City Attorney Bauman said let me try to clarify something. The amendment did not bring rental condominium units within the regulation of the rental certificate provisions. They were already under that. The changes simply differentiate the types of condominium units and try to relate them to the experienced costs as related by the Development Department. So, I mean, it wasn't something new that rental certificate provisions applied to condominium rentals.

Councilor Keen said but those two categories were not included in the original version of this and they were added since last week. I just feel like we need to give the public due notice.

Councilor Windler said Madam Mayor, I would like to point out for comparison sake that the Indiana State Legislature just passed the budget. It was 200 pages, $21 billion to last two years, and they got 24 hours to look at it and vote on it. We have taken well over 30 days. We passed this ordinance out well in advance. There's been ample notice. There's been a lot of feedback. We're even going to get more feedback tonight. I think we've had ample public notice and we should proceed with this.

Mayor Margerum said thank you.

Councilor Keen said again, I would like to go over what I started to say a minute ago. That is, I think we do have a situation here and my fear is that this ordinance will get entered into some kind of litigation after this is passed. I think we should get it corrected before we pass it and take care of any problems. If it goes into any kind of litigation, from this point on, it's just going to cost the City more money and I think we need to correct before we pass it.

Mayor Margerum said thank you. Then, let's now move to public comment and I would like to, again, you don't have to take your five minutes but if you would make your point. Give your name and address and we'll take public comment at this time. Who wants to start?

Joe Bumbleburg said I represent the West Lafayette Landlords' Association and I have two small questions. I spoke the other night on this issue of the mediation and I, for the life of me, can't understand why the City of West Lafayette needs that paragraph. But, I want to ask you a question. Who is going to be the mediator? Is that going to be the program administrator?

City Attorney Bauman said yes.

Mr. Bumbleburg said does he have an interest in this process? You bet he does. By definition, and I'm a certified mediator and I have my certification from the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana in the world of mediation, and one of the things they tell us is that the mediator has to be a neutral. Your program administrator is not a neutral and cannot be a neutral in this link. So, you have a flawed paragraph, based upon the observation that your City Attorney has just made, that the program administrator is going to be the neutral. He cannot do that and be loyal to his job to the City and he cannot stand between the two warring parties in that position. So, I suggest to you that that paragraph is irrevocably flawed. The next question I have to ask of you is at any time there is an overoccupancy it is likely that there are two people that have committed a violation: the landlord and the tenant. I would ask you is the City's policy going to be to pursue only the landlord and not the tenant? That is a very fundamental question here. It goes to the very heart of this ordinance. It goes to the very heart of some of the representations that have been made to the very public bodies about who this ordinance is aimed at. So, I think it ought to be very clear here tonight whether the City is going to see this ordinance as an ordinance that will be equally applied to violations by tenants and landlords. That question, I think, many of the people here in this audience have a right to have answered. Thank you.

Councilor O'Callaghan said do we want to respond to questions as they come up?

Mr. Bumbleburg said I take it there is no response to that question?

Councilor O'Callaghan said yes there is.

Mr. Bumbleburg said when?

Mayor Margerum said do you [Councilor O'Callaghan] want to answer it?

Councilor O'Callaghan said well, certainly we do have consequences for the tenants and for the landlords in the revised edition. We do have, in Section 117.20, we have (d) and (e) that have some responsibility to the tenant and in the Affidavit of Occupancy, we have consequences to the tenant.

Mr. Bumbleburg said OK, I just simply want the City to be on record as saying that they are going to apply this generally. The assertion has already been made here this evening that this is not aimed at the tenant, that it is aimed at the landlord. Councilwoman, if what you have just said is accurate, then you have simply not supported the previous assertion.

Councilor O'Callaghan said no, it's the tenant and the landlord. We have provisions, consequences, for both.

Mr. Bumbleburg said all right, and will the City act on that against both of them?

Councilor O'Callaghan when it is appropriate to act against one, we'll act against that one, and when it's appropriate to act against the landlord then we'll do that.

Mr. Bumbleburg said so, what we're going to say here then is that this can be applied to the tenant and that it will...

Mayor Margerum said all right, Mr. Bumbleburg. Never mind, go ahead.

Councilor O'Callaghan said I'm sorry, I didn't mean to go back and forth. I did have one fact to go on. This does have consequences for the tenant and for the landlord.

Mr. Bumbleburg said OK.

RickWesterman (325 W. Oak St.) said I'm a landlord and also a resident of West Lafayette. At the risk of sounding like I'm against the ordinance, because I'm not - it's a very strong ordinance - I do wish to agree with Councilor Sparby that we should have equity in the fees. Our current ordinance has equity and seems very fair and I think our new one should also have equity. Councilor Cohen mentioned last month, you know, if you want to play, you've got to pay. Also, if you're going to play, everybody should pay equally in my opinion. And, going along with Councilor Keen's idea that people, perhaps, haven't had enough time to look at the ordinance, that may be true, but if you do not pass the ordinance tonight, then I suggest that we do keep it alive. We need this ordinance. We need the strength of the ordinance, somehow.

Edie Cassell (828 N. Chauncey Ave.) said I'm very happy to be living in this neighborhood. I've lived most of my life in university neighborhoods and I believe very strongly it should be balanced between students and families. I own a beautiful old home, but I have two problems with what's going on here. The first problem is I'm not a traditional family. I've been on the staff at Purdue and I've been a student at Purdue and I'm single and the only way I can afford to own a home in this neighborhood is to have two students living with me, which I do. I own a four-bedroom home. It's very large. There are less people living in my house than most of the houses on the street. But because I'm not a traditional family, I really can't afford to live in the neighborhood unless I have two students living with me. So, I think what's been created is a situation where only traditional families can afford to live in that neighborhood, because I really can't afford to pay these huge fees every year to have my house inspected over and over again. I see a lot of my neighbors are here tonight, and I think they would attest that my property is very well taken care of, no noise, very few people living there. The other problem I have with this is, if it is supposed to penalize people who are breaking the rules, then let's make the fees when rules are broken greater and not the inspection fees greater because as I say, I don't think I am breaking any of the rules. I'm following them very strictly, but I am being penalized. I think paying $300 every year to have my property inspected is exorbitant. Right now, I'm paying $75 every two years and for me, that is a lot of money.

City Attorney Bauman said the amendment, which was made earlier, would change that so you would be in Category 3 and that would be a fee of $150 for a two-year term.

Ms. Cassell said I thought that was what he was suggesting. I just wanted to present this type of situation to you so you know what other problems these rules might be creating. Thank you.

Jim Lett (1810 Arrowhead Dr.) said I'm concerned about a couple of things that were only vaguely addressed in the new ordinance. This was discussed at one of the previous meetings and I apologize for bringing it up again. I'd like to present a scenario that I think should be considered. It was brought up about the possibility of using professional home inspectors as opposed to the City using its inspectors to be considered. I have never had one of the City inspectors inspect the flue on a furnace. These houses down here are old houses. They have crumbling mortar, bird's nests, animals that fall into the flues, and I've never had one checked. My concern is if we have one of the 10-minute inspections, which are traditional for $300, that a week later, and the inspector finds I'm clear and the house is fine, my tenant starts suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning, where's the liability go? Also, I would like, if the City is going to use its own inspectors - oh, to get a professional home inspector, I get a four-hour inspection for $400. Now, from that inspection I'll know everything that is wrong with that house, structurally, mechanically, anything that's wrong with it, I'll know. I can correct those problems. The City will know them, too. Now, I realize part of the reason that's been avoided is the City's concerned that these home inspectors will not check overoccupancy and I might suggest that at the time the home inspector shows up, the City could send their inspector. Their inspector could spend the three minutes that it takes to walk through the house and decide whether it's overoccupied or not. The City would wind up with a better inspection. The landlord would wind up with a better inspection and actually know what was wrong with his property, everything that is wrong with his property. I would really like to see the Council reconsider this. Another thing that concerns me is there is no language here, still, regarding confirmation of complaints from neighbors. I would still like to see something in here where the City would verify complaints in neighborhoods before acting on them. I know that, in the past, there have been complaints made by neighbors. The City acted on them and then the discovery was made, "No, that problem had not arisen. The trash was in the yard three houses down, not in that yard." Things of this nature. But, I'd also like the Council to consider putting some language in regarding verification.

Mayor Margerum said I would say it is the policy of the Department to investigate all complaints. They don't act on complaints unless they are investigated.

Mr. Lett said OK.

Councilor Sparby said I have a question. On a complaint, if the landlord inquires, are they given the name of the complainant?

Mayor Margerum said yes.

Councilor Sparby said OK, thank you.

