Gillespie City Council (Archived photo)

The Gillespie City Council tabled action on an ordinance that would have changed requirements for housing inspections for rental properties during its regular monthly meeting Monday night after hearing objections from several landlords who said the new ordinance would unfairly penalize property owners who keep water service in their own name.

The proposed ordinance would have required annual housing inspections at a cost of $75 per year for properties where landlords keep the water service in their own names. Rental properties where the water service is in the name of the renter would have been inspected only when one tenant leaves and another tenant moves in. The objective of the ordinance was to encourage landlords to put water service in the names of their tenants to ensure the properties are inspected when tenants change.

Property owner Rusty Fredericks, however, told the council the proposed ordinance is unfair since the property owner, not the tenant, is responsible for unpaid water bills regardless of whose name is on the account. He said he has had instances when a tenant moved out while owing a water bill larger than what the renter’s water deposit would cover. In those instances, the property owner is responsible for paying the balance before water is turned on for a new tenant.

“I’d rather have the bill in my name so I can make sure it’s paid, since I’m responsible for it anyway,” Fredericks said, adding that property owners should be able to provide the city with some sort of alternative proof to show that the same tenant is living in a rental unit from one year to the next. “If I have proof the same person is living there, why should I have to pay for another inspection.”

[pullquote]The purpose of the ordinance was to encourage property owners to have water service in the names of their tenants[/pullquote]Fredericks also questioned a provision of the ordinance that would have required a $20 re-inspection fee if a property happens to fail the initial inspection. He said he might inspect a property for himself, make repairs and inadvertently miss one or two items. In such circumstances, he would be responsible for paying a $20 inspection fee. Fredericks suggested there should be a courtesy, one-time re-inspection free of charge. If the property fails the re-inspection, the owner could then be charged the full amount for a third inspection. The $20 re-inspection fee could be especially unfair for landlords who own multiple properties and could become liable for several hundred dollars in re-inspection fees simply to address relatively minor issues.

Mayor John Hicks said the re-inspection fee was in place in the proposed ordinance to cover the city’s cost of sending the housing inspector out for a second inspection.

Ald. Janice Weidner said the purpose of the ordinance was to encourage property owners to have water service in the names of their tenants so the city can make sure the properties are inspected before new tenants move in. “Otherwise,” she said, “we don’t know the comings and goings of who is living there.”

Fredericks argued that it should be the responsibility of the property owner, not the city, to provide notice of when tenants change and a housing inspection is required.

“We want it to be our responsibility,” Hicks said, “so we don’t having people living in places that haven’t been inspected. If it (the water service) is in the renter’s name, then we know when a renter moves out.”

Rick Fenton, who also owns rental properties in Gillespie, noted the proposed ordinance also would have created a discrepancy between owners of multi-unit properties where the water service for several apartments runs through a single meter and multi-unit properties that have separate water meters for each apartment. Under the proposed ordinance, a multi-unit property would be subject to re-inspection once a year if it has only one water meter, while each individual apartment would be inspected when tenants change in a multi-unit property with multiple water meters. Under that scenario, a property owner with water service in his or her name would pay $75 once a year for the entire building, while the owner of a building where apartment dwellers pay their own water bill would be required to pay $75 to inspect a single apartment when tenants move out.

Jeff Moss, who recently purchased a multi-unit building in Gillespie, said Ameren-Illinois has a program to notify city officials when utility services are switched to a new tenant, which would eliminate the need for the ordinance and relieve both property owners and the city of keeping track of when tenants move out and move in. City Attorney Kevin Polo, however, said Ameren has ended that practice except for larger cities that qualify as home-rule municipalities. Moss said he would contact Ameren and confirm whether or not Gillespie is eligible to participate.

Hicks, who appeared to initially defend the proposed ordinance, ultimately referred the issue back to committee “to consider what you guys have said and see if there is some kind of happy medium.” He invited the landlords to attend the committee meeting in two weeks and provide additional input into drafting a revised ordinance that achieves the city’s objectives while protecting the interests of the property owners. City Treasurer Dan Fisher advised the property owners to put their concerns in writing for presentation to the committee.

