Fortville council debates sweeping rental registration and inspection ordinance, landlords push back

Fortville — The Town Council devoted more than an hour to the first reading of a proposed ordinance to establish a rental-housing registration and inspection program for units within the town, with council members, staff and residents sharply divided over scope, fees and enforcement.

The proposal would require owners to register rental properties, designate an on-call agent, and submit to complaint-driven inspections. At the meeting Chair said the town needs clearer definitions for "agent" and "owner rights," and pushed to strengthen penalties and inspection fees to ensure compliance: "I don't think a $100 is enough for an inspection fee if they have to go back and redo it," the Chair said, suggesting higher fines for repeat noncompliance.

Town counsel (Alex) told the council that state law caps certain registration fees at $5 but that inspection fees and penalties can be structured to be reasonably related to the town’s service costs. A town staff member recommended the council consider occupancy limits and a reasonable local standard for overcrowding; staff also proposed that the town council, rather than the board of zoning appeals, be the body to hear ordinance appeals because the matter is a town-code function.

Local landlords and residents who spoke during public comment urged caution. Randy, a long-time Fortville property owner, told the council the draft is "an administrative nightmare" and said he favored a simple registration system that would help the town reach absentee landlords without creating an onerous burden on local owners: "This is just heavy handed for Fortville," he said, pressing the council to carve out protections for small, local landlords and to avoid imposing restrictive occupancy standards.

Council members pressed for changes to several specifics in the draft, including increasing notice time for inspections from seven to 10 days, clarifying whether complaints could be filed by anyone and whether pets must be secured for inspections. Members discussed raising follow-up inspection fees and penalties to create a meaningful deterrent while also remaining defensible under state law.

The ordinance also raises legal questions about search-warrant procedures for inspections. One council member asked whether the town risks liability when an inspection escalates to a warrant if an occupant refuses entry; town counsel said the use of a warrant is a serious legal step and agreed to research precedent and liability further.

No final vote was taken. Councilmembers said they will refine definitions, consider adjusting fee and penalty levels, and explore process changes — including a pre-inspection discussion between the property owner and code officer to avoid frivolous complaints. The proposed ordinance remains at first reading and will return for further review at a future meeting.