Jim McCarthy (1957 Indian Trail Dr.) said to kind of go along with what Mr. Lett just said about unverified complaints, I have some documents that I'd like to pass out to the Council Members, if I may. Before I talk about the documents, first I want to say I'd be very disappointed in any of the Council Members who vote for this ordinance, especially, Mr. Satterly and Mr. Windler. I live in your district Mr. Satterly, and it's my belief that you probably received more correspondence from folks who are against this ordinance than in favor. As my representative, I encourage you to vote against the ordinance, as well. Mr. Windler, as the student representative, you should feel obligated to vote as your constituents feel you should and at the Committee meeting last week, you mentioned you had received quite a bit of correspondence although tonight you said just four people, last time you said a lot and that you said it was overwhelmingly against the ordinance. So, I feel that you should vote that way as well, because that's what your constituents want. OK, now for the documents I handed out. It's an example of the service, I guess, the City provides the landlords. The process that caused this letter that you have is flawed. As you can see, the letter was dated April 15^th, which happens to be Easter Sunday. The letter states that the violation occurred "April 15^th, the day after the City had its Clean Sweep on Saturday, April 16^th." Well, its obvious the dates are mixed up because Sunday does come after Saturday, but the 15^th does not come after the 16^th. So, the letter is flawed in that respect. Now, if you look at the photocopies of the pictures that are there, the top two pictures are not my property. They are across the alley from my property. Also, if you notice the other three pictures, the dates that are handwritten on there - and by the way those are photocopies that I got from City Hall so, those are not my comments on there, those are written on the actual photographs - those are dated June 15, 2001. As far as I know, that date has not come and gone yet. So, if this is the kind of service the City provides, if these are the kind of letters that are going out, I don't think they deserve any more money on inspection fees. I wholly support Mr. Lett's idea that we are able to hire this service out. Also, as many of you don't know, I am the President of the West Lafayette Housing Association, which is "the landlord group" here in town and I find it quite a coincidence that as soon as our group speaks out against this ordinance that I am noted with a fine. And by the way I got no warning whatsoever as people have claimed is the common practice. I also got no chance to clean up the property. The day after Easter Sunday was the date that letter was written and you know the students were given a chance to clean it up and I wasn't given a chance to clean up. I have some photographs here, although I don't have enough for everybody. If two or three of you can share at a time that would be great. These photographs are just a demonstration on the service that we landlords get as opposed to other folks. There's a group of four pictures there. One with a little fence in the backyard. There was some trash in one of the yards. You can notice the grass is very tall. It's the one that is the light green house with the dark green trim. Obviously this yard is in violation of the ordinance. I don't know if they got a fine or not. I suspect that they did not. Nothing has been done for it. But if you notice on the picture of the house there is a "For Sale" sign in the window. This is one of the homes that is currently for sale by the New Chauncey Housing, Inc. I would like for someone to tell me whether or not they have been fined for the trash in the yard or the high lawn.

Mrs. Bunder [New Chauncey Housing, Inc.] said I can answer that. She said after I got Mr. McCarthy's anonymous phone call that was rather nasty, I called immediately to Grasshopper, who is the person I contract with to cut the lawn, and he said he would get to it Saturday but did not. I will probably get a letter from the City tomorrow and I will have the same ten days that any other person that is a property owner has to get the grass cut or pay the fine. If I don't get the grass cut in that ten-day time I will certainly pay the fine quickly.

Mr. McCarthy said he did not make any phone call whatsoever to Mrs. Bunder so he doesn't know what she is talking about.

Mrs. Bunder said she has him on tape.

Mr. McCarthy said that he would please like to hear the tape.

Mayor Margerum said that Mr. McCarthy's five minutes are up.

Mr. McCarthy said there are some other photographs there and another house owned by New Chauncey Housing, Inc. where the lawn is definitely higher than it is supposed to be. It is also two other businesses, not to just be picking on this group. Although I know that they have picked on us from time to time, but there are two photographs of businesses there. The Shell Station at the corner of Northwestern and Lindberg the grass is obviously too high and the little grocery store across the street.

Lance Mabry (Hayes St.) said he is also a resident of Councilor Windler's district. I have a number of questions that I think have partially been enumerated in other commentor's talks early this evening. For one, I am puzzled by the different categories. I guess do we really need that many and is there a purpose to the different categories other than discrimination? I think it is especially unfortunate that nontraditional families are one of the targeted elements in this particular ordinance. The other issue I noticed was the fees. I guess I'm puzzled to the variation in the fees. Why is it $300 for certain categories and $150 for others? I've been involved in inspections and there is usually no substantial difference in the cost so why the difference in fees?

Mayor Margerum said she thinks that was discussed at several meetings that there was a great deal more involved including the different categories. This was based on the Michigan State, East Lansing program.

Mr. Maprie said he has one last question. Would it be possible to see the data from the Development group that you're basing this ordinance on? Do you have any?

Mayor Margerum said she is sure that they can talk to him anytime that he would like to come and find out.

Scott Mills (488 Littleton) said that he is a landlord and lives in New Chauncey Neighborhood. This is an interesting discussion this evening. You have heard from several people like Edie and his concern about paying $75 more a year or $150 for two years. Yet we have a proposal to pay $300 per unit per everyone and drive Edie right out of town. What you call discrimination, we have a friendly Council here. What it amounts to is a friendly compromise so everyone is not targeted. The problem areas are targeted but it is so that we don't drive Edie out of town. The definition of families is hard to come by. We know that these days, but there is also a lot of common sense along this Council. Does it have to be spelled out in black and white every single bit? No, I don't think so. I really don't think so. Nor do I think you think it is. There is a lot of trumped up business this evening to make what is a good ordinance look crummy. It's a good ordinance. It is friendly. Last month we heard Councilor Keen suggest that we need to pay for this thing by the penalties alone. Keep in mind that is one scenario. We haven't heard that this evening, but that is one scenario. Keep in mind if we collect penalties we haven't accomplished one thing. The goal of this is zero fines, which means you've got to pay for it up front. We don't want penalties. We want 100% compliance and zero penalties. It has got to come up front. The money has to be there. Instead of spreading it amongst everyone another scenario is that every taxpayer could pay for it. Well, there would be those that are up in arms. Everyone that has a rental unit could pay for it. Well, that would be another set of issues. Maybe there isn't a perfect solution to the payment. This is a very friendly one. Now buy into it. It is not anti-rental. It is not anti-student. It does not establish any new standards or any new responsibilities. It is simply an attempt to make law-abiding citizens out of a lot of people. Some that have probably spoken this evening have a simple blatant disregard for rules and to make a friendlier place for us all to live. Is it any wonder there has been a trail of individuals up here? Students don't like to pay anymore than they have to. Landlords like to put as much cash in their pocket as they can. They laugh at the laws that we have had on the books for 25 years. This has teeth in it. Now get with it and pass it.

Larry Bohl (2613 Willow Dr.) said he has a rental across the back yard. If we're going to be fair about everything why are we excluding the R3 and above rental units from the same price amount when they in fact bring more people in concentrated units than any of the other areas? Some of them have 12 to 15 units and three people per unit with 45 units there. I guess I resent a couple of things. Number one, the inspection is for the health and safety of the students or the residents and I don't see much health and safety involved. I mean what are we doing with the penalty or the fee or whatever we want to call it. The ambiguity of a family unit never will be decided. We can't decide it at any level. But if you have a rental, for example, that is rented to the same family for fifteen years they live in it as though they own it and yet you have to pay the fee every year. Now I feel in the one unit I have it is fairly good. It's $75 per year, which I think is kind of unusual because the inspector can come in and look at it. Nothing has changed unless we have a new code that we have to improve upon. That would be the only time we have to make an improvement there. I think we have to be very careful about the consequences of what happens to all kinds of properties. I haven't had time to digest what all the forms and the six-month reassessment or the six-month affidavit that we now have. I don't know what all of those mean yet. I haven't had time to really digest it, but it seems to me that it's going to put a bias in favor. If I were a student trying to rent a place and I had to go through filling out these forms or signing affidavits of who I am every six months, I would probably go to one of the larger rental apartments because I wouldn't have to put up with it in that sense if I read this correctly. Am I right? Do they have to sign the same affidavits? Do they have to sign it as frequently?

Councilor O'Callaghan said no, they don't if there is no change.

Mr. Bohl said then that is what he is saying. Why does he have to do it if there is no change?

Councilor O'Callaghan said you don't.

City Attorney Bauman said partly that has been based upon the experience of the Development Department where the average number of problems has occurred. Obviously, the average doesn't represent each individual.

Mr. Bohl said that's right. I need a new classification, Bob. The point I'm getting at is if these students have to sign these affidavits every semester they're going to conclude that they will have an easier time and an unharrassed time by going into an apartment complex. What is that going to do to the landlords who have the so-called converted family housing? I think the consequences of it are two or three. I would think if enough pressure is put on, the people who are landlords of those houses may put them up for sale. We are going to rezone if that's possible and I think the City does a lot of rezoning almost in favor of the people who want bigger zoning operations such as R3 and so forth. We are going to get rid of a housing unit or a family unit in those areas. We are going to all be commercial apartments. Maybe that's what we ought to have, but I wouldn't like to see it that way, enough said.

Craig Scoch (236 Schilling) said he is a student at Purdue. He is a member of Mr. Windler's district. I am sorry to say I voted for him. I am one of the students while I didn't contact you I tried to. I sent you an e-mail to the e-mail address listed on the City Council's web page and it got bounced back to me. You mentioned a previous resolution talking about noise violations for people in cars playing noise too loud. That is going after the few students who are being a nuisance. This is not. This is going after all students. You need to go after the students who are violating, being noisy, and whatever violations that are reasonable but not everybody. I also read an article in The Exponent about a student this past year who was kicked out of his residence because he was the fourth resident in a four-bedroom house. That doesn't seem like overoccupancy by any reasonable definition. I have heard that the ACLU is looking into this resolution and if it does pass I hope they do go after it. I would also like to say that for everyone who does vote for this, I plan on putting your name in a letter to The Exponent next time election comes around.

Andrew Summit (501 Meridian) said he is one of those rare real families that live in a rental housing unit. I have student neighbors. Sometimes they are good. Sometimes they are bad. So I thought I would let you know that what you are trying to pass is rather good. There will also be flaws in anything that you can have. You might as well pass it and finish with it.