The expectation is that the committee will return to the council next month with a revised ordinance for possible action.

BACKHOE PURCHASE/CITY FINANCES

With one dissenting vote, the council agreed to borrow $60,000 over a period of five years for the purchase of a new backhoe to replace a nine-year-old machine the city currently owns. Public Works Committee Chair Jerry Dolliger reported during the last city council meeting that the current backhoe has significant issues with its hydraulic systems, causing the bucket to drop without warning when the machine is in transit and causing the backhoe to randomly lurch when it is being used to dig trenches. As a result, Dolliger had directed that no workers could be in the trench when the backhoe was in use as a safety precaution.

The committee proposed Monday night that the city trade in the old backhoe and buy a new John Deere backhoe from ERB Equipment, Mitchell, at a cost of $60,000. But Ald. Weidner said she reviewed the repair history for the machine now being used and questioned the necessity of the purchase.

“We really don’t have that many repairs in it,” she said.

Fisher concurred, saying that if the council was considering the purchase of a police car, it would take into consideration how much the city had spent in repairs for it and weighed the cost of needed repairs against the total value of the car. “What you have here is a $100,000 piece of equipment that is worth $30,000,” he said. “The question is would it cost $30,000 to fix it?”

[pullquote]That tractor is going to kill someone and that’s going to cost you a lot more than $60,000[/pullquote]Dolliger said a factor figuring into the decision to purchase a replacement has to do with the number of hours on the machine, not its age. With 4,500 hours of use, the trade-in is worth about $30,000. A year from now, he said, the trade-in value would be cut by about half.

“That tractor is going to kill someone,” said Street Department employee Landon Pettit, “and that’s going to cost you a lot more than $60,000.” He said he was struck by the bucket recently when he was standing five feet away from the hole when the bucket lurched to the side. The incident was not operator error, he said, noting that he was watching the operator at the time of the accident.

“You’re talking about spending $60,000 for a piece of equipment that isn’t going to kill someone and will give us more productivity,” Dolliger said. The backhoe is used by both the Street Department and Water Department for a number of tasks.

Advertisement

Fisher said the city has the money to make the purchase, but recommended that the purchase be weighed against other anticipated expenses over the next 12 to 24 months, including major infrastructure projects the city intends to undertake if it can secure grant money to subsidize some of the costs. Even with grants in place, Fisher said, the city will be required to provide matching funds. He asked for the Public Works Department to develop a list of major purchases that might be expected in the next two years. The Water Department reportedly has already identified about $6,000 in anticipated expenditures for pumping equipment. Dolliger said the committee also wants to spend about $3,000 to buy a spare pump for the sewer treatment operation.

Fisher also reported that a local bank is willing to loan money for the backhoe purchase if the city wished to finance the purchase.

“We can pay cash, we have the money,” he said, “but the bank is willing to loan it to us at two percent interest.”

Ald. Steve Kluethe’s motion to borrow $60,000 for the purchase was approved with Ald. Weidner casting the only negative vote.

In a related matter, Fisher provided council members with a financial report indicating the city has enough money on hand to cover about 2.9 times the city’s current obligations, just shy of the three times obligations that is recommended as a target for cash on hand.

“We are in pretty good financial condition despite late payments from the state,” he said. “But we have some big expenditures coming up. This money looks good on paper, but it could go away really quick.” He said the city has a total of about $1.5 million in reserve cash, but anticipates about $6 million in upcoming expenditures for infrastructure improvements including repairs to the dam at Gillespie Lake.

Though no action was taken Monday night, Fisher also recommended drafting an ordinance to increase sewer rates by $1 for the first 1,000 gallons and by 25 cents for each additional 1,000 gallons. The increase, if enacted, would generate close to $30,000 in additional revenue annually, according to Fisher–money that he says is need to cover increasing costs for providing sewer service and for anticipated future improvements and repair.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Council members took no immediate action after meeting in executive session for nearly an hour to discuss personnel and real estate issues. Agenda items apparently discussed but not acted upon included setting wages for the city’s non-union employees; revising language regarding the position of foreman included in a contract accepted last month between the city and Laborers International of North America Local 338, the union representing the city’s Public Works employees; and setting a staff meeting with city employees regarding the employee evaluation process.

