Ordinance & Legal Review Committee

UNAPPROVED CITY OF BELLEVILLE JOINT MEETING OF ORDINANCE & LEGAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND CRIME FREE HOUSING TASK FORCE THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013 – 6:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Alderman James Musgrove (Chairman), Alderman Melinda Hult, Alderman Ken Kinsella, Alderman Dave Martinson, and Alderman Lillian Schneider Crime Free Task Force Members Present Alderman Ken Kinsella – Chairman Alderman Dean Hardt Kevin Bouse Linda Havlin John Masur Dan Nollman Tricia Tialdo Robert Sabo – Staff Guests Present Rick Brown Michael Hagberg Nick F. Gomeric Chairman Musgrove called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. To start the meeting the guests were allowed to present their business to the committee. Each guest, before speaking, was to state their name and address for the record. The first person to speak was Rick Brown (618 South Pennsylvania). He said he has some problems with our new Crime Free Housing Ordinance. He is not against inspections for safety and not against Belleville cleaning up a bit and he is against crime. He has a problem with who someone sleeps with, he doesn’t think is any else’s business. He claims the other cities Crime Free Housing Ordinances do not have this requirement. In Collecting peoples information – we have privacy laws. If there is police activity at a place, the police have the right to collect any information they need. We have a crime problem and in 2012 there was almost 2000 police calls made on occupancy. And this is 2000 calls that were not made because of burglaries, rapes, murder, etc. They wrote 175 tickets on just occupancy, only because someone was spending the night at the residence and they were not listed on the occupancy permit. He said this is, in his opinion, almost un-American for that to happen. He thinks identifying the relationship of each person listed on the permit is asking for too much information. He wants this new ordinance to be voted on by the new council members instead of the current members. He was informed that the plans are for this to be voted on after 1 May 2013, which is after the new council members are sworn into office. He wants more balance in the ordinance. He claims that some of the Page 1 of 5  UNAPPROVED tickets were written against a grandmother whose grandson was sleeping on the couch and he thinks this is like putting up a sign telling people they are not welcome in Belleville. He said “T his bad press is being broadcast and people do not want to come here. I guess this is what I am trying to get across”. The second guest speaker was Nick Gomeric. He said he owns property in the city and has a business in the city. He was complaining about every time he turns around there is another tax or another occupancy permit required. Two years ago he got a letter that said he should build a fence around all of his containers (dumpsters). He proceeded to have fences built around all his containers costing about $7200.00 dollars. Then he found out in the last year or two that the ordinance was changed so that not all dumpsters needed to be enclosed, only the ones that are not kept cleaned and did not present an unsightly mess and/or health hazard. He said the City can’t just keep on placing charges on the person who owns the property. Next he complained about tenants that damage his property costing over a thousand dollars and he has to pay to get it fixed. The City is putting too many things against the landlord and this new $25.00 fee is too much. The third guest speaker was Mike Hagberg (701 Centreville Ave). He started by referencing Section 33-3-18, Crime Free Housing Certificate Suspension and Revocation. In sub section b) t hat reads “The commission of four or more violations of city ordinance….” he previously asked that the word “criminal” be placed between the words “more” and “violations”. Since the entire Crime Free Housing Committee was present, that question was turned, directly, over to the committee. The response from the committee was that they did not intend for the word “criminal” to be in that statement because if there are four ordinance violations by a tenant within a six month period that’s a pretty good indication they are not going to be a good neighbor. The committee’s intention was that adding the word “criminal” allowed too much activity. Mr. Hagberg replied that it did not say four violations by the tenant. The committee said the violations could be caused by a visitor to the tenant. Mr. Hagberg said that would make it too easy to find four violations within six months for many different reasons and the landlord will lose his certificate for all property he owns or rents. The answer by the committee was that he will NOT lose his certificate for all properties but just for this bad unit. Other existing renters will not be affected. However, future occupancy permits will be stopped until this unit, with the problem tenant. is cleared up. The intent is not to lose good tenants but to only remove the bad tenants, who, by their actions, can cause nearby good tenants to leave. Mr. Hagbert’s next concern was that if you are going to kick someone out because a guest or an x-husband comes in and commits domestic violence upon a single mom, she is more apt not to call the police if she is afraid she will lose her place to live. The committee answered that she will not be evicted in this case and this is covered specifically in a separate paragraph at the end of Section 33-3-18 which reads as follows: “It is not the intent of this ordinance and it shall not be construed or enforced in any manner which would affect the tenancy of