Diane Farkas (345 Meridian) said she has spoke to the Council before at previous meetings. I will make this real quick. There are a few things I want to bring up. When walking through the neighborhoods I realize we need to control the number of students living there because that reflects on the property. There are probably a lot of properties out there that just look terrible and still meet all the requirements. I wish there would be something done to really enforce whatever codes or anything we have. When you walk through the neighborhood there is trash in the yards but some of the houses just look terrible to. It's like they ought to have been torched ten years ago. I'd also like to say that there are some good landlords and there are some bad landlords that just want to reap in the money and they don't care. The house behind us, I would swear they had four people living there all year because you'd look at the number of cars in the driveway. In the morning they all had frost on them. There were four of them. Yet, they took good care of the house. We never had a noise problem. We never had any problems. I don't think the landlord was ever aware of how many lived there. That is another good point too. You can hold the landlord responsible to a certain extent. If the landlord tells the tenant how many are supposed to be living there, unless he scouts out the house at midnight to see if the fourth car leaves or drives by at 6 a.m. to see if there is frost on the fourth car and if there has been no complaints, it's hard for him to know that they've smuggled in another tenant. So, I really feel that when you come across a group that has violated the codes you really should hit the tenants. Unless there have been other kinds of violations that would reflect on them too. One more thing, I agree with the other lady that has an unusual situation where she owns her own home and rents out to two people. It would be nice if the good landlords would not be penalized because of the bad. I can see where we need to pay for the program, and I agree with the initial inspection. But I would like you to consider that if there has been no complaints or violations that maybe there could be a set number of years where you wouldn't have to be inspected every year. And also for those people that live in their home and it is owner occupied and they rent it out maybe that same rule could be applied. I feel if we make it too hard for the good landlords, then we are just going to get tired of it. We are going to sell off and leave and the neighborhood will completely go down even more so in the next ten or twenty years.

Mayor Margerum said she would like to mention that there is a provision that two years after adoption of this there will be an evaluation and the program administrator could recommend revisions in the fees based on the experience of the landlord.

John Burgett (510 Main St.) said he is a lawyer in Lafayette, Indiana. I keep coming back to Section 117.19 Truth in Advertising. I keep asking myself why this provision is in here. Why are we even talking about advertising? You have to understand that a $300 penalty pales by comparison of what the advertising expense is going to be that you are going to impose upon landlords here. Lots more than $300 will be put in the little blurb about the occupancy limit. You have got so many controls and so many sanctions dealing with overoccupancy. I think this is just surplus and the whole section could be stricken. I don't see why the insistence on this particular paragraph. I've talked with a couple of publishers about the cost of doing this. One publisher even questions if they will do it. The other thing is that you say for a specific rental unit. If you look at The Exponent and the pages advertising rental units, they are going to have to put out a second edition every day just to accomplish what you're asking for here.

Lyle Rupp (1909 Greenbush, Lafayette) said he wants to preface his remarks by saying that he agrees with the Council completely but there are some problems in West Lafayette with the housing. What perplexes me is why this body is targeting the entire group of 70% or 75% that have been in compliance and have supported and agreed with all of the things that have been on the books. According to this it says that there are some areas with between 20% and 40% violations. That means that 60% to 80% in the worst areas are in compliance and are agreeing with you. That is just in the worst areas. If we bring the other areas in that has got to push it up to 75% to 85% that are in compliance and don't have a problem with what is going on. In fact, we agree that there are problem properties. We don't want those properties next to us anymore than a homeowner does. I used to think that I had a good rapport, a good relationship, with the City of West Lafayette. Alan [Assistant Director of Development Grady] has been in my properties a number of times. I don't think that I have ever done anything that wasn't in complete cooperation. I don't have any gripes with Alan or his inspections or the way they have conducted themselves. If you've been in a property a number of times and haven't significantly changed it, there's not a lot to do. My concern is that you have taken this entire group of 75% or 80% and we feel like we're in the crosshairs now with what this ordinance does. As was mentioned before the problems that were listed were with noise and parking and traffic and parking and trash and maintenance. Is there not already a noise ordinance? Are there not already traffic laws or parking regulations? Is there not already a trash ordinance? We already have a maintenance inspection. My question is why are these things not being enforced as was already mentioned? There are some landlords that don't do that. My question is why do we need to add more things if we're not enforcing what we already have? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Another concern that I have is that this thing is designed to be concerned about the health and safety and welfare of the people. Another question I have is why are we so concerned about the health and safety and welfare of people who are tenants rather than landlords? This ordinance makes so many assumptions that are not necessarily true. We're assuming that a homeowner is a good person and a renter is a bad person. There are homeowners out there that probably has as many or more violations on their property than what some of the rentals do. But why are we so much more concerned? I don't see the validity in that. If you're generally concerned with the health and safety and wellbeing of the people of this community, why don't you inspect all properties? We're just making an assumption that isn't true which is all owner-occupied property is well cared for and they're good people, and if you're tenants you're not. In addressing the cost factor this Thursday is a terrific day, May 10^th, with another on November 10^th. Everybody that has a rental property, we do not get a homestead exemption. We do not get a mortgage exemption. We are already paying hundreds of dollars more per property than what the other people do that are living in their homes. I failed to calculate this but I would be glad to do so. I'm sure there is no question in my mind that these ranges are going to be from $300 to $500 to $700. We are already paying a great deal more in taxes. Why isn't this sufficient to cover? We're paying more than what the other people pay. The whole idea of overoccupancy. It seems like this is the thing that creates all the other problems. As was alluded to earlier, I understand that some of these regulations need to be there but sometimes it doesn't make sense. I've got a property that I take care of that is 2200 sq. ft., four bedrooms, two bathrooms, full basement, and we have three people there because that is what we can have. That is what we do. If you're a homeowner you can take a little 900 to 1000 sq. ft. two bedroom house and you can stick a family with three or four kids in there but that's okay. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There are a lot of things. You're targeting us. In essence you're trying to drive us out of business. I guess to bring this back to conclusion, since you won't let me finish, there's a lot more things here that need to be heard. Let's bring this into conclusion. If we look on the front page of this under the 7^th Whereas, why don't we call a spade a spade? It lists four things in that paragraph. In the subcommittee meeting this last time they changed the word from prevent to discourage. That is what is says on the surface but if you really look at what is in here that is not correct either. The whole idea is to eliminate the single-family properties as rentals in the areas that they want to target. I have a novel idea. Instead of making enemies of the people who have complied with your regulations why don't you work with us? We would just as leave have the properties that are not being taken care of dealt with but instead you have made us all targets.

Mayor Margerum said that the time limit was established as five minutes at the very beginning, so I do hope that people will adhere to that.

Betty Delgass (1800 Happy Hollow) said that for 25 years she lived in the New Chauncey Neighborhood Association area and raised her family there. This will be sort of scattered because I've done this for so many years. I will comment to the previous speaker that I suspect that he must be making a profit or he wouldn't be in the business. I pay car insurance even though I've never had an accident and there a lot of people who have had several accidents, but I pay a very large car insurance premium for the general good of the general public. That is one point. Another is the health and safety of the students. Before the original rental inspection program was set into place, we as a neighborhood association were called in by Purdue students on a regular basis to look at situations that they were frightened of. I remember one girl on Sylvia Street who had a basement apartment and every time she tried to plug her hairdryer in everything would short out. She had eight Airwicks because every time the toilet flushed on the main floor the sewer gas came down into her apartment and she was worried about her health. That was one of the initial reasons for getting the beginning rental inspection program going. As I say I have gone over this so many times over the years. I would like to second what Scott Mills said. This is an attempt to do something about a bad situation that everybody recognizes has serious problems. To my mind the affidavit that will be signed between the landlord and the occupant is probably the most important thing. It puts the agreement on a legal basis because very often the tenants say they never knew that there was an occupancy restriction. Finally, I would like to say that at my present address I am also one of Gil Satterly's constituents and I say, Gil, vote for it.

Kyle Casting (437 Maple) said he would like to make a few comments. Tonight before I came to this meeting I went down to the public library and took a look at the Issue Committee Study that Purdue and the community put together and was reading through there and where Councilwoman Mills is the co-chair of that. In the notes of their report it said one of their long-term strategy goals was to control where students live by increasing code enforcement by block captains and legislation. Councilwoman Mills said earlier in the evening that this was not aimed at students. Unfortunately, this is legislation that will affect the students. I believe it is part of your long-term plan. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, I believe it is a part of your long-term plan and you need to take credit for it where credit is due. Moving on, as for the health and safety there has been a lot of talk about the health and safety among the Council members and I want to know how many of you know that within apartment complexes only 10% of the units get inspected during an inspection. Even though those inspections are every four years only 10% of them get inspected and by most accounts, those units are usually picked by the apartment complex owners themselves as landlords. Usually the units are empty. They say, "Well these units are empty so let's go inspect these" and the Department of Development says, "Sure" and they go inspect those. The fact also that the point has been brought up that large apartment complexes follow laws more and they don't have many violations. I was sitting in my home last weekend with four friends of mine that said they were living in a house next year. It kind of puzzled me about how they were doing that. The apartment was managed by one of your large apartment complexes that was going to get some breaks because they had professionally managed properties. Written in their lease, I don't want to say the name of the apartment complex because landlords and property owners often get targeted if mentioned at these kinds of meetings. It was clearly stated in there that there were allowed to be four unrelated people in that property. I went to the office to try to find out exactly what could be done. I told the people that if someone reported them then one of them would have to move out and one would be without housing. The landlord wouldn't have to do anything for them. He would just have to kick them out. They were kind of concerned about this so I went to the leasing office and they go, "Oh, don't worry about it. We get special breaks because we're a large apartment complex and it doesn't affect us. We can have the four people in there." I said no. They got out of the lease and that is the good part of it, but the fact that you say that large apartment complexes don't violate the law is wrong. They violate it just as much and just as flagrantly as the small landlords. They go so far as to type it out in their leases in black and white for everyone to see. They are so blatant. One of the former speakers took another one of my comments about the home exemption and taxes and that kind of stuff. Last Friday Mr. Grady was going to supply us with numbers as far as the different complaints from the different sectors of the community. He said those would be available for this meeting. I haven't seen them yet. The meeting is not over yet, but I was hoping to be able to look at those and find out exactly how they broke down and if you were following by your stance of the fact that it is equal by the number of penalties and complaints in those neighborhoods. Right now no one has seen those numbers besides the Department of Development and maybe a few City officials. No one has seen those numbers so no one can really confirm those numbers. I want to comment as far as the equality. Councilor Sparby said earlier the $300 is a little bit high but we have to make a compromise somewhere. I think that was a good step. I'm glad to see somebody use their common sense and not political gains to change their vote on that. I would like to thank Councilman Satterly for doing that. Going on, I heard Councilman Windler say that he heard four comments from students. He was at the Purdue Student Government meeting where we passed a resolution. There were 37 members there. One person voted against it. I know that there are at least 36 students on Purdue's campus that are against. I know this student over here is another one. I've been in the PSG office. I'm in PSG right now. I know what the talk is and, as far as a community issue, this has lit a fire under the students more than anything in the past, even the noise ordinance. Students have come in and asked who to talk to on the City Council. They say they try to contact them but they just don't listen. Their voices are constantly ignored. It is all for political gain. The other question was for Edie. You said she would be under Category 3 as an owner-occupied with two additional roomers, correct?

