Council begins first reading of building-code fee updates; debate centers on pool permit language and sunset clause

The Auburn Common Council opened first-reading consideration of Ordinance 2026-1, an amendment and restatement of chapter 163 (Auburn Building Code fee schedule).

The ordinance was moved and seconded for first reading; council and staff then discussed several substantive points. Council members questioned wording that requires permits for "above-ground pool" and whether that would capture temporary, kit-style toddler or blow-up pools sold at retail stores. Building and Planning Administrator Ryan Shamball told the council that the Indiana swimming pool code defines above-ground pools by size and construction and that typical small kiddie or inflatable pools are not the regulated type. "Actually when we say above ground pool, the Indiana swimming pool code does define... not the blue bladder type that you're talking about," he said, adding the office provides handouts at the permit counter explaining differences between temporary kiddie pools and permanent above-ground or in-ground structures.

Council debate also centered on fee levels and review frequency. Shamball said staff has been reviewing fees and found that some fee items have not been revised for decades; he said a square-footage fee was last changed by ordinance 2,006-21 about 20 years ago. He cited comparisons: "City of Angola is at $25 for a fence. We're at 0. Columbia City's at 40. We're at 0," and suggested that raising some fees (he noted 10¢ per square foot as a comparison point used by peers) would allow the department to recoup administrative costs. "We're trying... to recoup our cost. We're losing money," he said.

A council member proposed inserting a sunset clause to force periodic review of fee ordinances; the city attorney cautioned against blanket sunset language that would cause the ordinance to lapse if council failed to act, creating gaps in the code. Whitener recommended either staff-driven internal review mechanisms or carefully drafted language if council wished a recurring review requirement. Members asked staff and the attorney to research possible wording and bring a proposal back at a future meeting.

The first reading was opened and debated; the transcript does not record a final vote on the ordinance at this meeting. Next steps: staff will provide clarifying language on permit triggers (such as "permanent" vs. temporary pools), supply comparative fee detail, and the attorney will advise on sunset-review language and process.