a tenant whose only involvement in an incident has been as the victim of a crime.” The next question, will the name of the “person causing the violation” be removed from the occupancy permit and how will this be handled if the “person causing the violation” in this case is the bread winner of the family. The committee’s response was that the ordinance is focusing on the criminal activity. The ordinance is about communication and resolving problems, not having the landlord show up and saying you are gone, and you can stay. The ordinance allows Page 2 of 5  UNAPPROVED the landlord to know what is going on BEFORE it gets to the point of having to evict someone. One example mentioned was that, based on a real situation, the wife and children were moved to another unit until the anger management problem was resolved. Another example from the committee told us that after receiving two written reports about domestic violations, the landlord was able to use the threat of eviction to get the domestic violations to stop. The next comment from Mr. Hagberg was that at the bottom of page 15, which is the Crime Free Rental Agreement Addendum form, he suggested that in addition to the names of the landlord and tenant, we should add a line for the actual address of the rental unit. The committee agreed with this comment. At this point, Rick Brown, raised his hand and was recognized to speak. He asked the question about a landlord who has 10 units to rent but two are empty. Then he has a problem tenant in one of the eight units he wants to evict. As Mr. Brown understands the ordinance, until the problem is solved the landlord will lose money on the two empty units because he will be prevented from getting occupancy permits for them. This lead to a short discussion and the committee explained that if the landlord proceeds with the legal process to evict the bad tenant, he can get occupancy permits for the two empty units because he has done all he can to resolve the problem. However, with the Crime Free Housing Ordinance, a landlord who ignores the problem, can be stopped from getting more occupancy permits until he does something to resolve the problem. We also know the neighbors of the bad tenant will probably be complaining and will want to move. This requirement that the landlord take care of problems is not meant to be strong arm action against the landlord, but is meant to be a means of communication. Many times the police talking to the tenant can resolve the problem and eviction is not necessary. Next, Alderman Lillian Schneider, asked to speak and was recognized. She proceeded to list a group of house defects in her Ward that have been identified and the owner has been notified by a Housing Department letter to fix these defects. Unfortunately, the items have not been fixed. She is mixing deterioration of the property defects with rental problems. These items are a separate issue form the rental housing problems. Next, she complained about hiring another policeman for the housing department when the Housing Personnel are not following up on written complaints about property defects. Again, these defects are a separate subject from rental property issues. The committee explained that the police officer to be hired to help with the Crime Free Housing work is being paid for by the annual $25.00 fee paid by the landlords and not with tax payer money. Then she complained that the cost for rental housing will be too high for the poor people. Alderman Ken Kinsella explained that the Housing Ordinance will help the poor people. It will make their housing better. They will not have these problem people living next to them and causing trouble. Next Alderman Dave Martinson said the $25.00 fee is only half of what the cities around us are charging for this same purpose. Also, this type of ordinance is not new and they exist all over the Unites States. It had been tested in the courts and passed. If changes are needed, the Crime Free Housing Task Force is to meet twice a year to review the progress on how this has helped the Rental Housing and the landlords. At these meetings they will get reports from the Chief of Police on the calls to the rental properties as well as an accounting of the money spent. If they do not see a reduction in the Crime calls, there is no reason for this program to exist and this is exactly why the sunset clause was written into the plan which says the Crime Free Housing Program will be reviewed in the year 2017. Page 3 of 5  UNAPPROVED Alderman Melenda Hult asked if the Crime Free Housing Plan had been tested in the courts. The answer is Yes. Crime Free Housing basically started in Arizona years ago, was tested in the courts there and then it moved to Chicago and many other towns in Illinois. It has been tested and passed in Illinois Courts. Aurora Illinois is a huge town and their version of Crime Free Housing is far more stringent than our version. Next, Alderman Hult asked if it is mandatory or voluntary. The Committee said mandatory. Then she asked if there was a specific number of units a landlord must operate before this ordinance would “kick in”. The committee said “one” u nit. Next, she asked if, in the court review, did they approve targeting renters vs homeowners. Crime Free Housing has always dealt only with renters. The City is always working with the landlords to provide a safe neighborhood. The landlords are free to rent to whomever they want in their units but they must run a background check so they know who they are dealing with. Next she asked why public housing owned by a government agency is exempt. The committee reported that the government agency who owns the units has their own set of rules. The next question