City Attorney Bauman said yes, with the change that was made tonight.

Mr. Casting said so then most kiddie condos would fall under Category 3, correct?

City Attorney Bauman said they might.

Mr. Casting said he just wanted to go on record by saying that.

Mayor Margerum said that one point too, there are R4 areas where there are four people allowed per unit. All the area south of State Street and many of the larger, older complexes have four bedrooms and those are also grandfathered areas.

Mr. Casting said this house was not grandfathered and it was in New Chauncey Neighborhood Association.

Mayor Margerum said she just thought that needed to be cleared up in case that was the case.

Don Bloodgood (116 Seminole) said he has lived here for over 40 years. Since I retired from TRW as manager, I have gotten into a habit of walking around my neighborhood to keep myself reasonably trim. As I walk through the neighborhood I find everyday there is a new "For Sale" sign. It goes up and sits there for a while. Then it goes away or says it's been sold. The repairman comes in and fixes stuff up and pretty soon there are new tenants there. Frequently, in the area that I walk there are four cars there. I don't know whether they have frost on them in the morning because I don't get up that early but I do know most of them are not Tippecanoe County licensed. You're going to have problems on the ordinance. Let's vote on it. Let's do something.

Heather Moskowitz (1430 N. Salisbury) said she hadn't intended to speak tonight so it's a little bit disjointed. After coming to the meeting it does seem to me that this Council is targeting. I also own property that I rent. I do want to clarify that. This Council is targeting houses that at one time, maybe as long as 50 years ago, were single-family housing and have now been converted a number of years ago and are now occupied by students. I think there is a problem in the neighborhood that some of the houses are not kept up and there is overoccupancy. What I hope this Council is not doing is trying to appease some of the things that weren't taken care of earlier for the Chauncey Neighborhood Association. That neighborhood is not only going down because there are students living there and because of landlords. Since University Farms has been built and there is six or seven additions, the whole rental and sales or real estate have changed in areas like Wabash Shores which Mr. Bloodgood lives in. The top of Happy Hollow Hill, and those streets in there, houses are taking a long time to sell and it is even worse in the older neighborhoods around the campus. I don't think the City is helping the situation by taking out tennis courts that were in the neighborhood and by building ten new tennis courts up in Cumberland.

Mayor Margerum said that is the school corporation.

Ms. Moskowitz said well whatever, there needs to be some uniform planning. This all comes out of taxpayers' money. We all pay for all of this. I think that nobody is really thinking about the other problems. Everything is sort of being dumped on the landowners and worse on the students. There is a feeling here that nobody wants the students around and that they need to be controlled. I think there are other things that are causing this problem. I just read in the newspaper the other day that permission has been given for 150 new houses to be built out on the other side of University Farms. That is not helping the Chauncey Neighborhood. It is going to make everything worse down there. Everyone has to work towards this problem. I think the more you allow new houses to be built and recreational facilities taken away from the south end before you get to this side of State Street and the south end of town, you are just making the problem worse. You are not really doing everything that you could to help the neighborhood stay balanced the way it is. Unless you do something now it doesn't matter what you do about the landlords and the students. Those houses won't sell down there because there is going to be too many other houses for people to buy.

Linda Chase (2315 Summerfield, Lafayette) said she is on the Board of Directors for the Apartment Association of Tippecanoe County. One of the things that was talked about in the first Council meeting at the end was Mr. Cohen who said that he talked about his restaurant paying fees and things like that for inspections and all of that. I agree with that, but I have a question. Does this restaurant which was built this many years ago versus this restaurant that has just recently been opened have different inspection fees and different ordinances that they have to follow or are they all the same?

Councilor Cohen said some of them have different inspection fees depending upon the size.

Ms. Chase said it is dependent on the size. It is not dependent upon the age.

Councilor Cohen said he doesn't think so.

Ms. Chase said in this ordinance you are taking something and saying that in this area of the neighborhood it is an older neighborhood, and that's what I got from the Council meeting, from the things that was going on, because it was an older property and it has been around for a long time, it takes longer to inspect and I was also told that because it wasn't professionally managed. I have a professionally managed staff. I have maintenance people. They are on staff and hired. They go into some of these properties and I don't understand why I would have to pay $300 for a fee when I have a full-time staff that is for this. If that is professionally managed I don't understand what the difference is because I'm doing everything that you're telling a big complex to do and I have it right here.

Herb Moskowitz (1430 N. Salisbury) said what bothers him is that why try to legislate a solution. All we do is create a conflict. It seems there may be a more creative way of going about this thing. Forget the legislation but property owners, students, single-family owners, whatever, must find a way to work together in the neighborhoods to prevent some of these issues. This has been going on since I've been living here and it may solve things temporarily but we will continue to legislate and still have conflicts and people upset with each other. There has got to be a better way. I'm not so sure it's legislation that will do the thing. I think there may be other more creative ways of going about it. If you ask me what that is I don't know but I know inspection isn't really the right way to do things because that creates like an audit. It's not getting at the cause of the problem but just detecting the problem itself. I think there are better ways to go about it.

Mary Burkes (636 Rose St.) said for all the reasons that I've heard expressed tonight, I'd like to support the passage of this ordinance.

Norm Miller (40408 Nottingham Dr.) said I'd just like to comment that, to me, this seems like this is discriminating against the students. I was shown, at the last meeting, some of the development areas around here. I think it's Blackbird Farms, somewhere, that students were coming in and they had them painted in, in red, and we're showing maybe 20% or 25% student population in there. My understanding is that 37,000 students move into this area each year. I don't know exactly what the population of West Lafayette is, but without the students, I would assume it's a little less than that and that you would have to have a mix of better than 50% students. It seems to me that you're really trying to push the students out into the County, Lafayette, or someplace else. Also, I oppose this ordinance because I think that there are plenty of laws on the books now, to take care of the grass, the trash, and various other things. So, I'm in opposition to it.

Diane Harding (491 Maple St.) said I'm co-chair of New Chauncey Neighborhood Association and I'm also a landlord. We've been buying several properties within our neighborhood to try and preserve them. Some of them get sold back to single families and some of them get rented out for the next year, to pay for the renovation for the other houses. There are several things that are good about this proposal. What I see here recently is a lot of people focusing on some particulars and I think we need to broaden our thought pattern, just a little bit. This is not a problem that is central to New Chauncey, anymore. It's a problem that is City-wide. Hills and Dales has several rentals. University Farms has several rentals. If the deterioration of the housing stock in New Chauncey is any kind of predicator of what could happen in these other nicer neighborhoods, we need to start looking forward and I think that is what this ordinance does. It looks forward and says, "This is what we've done in the past. It has not been completely successful and if we take another look at it these things might be successful in saving the housing stock." Housing stock not only improves school districts, but to make sure University Farms, and Hills and Dales are places where people do want to buy houses, so that the slowing of the sales, as one woman had mentioned, doesn't happen in every neighborhood. Yeah, it's slow in our neighborhood when we put a house up for sale. It's slow, but that shouldn't be for every neighborhood. So, we need to make sure what we are doing is not pinpointing the anomalies in this particular ordinance, but that we look at it as a greater good for the whole City. Also, there's another point. Jan Mills co-chairs the Committee. The items that were listed out as possible solutions and possible comments were not necessarily directed from her. They were directed from the 50 people that participated in that.

Michael Brown (154 Prophet Dr.) said I had a couple of comments. One is, you can make a little minor wording change here and talk about "discourage" versus "prevent" but I think the real intent here is preventing conversion of single family home to rentals. When you do that, I think when you are trying to prevent, whether you do it by legislating to death and doing it de facto, or whether you actually do it du jour, whatever, I think you are basically getting into taking property rights away from property owners. I think that is probably not a good place to go. The next thing is, talking about fees and classifications and all of that sort of stuff, there was a comment, and I think I've heard several comments along the way, that part of the intent of this is to make property owners cover the costs of this program. There was some other comments about this sort of being passed off, or trying to be described as a user fee. I think that is totally wrong. Every other time I've seen user fees used, like a user fee to pay your admission to get into a State Park or something or a toll road or something like that, the people paying the user fees generally in some way benefit from their paying the fees. I don't see who's going to pay the fees here as benefiting from it. I think the real beneficiaries of this are not going to be the landlords. It's going to be a lot of other people, the neighbors, a lot of other people. So, if you are talking about it being user fees, I think the people who benefit from it ought to be the ones that pay the user fee and that essentially means the community at large. So, that's probably an obvious thing to do, via taxes or something. The other thing is, I'm not really convinced that it is a valid goal for the alleged user fees here to be fully funding this program. If we're talking about something that benefits the community at large, talk about police protection, fire protection, and that sort of stuff, those are paid for by the community at large and the community at large benefits. It's not paid for by the people who have fires or have police, for one reason or other, come out to their house and try to render assistance. I guess that's probably the main points of what I had.

Ted Wax (505 Evergreen St.) said I'd just like to make one point that I think has been ignored. This ordinance is not written in permanent stone. There is the possibility of revisiting it several years down the road. I believe two years is what was said. I would hope the ordinance will be passed because something needs to done, but I would also hope that a systematic database be collected of the properties that have problems with inspection, have problems with noise, have problems with maintenance, so that two years down the road we really know exactly where these properties are and where the problems are. The people that are the good landlords can point and say, "Look, we have not had these violations. We have not had these problems. We deserve some kind of relief." And, the people that are bad landlords will have nothing to say because the facts will be there in front of them. So, I hope to pass the ordinance but also, to systematically collect a really good database.

Nancy Brown (1010 Oakhurst Dr.) said there are several problems that, I think, as I've listened to the meeting last time and tonight. First of all, we are having problems with a decaying community because Purdue has not wanted to build another big housing unit for its students. When we were at 32,000 students, the people who were in the administration told West Lafayette that they were going to keep it at 32,000. It's now 39,000 or so. So, this is part of where the problem is coming from, as well as having the older housing units in the community. Now, since we seem to be having, all through, different problems isn't it time for us to get, and it would certainly take a little while to research who, one or even several high quality, modern, forward looking, but middle of the road, city planning groups to really look at not just the rules for dunning everybody, or singling this one or that one out, but at really seeing what are the good things that we really can go ahead and do with our community. I do like what seems to be going on at Wabash Landing and I do hope, when it's finished, it does have a good result. But, I think we obviously have some other areas that we will really want to look at with more thought than just one kind of ordinance. It's a lot deeper problem than that. If, within 10 years, we are going to have a Chauncey Neighborhood, or part of it, all be R3, that's a really big change. So, I think we need to go somewhere with it. Now, I do hope Brad [Councilor Windler], that in the future, as you speak to your Purdue students, that you do not say that any people who are landlords are not going to raise prices if they are already just barely making it. You know, tell them the truth. I think that is a good person to vote for. That I would respect, OK? I do feel that's true for any of the other people who are running for office. But I do think this ordinance still has so many little holes here and there. I have read it four to five times and it just needs a lot more smoothing out, really. So, I'm sure there are going to be, if you pass it tonight, people who will be really eager to make further changes in it in order to really make it fair to the whole community. Now, one basic last fact. As Americans, we do believe that we are innocent until proven guilty and that was the thing that I was reading first that really brought my ire. I just feel very strongly about our country. I've taught about our country for a lot of years. The first thing that I was getting was that the tone of this whole thing was that a certain group was wrong, wrong before they have done anything instead of right until there is a problem. I do hope that is corrected.

David Redman (721 Princess Dr.) said I agree that there are a lot of problems and I think that the ordinance addressed quite a few of those problems. But I just don't think that an 800% increase in inspection fees is really going to do what, I think, I'm gathering, is to try to push the students out of the area. I don't think the 800% increase will accomplish that. I'm with this gentleman that there's probably more creative ways to do that.

Maurice Smith (520 Terry Ln.) said I've been listening to the arguments tonight and trying to categorize. It seems like we're going two directions. One is that we all agree there is a problem. One argument is we have a measure before us, which will, at least, address that. The counter argument is being made, or that I'm hearing, is that this is flawed. It has some details which, the subtext of that is, defeat this issue because of the details, because of the frustrations. But, what I'm still waiting though for is a counter proposal to address the problem that we all generally acknowledge. The only thing we're left with is the status quo and if you drive down any number of streets in town you know the status quo is not working. Therefore, I would urge the rejection of the status quo and the passing of this measure.

Mayor Margerum said thank you all for your comments. If any of the Council members want, and I think if we could just confine it to each person speaking once. We'll start with Brad [Councilor Windler] down there.

Councilor Windler said we can do that. First of all, starting out with me representing the students. This is for student health and safety. I, personally, have gotten calls from students, and I went into this in great detail at the last meeting and I will again this time, about a broken lock. Two girls were living in an apartment, it had a broken lock on the front door, and the only way they could lock the door was to prop a chair underneath the door handle. Now, one of these ladies worked as a waitress at one of the local bars so her roommate had to leave her door unlocked until five o'clock in the morning when her roommate got there. Now, I don't think any one of us is going to put a family member, let alone pay to have a family member, live in those kind of conditions. Other things, that health and safety, that, yes, this does deal with, this is stuff that I've gotten called for: dried animal feces on carpets when they move in, wet animal feces on carpets when they move in, dried vomit in the carpet when they move in, wet vomit on the carpet when they move in, paint in the carpet when they move in, just flat out missing doors when they move in, abusive language to tenants, because the tenants call me over simple stuff and say, "Well, gee, can you go talk to my landlord because you know it's something really minor. It's just trash that I'm getting blamed for that, you know the guy in the next apartment is doing it. You know, my landlord's really jumping down my throat." And, lo and behold, these landlords jump down my throat. There are a significant number of landlords in the City of West Lafayette, and I know that this punishes the good landlords, but let me tell you what, I'm tired of dealing with them. This ordinance addresses that. It puts a lot of teeth that I like. When you start dealing with these students on a regular basis, I'm lucky I've only actually had four calls this year for either those kinds of complaints or deposit rip-offs or repair rip-offs, because that' s pretty low. Four a semester is pretty low. I'm averaging about 9 to 12. The other thing is this lady said I should be honest in my representation of rent prices, and I was. Supply and demand controls rent prices. An apartment I looked at in an apartment complex for a two-bedroom apartment earlier in January was $830. It was advertised today for $700. So, supply and demand dictates that. As far as Purdue, the Purdue Student Government resolution goes, and those gentlemen that Kyle Kasting, or the other students Kyle Kasting likes to refer to, that was the same student government that was disbanded by the administration for not representing the student body. So, those 37 students, who didn't want to be disbanded, had their voice overrun and, according to the student body President, they're not doing their job and that was backed up by the administration. That's being fought out within there. Another thing is a gentleman said this didn't go to the heart of the problem. Well, actually it does. Overoccupancy is the heart of the problem here. Overoccupancy causes too much parking. It causes too much trash. It causes too much noise. It generates the problems. Until you deal with overoccupancy in the neighborhoods, these other problems are going to exist and you are just treating the fallout from the original problem and that's overoccupancy. We've got to find a way to deal with it. That's where I'm going to stop my rant and rave. I could go on about schools. How this affects schools, the loss of homes. But, that's a little personal for me because my sister is one of the teachers getting laid off from West Lafayette because of declining enrollment. Now, nobody here of the landlords said, "Hey, let's get together,. We're going to buy a lot of homes and we're going to lower the enrollment." That's not the problem, but you've go to preserve the housing stock. Single family homes are the ones that are going to put students into the school corporation. We're separated from the school corporation by State law, financially. Unfortunately, I didn't like to see those tennis courts go, either. But, that's their call and not mine.

A member of the audience said we're paying taxes.

Councilor Windler said yes, you are.

A member of the audience said we don't have a voice.

Mayor Margerum said no comments from the audience, please.

Councilor Windler said but we don't set that rate, the School Board does. But, we have to do something for the school corporation. The more homes you lose, the lower the enrollment's going to get. Schools are funded in two manners. One, they get property taxes that everybody here pays. The other thing is they get a stipend from the State, which basically is based on enrollment. If you have a declining enrollment, that State Legislature is going to punish you. And that is where we are at, unfortunately, because we have a declining housing stock. Yes, we have Amberleigh Development coming in on the north side, 180 single family homes. Last year, we lost 50 homes. So, it's going to take two to three years for Amberleigh to get built, to get filled up, and to have the homes bought by families. So, over that same amount of time, at the same rate, we're going to lose 150 and gain 130 and we're going to end up with the status quo. And that's just not good enough anymore.

Mayor Margerum said is there anyone else? Councilor Sparby?

Councilor Sparby said yes, I would just like to make a couple comments. One is I don't think that any of the Councilors here have a problem with the whole inspection program. I think what we're fussing over is maybe some of the semantics, the way it's going to be dealt with. I think the addition of the affidavit is a good thing. I appreciate Councilor Windler's comments, and I urge him to join the rest of us and become a homeowner and help with the school system instead of being a tenant. I also would at this time like to make...

Councilor Windler said I wish I could. Try to buy a home in my district. It's expensive.

Councilor Sparby said because it's all students except for you. I would, at this time, like to propose an amendment to Section 117.07 on the rental certificate fees and terms. Under item (k), the last sentence currently reads, "The program administrator shall recommend to the Common Council any revisions to the schedule of fees (such as reduction in fees, or extension of terms for those owners with good records) and fines to maintain the goal of a self-supporting program and to minimize the fees on owners who have a history of full compliance with the rental certificate and housing inspection program." I would like to propose that that is changed to read, "The program administrator shall report to the Common Council the status of the goal of maintaining a self-supporting program and make recommendations to minimize the fees on owners who have a history of full compliance with the rental certificate and housing inspection program." I think it just formalizes it.

Mayor Margerum said it would be helpful to have this in writing. It's too bad you didn't bring it up at the Friday meeting because I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish.

Councilor Sparby well, I guess what I'm saying is right now it says he will make recommendations and I'm just asking that it be changed that it's requiring the administrator to report to the Council the status of the program and to make a recommendation on how we could minimize the fees for the owners that have a history of full compliance with the rental certificate.

Councilor Keen said so you want it included in there, along with recommendations, a status report of the current program?

Councilor Sparby said yes.

Councilor Keen said I'll second that.

Mayor Margerum said are there any comments?