was about applicability. How does a new owner find out about the ordinance, If a new owner does not hear about the ordinance from the real-estate dealer, he or she will find out about the ordinance when the first tenant tries to get an occupancy permit. Next, Alderman Hult asked about the “Registration” process. The committee answered that the City requires each landlord to provide a list each year of all their rental units. This form replaces the existing form listing all rental units and adds the fee information. This was followed with a brief discussion of the $25.00 cost per unit the landlord must pay. This money goes to pay the costs involved for the City to run this program and hire a new policeman. Guest, Rick Brown, spoke next on the $25.00 fee and said he collects this from the tenants to give to the City. At this point, Alderman Hult noted that the relationship of the occupants had been removed from the form. It was explained by the committee that there was negative comments from the public and that information was not needed to do a background check of the individual. Next, Alderman Hult questioned the fact we are holding the tenant responsible for the actions of associates. The committee’s response was that we have to keep that wording for this program to be effective. This lead into a discussion on how does the landlord make a decision on evicting a tenant for various reasons. One example was a family that has a child who has caused trouble at least four times. Do you evict the whole family. The simple answer was that problems like that can cause some neighbors of the bad tenant to move out, which would cause the landlord to lose rent money. So it is necessary to evict the bad tenant. Sometime the four bad incidents may result in the landlord having a discussion with the tenant and possibly they can reach an agreeable solution without eviction. Next, Alderman Hult asked the committee if they felt they had dealt with all of the issues mentioned in the Schreiber Letter. The response from the committee was a definite YES. They said they have touched the subject of everything asked for in their letter and we have done everything to feel comfortable we are not violating the rights of others. A lot of the things they asked for was protecting the victims of violence. We do not think this ordinance will make people leave the City of Belleville, but will make them feel safe enough to stay in the City. We feel this gives safer housing to all renters. This also helps keep the surrounding neighbors from moving out to be safe. At this point we moved into a session where we had different people discussing various aspects of records for Crime Free Housing. The first question to be brought up was, why is the birthdate of each person on the occupancy permit needed. Specifically, this is required to make sure you have the right individuals over the age of 18 and to differentiate people with the same name. Page 4 of 5  UNAPPROVED Also, it is needed to check on the correct count of individuals in a unit. The landlords must certify that they made the background checks for each person over 18 but the city does not get copies of the background checks, only the landlord. The housing department must enter the names in the lease on the occupancy permit, including any children under the age of 18. The question was asked if this process applies to apartments owned by churches. The answer was, yes, it applies to tax exempt apartments. The question was asked if the current requirement that rental properties be registered every year. The answer was that requirement will be replaced by this new ordinance. The question came up about the format of the Rental Incident Form. Will it be on paper or entered into a computer. As of this time it will be entered into a computer and can be printed, if necessary, to send to some landlords or owners. Next, the subject discussed was the sewer bills and how they will be handled. This was an irrelevant question because sewer bills do not go directly to tenants but only to the landlord. Finally, the last question was, is there a difference in the certificate for a landlord and the certificate for an agent. The answer is they are the same. Approval of the Previous Minutes. Chairman asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting held on 11 December 2012. Motion was made to approve by Alderman Dave Martinson, Seconded by Ken Kinsella. All present voted Aye, motion passed. Chairman Will Address Old Business, New Business, Reports, Information and/or Comments. There was a brief discussion of possible changes to the wording of the Draft Copy of the Ordinance, however, it was decided to keep the current wording. It was now up to the Ordinance Committee to make a motion to forward the Draft Copy of the Ordinance to the full Council for Review and Approval. Alderman Dave Martinson made the motion to forward the Draft Copy of the Ordinance to the full Council after 1 May 2013 for Review and Approval . Motion was amended by Alderman Hardt to make sure all Alderman receive a copy to review before the Council Meeting. Amendment was accepted by Alderman Dave Martinson. Motion as amended was Seconded by Ken Kinsella. All members voted Aye and none voted No. Motion passed. Alderman Ken Kinsella announced a Thank You to the Crime Free Housing Committee for all the time they spent working on the Ordinance and said they had been a good group to work with. Chairman Adjourns the meeting Chairman Musgrove asked for a motion to adjourn. Motion made by Alderman Dave Martinson and Seconded by Alderman Lillian Schnieder. All members present voted Aye, Motion passed. Respectfully submitted by Alderman James Musgrove (Chairman) Page 5 of 5