Councilor O'Callaghan said I think that the way it was revised after input about landlords with good records, and that certainly is something that we want to encourage, and that's why it was revised to make it very clear that the administrator shall recommend revisions such as reduction in fees and minimize the fees on the owners who have a history of full compliance. I think the way it's written now is a lot stronger than the way that Councilor Sparby recommended. The only thing that, if we would add "and provide a status report," but not to change the wording such as she mentioned. I think the wording, as it is, is much better than the wording that I heard her say, because it was written more strongly in response to the concerns that we had. I feel like it does, as it's written now, more strongly provide for a reduction of fees or extension of term for those owners with good records. I'd rather leave it the way it is.

There were no more comments.

The motion to amend Ordinance No. 17-01(Amended) to change the wording in Section 117.01(k) failed, 2-5.

Councilor Keen said I have several comments, actually. Where do I begin? First of all, I would like to say that I do agree that there is a problem with the current system and I do agree that the current system needs to be fixed. However, I think that this ordinance is an attempt, and merely an attempt, to remedy a bad problem. I would suggest to you that we don't try to remedy a bad problem with a bad solution. This, in my opinion, is a poor solution at best. I'd like to comment to Councilor Windler's comments about the noise ordinance last year, of which I will say that I did vote in favor of the noise ordinance because that noise ordinance sought to penalize the violators of the system. This ordinance will penalize the non-violators, as well. That's one of the biggest reasons I'm against this ordinance. I don't think that it properly penalizes the right group of people. Also, he made a suggestion that if you're against this ordinance then you're against the school systems. How can you say it? That's ludicrous. To sit here and imply that someone with four children in the West Lafayette school system would be against the school system is preposterous, at best. I am merely saying that there's a better way, and a less expensive way, to administer a good quality program. And, in answer to the gentleman who got up here and said, "So, what are they?" Number one, I think our counters would be to enforce what is already on the books. I think that would be a big step in the right direction, is just simply get out and enforce what we already have. I think the other thing that we need to do is allow property owners the freedom to select their own inspection service and by doing that, it would reduce the overall burden on the General Fund of West Lafayette and thereby we could all benefit by possibly getting lower taxes out of it because we're lowering the burden on the General Fund. Comments about just say, "Well, go ahead and pass it and revisit it later." Well, my mother used to have a great saying and I kind of like that saying. She's always told me, she says, "You know, there's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it over." And I don't want to see us have to do this thing over. As I said earlier, I think that this is going to end up a more serious litigating forum and it's going to cost the City a lot more money than what it's going to cost us now. I say we fix the problem before we start. I said it before. This is a very socialistic problem, to solving a problem. It's a very socialistic approach to solving this problem. You know, the premise is that we want to be concerned for other people. You know, this ordinance is designed for the concern of other people and my only question is how much of our individual freedoms are we willing to sacrifice in the concern of others? I say we've got to take another approach at this thing. This thing is poor, at best, and I think we need to continue to seek a proper solution to the problem.

Councilor Cohen said someone mentioned something about political gain. I don't know really of any political gain to be gotten from this type of a situation. Some people are talking about voting for someone else, or against someone else. I'm concerned I'm going to lose some business. There's going to be somebody out there who's going to say, "I'll never eat in that guy's restaurant again," no matter which way I vote. Another comment concerned students. Everything that we do in this community concerns students. Everything does, you know, whether it's fire, police, traffic, trash, ecology. Everything on both sides of the river, somewhere along the line, is going to concern students. There are provisions in this for good landlords. It may not be enough to satisfy many landlords. It obviously isn't enough to satisfy many of the landlords. At the last meeting, I made the point that everybody has to pay for the bad ones. The good have to pay for the bad. We pay for police protection and you obey the laws and someone else doesn't obey the laws, you have to pay because the police have to be there for the bad ones, not the good ones. We had to pay a lot extra for fire protection because a few bad apples at Purdue threw a bunch of incendiaries into some trash barrels and the Fire Department had to go out there and put them out. So, we all have to pay for that. I made the point that there are many restaurants who don't take care of their restaurants. The Health Department has to take care of all restaurants and we all have to pay for it, whether we're good or bad. I would think maybe somewhere along the line, and this is pretty obvious I think to everyone, I think perhaps we need a committee or a group to interact between government and landlords. I think that has shown up here. There is a lot of resentment, I think on both sides, about what landlords do and what they don't do and who are good and who are bad. The reason that we need this is that we need more inspectors and I think somehow that fact is being lost in the shuffle. We need more inspectors to do what has to be done and the way you get inspectors is you're going to have to pay them and you're going to have to get that money from fees and through fines, or higher taxes. I don't know of any other way. Maybe somebody can point that out to me. I'm not in favor of higher taxes. I think the fees and fines ought to pay for it. So, that's why I am voting for it. I'm sorry for those who won't vote for me.

Councilor O'Callaghan said well, I just want to reiterate that this ordinance is in response to the constituents concerns about that deterioration of the neighborhood and, actually, when I went door to door and people said that over and over again, I wasn't sure that there was anything that we were going to be able to do. So, I'm really grateful that the Department of Development and the City Attorney were able to find this model in East Lansing and give us something to actually address the problem. We do want a mix of students and families in the neighborhoods. We don't want just families. We don't want just students. But, we definitely need families. The West Lafayette School Corporation does need families with children. We did take a lot of input and made changes that addressed those concerns: the changes to the affidavit of occupancy, the changes to have provisions for landlords with good records after two years, the consequences for the tenants as well as the landlords. So, I think that we've done a lot of work and I really thank the Department of Development and the City Attorney and I'm really happy that I'm going to be able to vote for something that the constituents did ask for.

Councilor Mills said just a couple of quick comments, since we're going so late, to clarify a couple points. Large complexes will be on a two-year schedule unless they have a good record of compliance. They're not automatically going to four years. They're going to four years if they have a good inspection record. The single family conversions are all over town. Some of you were here earlier. At some of the earlier meetings we had maps. This is not a problem of just the older neighborhoods. It affects the whole City. The last point is we're not trying to push students out of the neighborhood. People have given the New Chauncey Neighborhood people quite a lot of grief over this. People move to the New Chauncey Neighborhood knowing that it's a mix of students and families. They like that. That's one of the reasons they're attracted to it. They like to be close to campus. They like to be close to the schools just like the Purdue students do. All we want to do is restore a balance to that neighborhood, and to the rest of the City that's having problems with rentals, so that it's a greater quality of life for all of us.

There was no further discussion.

Ordinance No. 17-01(Amended) passed second and final reading, 5-2.

Councilor Sparby said Madam Mayor, may I suggest that we just take a two minute recess to allow people to clear?

Mayor Margerum said let's take a recess to allow people to leave.

The Common Council recessed, the time being 9:45 p.m.

The Common Council reconvened, the time being 9:47 p.m.

Ordinance No. 18-01 To Rezone Certain Real Estate Within The City Of West Lafayette, Indiana And Designating The Time When The Same Shall Take Effect (R1 to PDRS - McCormick Place PD) (Submitted by Area Plan Commission). Councilor Sparby read the Ordinance by title only and moved that Ordinance No. 18-01 be passed on first reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mr. Teder said thank you. Good evening Madam Mayor, members of the Council, again, Dan Teder, of Reiling Teder & Schrier, representing the petitioner. I did have Alan White, there we are, and Mike O'Malley, with me this evening. They are two of the developers and they'd be happy to answer any questions. You've heard my story before, so I will make it brief at this late hour, for some of us, at least. This is a tract that we're trying to rezone from R1 to PDRS. It's a 14 1/2 acre tract on Lindberg and McCormick Road. We have received a favorable staff report. We have received the unanimous approval from the Area Plan Commission. The reason for that, in my opinion, is that we have a new, improved plan. I'm passing both of those plans on either side of you. If you'd take a look rather than holding them up, I think you'd get a better prospectus for them. Those plans have had the input of West Lafayette. They have had the input of the Area Plan Commission. They've had a City Planner to look at them. What we've done is decrease the number of building from 12 buildings to 7 buildings. We've decreased the concrete on this by over 30,000 sq. ft. We have increased the parking to 3.6 units per acre. This parking increase is because we're trying to purchase additional land from the church to the east. If this is approved, that additional land will be purchased and therefore, increase that parking. We have also looked at another 36 acres, which is shown on this plan over here. That 36 acres will make the density to decrease to 6.4 per acre. We think that's a good blueprint, or footprint, for the area, both for Area Plan and for you, by having that. What we are proposing for that is part of it would be condominiums and the rest of it would be single family in a family neighborhood design concept. We think this is good. This will be something you could look at for the future. This is something that the Area Plan definitely wanted. Again, I will mention that we do own that property. This is something that, if this is approved, we would try to purchase in the future. Additionally then, in the plan itself, you'll notice that we have more green space on the plan. The parking is in the rear in the power line easements. We added more amenities to it. The entrance is on McCormick. There is no entrance on Lindberg. The building closest to Lindberg is a much smaller building. It is angled, and buffered, so that it'll have less impact upon Lindberg Road. McCormick Road, we plan on improving the half width of that. We also have accel and decel lanes on that. Additionally, because we've been annexed, we would have sprinklers in all of the units. Obviously, we have Police, Fire, and sewer as well. We would respectfully request your favorable approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions, as well as the developers that are here. Thank you very much.

Councilor Keen said Dan, I do have one thing. I guess this map shows it better than that one. I was just going to say could you point out - this is what we're actually voting on, not that version down there?

Mr. Teder said right. No, when I put them back there no one can see them and I wanted everybody to see it. This is what we're voting on. This is the McAlister and the Bogan property that we had before. The one across the street, the Simmons property, was previously approved from R1 to R3. This is the PD. This one here, for the future, would also be a PD. Thank you very much.

Councilor Sparby said Dan, could you just tell me, the building that's closest to Lindberg Road, how many stories is that?

Alan White said it's a single story, a maximum of 6 units.

Councilor Sparby said it is a single story.

Alan White said yes.

Mr. Teder said any other questions?

Councilor Windler said I have one short comment. I encourage my fellow Councilors to vote for this. It's a way of proving we're not trying to drive students out of the City, by annexing apartment complexes in.

Councilor Mills said I'll just make a comment please, Mayor. Last year, when this came up before Area Plan as an R3, I was not in favor of this development. But, I'd like to complement Mr. White and Mr. O'Malley for the changes they've made. I think they've been very open to listening to what the City and the Area Plan staff had in mind. They've taken into consideration the concerns of the Blackbird Farms residents and I think it's a very lovely development plan now.

Councilor Keen said I would just like to reiterate that this is in the Tippecanoe County School district. It's not in West Lafayette School district.

Mr. Teder said that is correct.

There was no further discussion.

Ordinance No. 18-01 passed first and only reading, 7-0.

Ordinance No. 19-01 An Ordinance To Amend The Zoning Ordinance Of Tippecanoe County,

Indiana, To Rezone Certain Real Estate From R1 to PDRS (University Place PD) (Submitted By Area Plan Commission). Councilor Sparby read the Ordinance by title only and moved that Ordinance No. 19-01 be passed on first reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum said Mr. Morrison is here representing the petitioners.

Mr. Morrison said thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. My name is John Morrison and I'm the Regional Vice President for Franciscan Sisters of Chicago. We are proposing that the real estate be rezoned from R1 to PDRS. I represent the Franciscan Sisters of Chicago Service Corporation. The Order of the Franciscan Sisters has been around since the late 1890's and we've been primarily in long-term care. So, we have a long history of what this project represents. We're being helped by the Greystone Communities Company, out of Dallas, Texas, helping us develop various phases of this project. We've been also working with Joe Payne [Parks Superintendent Payne], of the City Parks Department, because we're going to be next to the Celery Bog. So, we're delighted to note that we've had an excellent collaboration with Mr. Payne on this. We also went before the Area Plan Commission and we got a favorable, unanimous ruling from the Area Plan Commission. I'm also proud to say that we've been cooperating with the Blackbird Farms Homeowner's Association and we've gotten unanimous, I think I can say unanimous, approval of that Homeowner's Association. We're excited about this project because of the unique programming that it will provide to the residents. We have an affiliation agreement with Purdue University that will provide educational, as well as employment opportunities, for students, as well as residents. So, we think it's unique in that aspect. I think that if there is a key phrase it would be life-long learning and that is what we're going to be focusing on in terms of programming. I have with me Mr. Dave Fondus. He's with the Troyer Architectural Firm, out of Mishawaka, and if he could take us briefly through the project and what it entails.

Mr. Fondus said thank you, John. My name is Dave Fondus and I'm an architect with the Troyer Group in Mishawaka. Let us be real brief. The drawing to my side here is the illustrative site-plan of the project. North is up on this document. Lindberg Road is along the bottom. Blackbird Subdivision is down here. We have the Celery Bog off to the right-hand side. The 65 acres will be developed in several pieces. The first phase is primarily on the southern half of the property up to the neck of the hourglass and then the northern half of the property will be done separately in other phases. As you enter in, the entry drive is in alignment with the subdivision to the south. The building that you see here in the dark color represents the first phase of the development. Where my marker is right now is a three-story independent apartment building with 93 units that will be 1 and 2 bedrooms. There will be an underground parking garage under the portion of the north-south spine of this. Across the east-west portion of the main building is a one-story commons area that primarily houses our dietary functions, our recreation area, and administrative pieces. This L-shaped piece here is a two-story, 48 unit assisted living and, then, to the back here we have a 30 unit one-story skilled nursing area. The road comes around and the other portion of the Phase 1 development are 16 independent cottages right here. They will be in the form of duplexes and they will be primarily clustered so that they have views off to the Celery Bog. When the project is completed, it will have an appearance as represented by this sketch. This is a sketch looking to the north. The sketch is as if you're standing at the Lindberg entry, looking to the north into this quadrangle here. As you can see, the project is a Tudor style building. Again, this is the one-story dietary, commons, and administrative area, the three-story independent living, and then the two-story assisted living area to the side.

Mayor Margerum said are there any questions or comments?

Councilor Sparby said Mr. Morrison, we talked at Pre-Council Meeting last Thursday in regards to the tax exempt status of this project. I guess, I personally, have a concern with that. I realize this is not setting a precedence in West Lafayette, that it would be tax exempt, but we're definitely not talking about a low income housing project, by any stretch of the imagination. I would like to see some type of provision made to ensure that the City is adequately compensated for services and for the loss of property tax revenue that they would face by rezoning this property.

Mr. Morrison said Councilwoman, I'm glad you brought that up. Our attorney is working with the City Attorney on this issue and I don't think anything has been finalized, yet, but we do intend to arrive at something fair and equitable. Does that answer your question?

Councilor Keen said would we have a better answer as to what that may entail by next meeting?

Mr. Morrison said when is your next meeting?

Councilor Keen said next month.

Mr. Morrison said I will make every attempt to have an answer, yes. I don't know to what extent they've been able to come to consensus.

Councilor Sparby said this is a one vote, yes. So, there would be no recourse to us if we pass this tonight and there was not an agreement reached. Is that correct City Attorney Bauman?

City Attorney Bauman said it would be rezoned.

Mayor Margerum said it would be rezoned, yes.

Councilor Sparby said but this is the only opportunity the Council has for any input into this project, is that correct?

Mayor Margerum said well, I think Mr. Morrison did say that they were working on something and if it's your wish, we certainly will make every attempt.

City Attorney Bauman said they certainly have expressed a wish to make those arrangements some time ago and we are in the process of putting that together.

Mr. Morrison said we have every intent.

Councilor Sparby said OK, thank you.

Councilor O'Callaghan said and we have a very good track record of your collaboration with the Parks Department and with the Blackbird Farms Homeowner's Association.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said I guess I have a question regarding this agreement for payment in lieu of taxes. Is it possible that can come back to the fiscal body for approval in a resolution?

City Attorney Bauman said is it possible?

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said yes, can it be done? Is that an option you could offer the Council?

City Attorney Bauman said I'll have to research that.

Councilor Keen said if that question was made into a motion?

City Attorney Bauman said the other agreements we've had for payments for services have not been that way, but I can research that.

Councilor Sparby said but one of them was terminated, is that not correct?

Mayor Margerum said I don't think that ever came to, do you mean Westminster? That never came to the Council, as far as I know.

Councilor Sparby said well, I guess that's a concern, is that it would be all done in public from the inception and then if it was terminated, it would also be.

Mayor Margerum said yes.

City Attorney Bauman said yes, previously, the agreements for payment for services have been done through the Board of Works, and it's certainly in public.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said however, my question is, particularly, would there be any reason why it could not come before the Council?

City Attorney Bauman said I think I answered the question as best I could, which is that I will research that.

Mr. Morrison said we have every intent on being a good and proper neighbor.

Councilor Sparby said thank you.

Councilor Cohen said I have had a couple of people ask me, they're under the impression that Purdue has something to do with this. You mentioned something that I wish you might give a little more information, about Purdue's involvement in that.

Mr. Morrison said yes, we have a written affiliation agreement with Purdue. Purdue, I think, has been supportive of the concept. They've had no financial stake in it, if that's what you're asking about.

Councilor Cohen said what is an affiliation agreement?

Mr. Morrison said it provides for, and it's very loosely worded deliberately because we have yet to work out the day-to-day details or year-to-year details of what that will specifically be realized. I can say education opportunities for students, as well as for residents. A resident might be able to audit a class at Purdue or we might have a professor come to the site to provide classes for the residents. Does that answer your question? We also do want to provide employment opportunities for Purdue students as well.

Councilor Sparby said this is in TSC [Tippecanoe School Corporation], is that correct?

Mayor Margerum said yes.

Councilor Satterly said it's senior citizens. They won't have any kids.

Councilor Sparby said everybody's concerned about the schools. I didn't want to see us giving up West Lafayette's...

Councilor Satterly said no, it's not West Lafayette School Corporation. I see your point though.

There was no further discussion.

Ordinance No. 19-01 passed first and only reading, 7-0.

Resolution No. 11-01 A Resolution To Approve Updates To Certain Policies Contained In The Personnel Manual For West Lafayette City Employees (Prepared by the City Attorney). Councilor Sparby read the Resolution by title only and moved that Resolution No. 11-01 be passed on first and only reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum said this resolution deals with updates regarding recent review of the City's compensatory time and overtime policies. This was conducted in order to apply consistent administration. Diane Foster worked closely with all of the department heads, with the Clerk-Treasurer, myself, and the City Attorney and I believe that this amendment meets all those needs. Are there any questions?

There was no discussion.

Resolution No. 11-01 passed first and only reading, 7-0.

Mayor Margerum said I should thank the Personnel Committee and Councilor Cohen for having spent several sessions with it too.

Ordinance No. 20-01 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 13-01 Fixing The Biweekly Salaries Of Appointed Officers, Employees And Members Of The Police And Fire Departments Of The City Of West Lafayette, Indiana For The Year 2001 (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer). Councilor Sparby read the Ordinance by title only and moved that Ordinance No. 20-01 be passed on first reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum said this section just puts this in the salary ordinance and specifies the holiday pay and some other concerns about compensatory time. Any questions?

There was no discussion.

Ordinance No. 20-01 passed first reading, 7-0.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said Madam Mayor, may I ask that there be a motion to suspend the rules and approve the second reading tonight?

Councilor Sparby said I will make such a motion.

Motion seconded by Councilor Windler.

The motion to suspend the rules and approve the second reading tonight passed, 7-0.

Councilor Sparby read the Ordinance by title only and moved that Ordinance No. 20-01 be passed on first reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Ordinance No. 20-01 passed second and final reading, 7-0.

Ordinance No. 21-01 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 27-00, The 2001 Wastewater Treatment Utility Salary Schedule As Submitted By The Board Of Public Works And Safety For Approval By The Common Council Of The City Of West Lafayette, Indiana (Presented by the Board of works and Public Safety). Councilor Sparby read the Ordinance by title only and moved that Ordinance No. 21-01 be passed on first reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum said this is identical to the previous one, only it applies to the Wastewater Treatment employees.

There was no discussion.

Ordinance No. 21-01 passed first reading, 7-0.

Councilor Sparby moved we suspend the rules and pass Ordinance No. 21-01 on the second and final reading this evening. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly

The motion to suspend the rules and approve the second reading tonight passed, 7-0.

Councilor Sparby read the Ordinance by title only and moved that Ordinance No. 21-01 be passed on second and final reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Ordinance No. 21-01 passed second and final reading, 7-0.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said I would also like to thank everyone who's worked so long to bring this part of our review of personnel policies to its conclusion. I would also like to particularly thank Rebecca Cunningham, in my office, who conducted an audit of City records that provided data that made it possible to go ahead with this. Diane Foster has worked very hard. We've had the assistance of the City Attorney's office, as well as the Personnel Committee and the Mayor. Thank you very much.

Resolution No. 9-01 A Resolution Requesting The Transfer of Funds (Clerk-Treasurer, Engineering, Fire, Development, MVH) (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer). Councilor Sparby read the Resolution in part and moved that Resolution No. 9-01 be passed on first and only reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

There was no discussion.

Resolution No. 9-01 passed first and only reading, 7-0.

Resolution No. 10-01 A Resolution Requesting Support Of The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (Submitted by the Mayor). Councilor Sparby read the Resolution by title only and moved that Resolution No. 10-01 be passed on first and only reading and the vote be by roll call. Motion was seconded by Councilor Satterly.

Mayor Margerum said I would like to ask Liz Solberg, who is the Railroad Relocation Director and also, the state representative for the Midwest Interstate Regional Rail Compact Commission.

Ms. Solberg said you really don't want anything from me at this point, I'm sure. This is just an indication of support for a possible future additional link in our overall transportation system, not in competition with the other modes. It's a logical link for those trips that are 100 to 500 miles. We are really poised in an interesting time right now. There's legislation in Congress that, if it passes, gives the Midwest its really first opportunity to get federal funding for this Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, which is a nine-state system, the hub in Chicago, that has a lot of benefits. I understand Norb Fischer talked to you quite a bit about it. So, I won't go over all that. We face kind of an interesting situation. If this doesn't pass, probably realistically here in Indiana, it doesn't become top burner. Because we're going to need that 80% federal funding that comes from this federal initiative that Senators, interestingly, a majority of the Senators, have signed on as co-sponsors. But, we'll have to see what happens with that. The people are optimistic, but it's not a guaranteed thing. On the other hand, we need to keep in mind that Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin already have banded together and have a request for proposals to buy train sets. So, they are set to put into action their higher speed rail transportation in late 2002 and 2003. So, Indiana needs to not let an opportunity go by to further our own economic development situation. We are at a designated federal corridor. By all the accounts of the engineers, we would be the second line that it would be very logical to develop, after these three states have done theirs. So, there is going to be a need to look at this carefully, if this federal legislation passes. We have to kind of win the competition with the east coast and when it gets back to the Midwest, we want to be in a position to be able to move ahead in Indiana and not lose an opportunity for a significant, really important link in the transportation system.

Mayor Margerum said thank you.

Ms. Solberg said questions?

Councilor Windler said it's not a question. It's just a comment in support. As fuel prices go up, because I sort of work in the economic development world now, because Workforce Development is part of economic development, I hear a lot of local economic development officials talking about how there will be need for alternative transportation methods. As congestion on the nation's highway system increases and the cost of traveling via automobile is increasing, there are more and more people looking for alternative transportation. I think what we're looking at here is something that some people may not think will fly, but five years down the road, you are going to be amazed.

Ms. Solberg said it may not be that long and it could free up hubs in the major airports, a lot cheaper than doing that. You look at a model like Germany, where they don't really want to sell an airplane ticket within the country, but you buy a single ticket that takes you the most viable transportation mode to where you are going. So this, at least theoretically, makes sense, very good logical sense. Whether we really have the opportunity to move ahead may depend on this action in Congress that's still pending, at least in the next two or three years. But, we'll see where it goes.

Councilor Sparby said this might also have some potential impact on the local economy because there's a facility on State Road 26 East that makes locomotive engines.

Councilor O'Callaghan said one thing that Norb [Fisher] mentioned that we could do was to join the Indiana High-Speed Rail Association. What would that involve for us to do?

Ms. Solberg said just pay a little money, and then, depending on the entity or the office that you designate, they have a wonderful information network. They do a lot of work with the State government, working very much in sync with the Governor's Office and the Governor's Office in turn, with our Congressional delegation so that there can be action at the State level and, also, at the national level to try and see if we can make these things happen. They have a very good e-mail network and they do conferences several times a year. They're really outstanding. I think that's how Norb got involved. We went up to one a couple years ago, and they bring in national level people and do a really fine job. That would be a good idea.

Councilor O'Callaghan said so, you could get the membership information to us?

Ms. Solberg said I'd be glad to do that.

Councilor Sparby said do you represent Tippecanoe County also?

Councilor Cohen said this would not take 25 years?

Ms. Solberg said I don't think so. No, no. I think it'll come and go quicker than that.

Councilor Keen said and it's not going through downtown Lafayette?

Ms. Solberg said yes, it would be on the CSX line. I think another, getting into too much detail, but another kind of log-jam that has to be broken to make this work is a quicker way through northwest Indiana. There is a lot of effort afoot to do that. If that doesn't happen, this isn't going to make it either. So, there are a lot of ifs on the chain, but, in theory, it looks really good. Barb [Councilor Sparby], you asked about me. I'm really here more as a citizen but, as the Mayor mentioned, we should take a measure of pride that Indiana was the first of these nine states in the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative to pass, at the state level, legislation that made Indiana part of this Midwest Interstate Regional Rail Compact Commission. Then two other states passed it, Missouri and Minnesota. So, when three passed it, it became an official compact. I understand two more have. The group met initially in January and then we'll keep meeting as legislators have a chance to deal with it. The main purpose of the group is to foster support and more interstate cooperation. There are four representatives from each state. Two are members of the legislatures of the state. One is the governor, like his DOT person. And then the citizen appointee and I'm the citizen appointee for Indiana. So, that's why I take a special interest. I'm more here just as a citizen tonight. Thank you. It's going to prove to be quite interesting.

Mayor Margerum said thank you.

There was no further discussion.

Resolution No. 10-01 passed first and only reading, 7-0.

Marilyn Augst said I'm President of the University Farm Neighborhood Association. We held a general membership meeting last evening and I would like to thank Mayor Margerum and the others of you who came and talked with us. The big issue for our neighborhood this year is the establishment of a City park on Dubois Street. On March 31^st, I sent a letter to President Jischke asking Purdue Research Foundation [PRF] to donate some of the designated lots to the City of West Lafayette. We are currently waiting for his response. When the response from PRF arrives, possibly this month, it will be up to the City of West Lafayette to accept or reject their offer. The residents of University Farm request that the Mayor and the City Council seriously consider their offer and, in addition, we request that you include funding for the park in the City budget with appropriate financing. Long time residents of University Farm frequently tell me about the problems we encountered getting the first City park in University Farm 10 years ago. These residents have not forgotten that struggle. We would like to avoid similar problems with this park. We know you, too, are interested in improving the quality of life for City residents. We have a shortage of residential parks in the City and this would be a great step in meeting that need. Please consider showing Purdue that the City is as committed to the park as the citizens are. We understand the City has many major pressing issues to deal with. We ask that you consider this park issue as it directly affects our citizens and their children. Parks are very important. Thank you.

Mayor Margerum said I would just like to have add Park Board to each one of those groups that this is directed at. Joe Payne [Parks Superintendent Payne] is here, but the Park Board needs to be involved in this also. Thank you. Are there any other citizen comments?

Norman Olson (150 Brick Court) said you'll all be glad to know this is not a complaint. I think you've received enough of them tonight. For those of you that know me, you know that my bicycles are a major part of my personal transportation. I would like to thank the Council for passing the Ordinance tonight. Especially Councilor Mills and Mr. Bauman for the work you've been doing.

Mayor Margerum said thank you very much and thanks for your advocacy. It does matter to have advocates. Any other comments?

Councilor Windler said Madam Mayor, I have one. I meet with a lot economic development officials, like I said earlier, in my regular job. One of them, actually two of them, brought up to me, because they deal with the Hoosier Heartland Corridor, they wanted some sort of statement of support, preferably with dollars attached, for the Hoosier Heartland Corridor and they asked that I share that with the Council. So, I'm doing so at this time. There is some interest throughout the state, because it is the portion from Logansport into Tippecanoe County that is not completed yet. I can tell you, having driven on it many times, it is very nice to drive from the other side of Logansport to Peru. It makes life a lot easier.

Mayor Margerum said I'm a member of that larger committee, of the Hoosier Heartland. I can't say I've been a real active member but I do get their material and I certainly will pass it along for the Council, as we go along. It is part of the efforts of the transportation planning to include those items about Hoosier Heartland. Any other questions or comments?

There being no further business at this time, Councilor Sparby moved for adjournment. Motion was seconded by Councilor Keen and passed viva-voce. The time being 10:22 p.m.

Office of the Clerk-TreasurerJudy Rhodes