Apparently as a result of executive session discussion, the council voted to raise the hourly wage for part-time Public Works employee Nathan Thornhill from $8.25 to $10, with a proviso that he can work no more than 30 hours per week.

Also based on discussion that took place in executive session, Fisher announced plans to raze the current Police Department building once the department has completed its move to new facilities on Pine Street. In addition, the Street Department would move into an existing green metal building located to the east of the current Police Department. The vacant property created by the demolition would be used to store salt, other materials and equipment. He recommended drawing up specifications for demolishing the old building and seeking bids for the project. He said the demolition and remodeling could be paid for with Tax Increment Financing funds.

Ald. Kluethe, Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, said he expect the Police Department to be out of the old building by late April or early May.

It was reported that Walnut Gardens, the Illinois Valley Economic Development facility for developmentally disabled adults, may be willing to take over the city’s collection facility for recyclable materials, which could free up additional space for the Street Department.

As part of the project, a generator located at the current Police Department would be moved to City Hall.

SCHOOL TAX

Community Unit School District Supt. Joe Tieman visited the council to provide information about an upcoming county-wide referendum to impose a one-cent sales tax for the benefit of local schools. He said he is prohibited from expressing an opinion on how people should vote, but wanted to make sure voters have the information they need to make an informed decision in March. A similar referendum failed in 2014.

“Since then, I’ve heard from a lot of people who either didn’t vote or voted no because they didn’t know what it was about,” Tieman said. He said city officials are welcome to refer people with questions about the issue to his office or to the school’s website. There also is a Facebook page devoted to the issue, he said.

The measure, if approved by voters, would add one cent of sales tax onto purchases in Macoupin County that are already subject to sales tax collections. Groceries, prescription drugs and other sales-tax exempt items also will be exempt from the school tax. CUSD 7 is expected to receive about 18.5 percent of the revenue collected, based on the number of students it enrolls–about $400,000 annually. The school board voted last month to devote 20 percent of the new revenue toward paying down bonds issued for the construction of the new Ben-Gil Elementary School.

The supplemental sales tax already has been approved in Greene and Jersey counties, Tieman said. The new revenue can be used only for school facilities and cannot be used for salaries.

LAKE LOTS & OTHER BUSINESS

The council approved a five-page lake lot lease agreement that not only incorporates a recently approved lake lot lease rate hike, but also outlines rules and regulations governing the lots. Ald. Jim Alderson requested a correction to one item which required all decks and patios to be elevated at least four inches off the ground, noting that the rule should not apply to paved patios. Ald. Frank Barrett agreed, noting that the stipulation was meant to apply to wooden decks only. The document also includes specifications regarding the size of cabins allowed on permanent lots and provides provisions for converting a “picnic lot” to a “permanent residence” lot.

Also regarding the lake, council members approved a lake lot transfer at 3 Stump Lane from William Bomkamp to Frank and Sherri Barrett. Barret abstained from the vote.

While voting to approve the document, Alderson said it seemed the city was allowing for an expansion in residential uses at the lake without having an overall master plan in place.

Advertisement

Kluethe, a member of the committee, agreed, but noted the new document “is a good first step” toward developing and management plan.

OTHER ACTION

• Referred to committee the issue of renewing a lease with Royell Communications for a communications tower located at the city’s impoundment lot. A three-year contract allowing the company to lease the tower for $240 a month has expired.
• Authorized the purchase of a Quickbooks program to streamline accounting processes in the City Clerk’s office. Power to act on the purchase was given to the committee. Fisher noted that in addition to streamlining accounting for the city, the program also includes links with the Water Department’s accounting system, creating the potential for creating detailed revenue and expenditure reports to guide future decisions.
• Agreed to purchase a tennis net at a cost of $416 for one of the city’s two tennis courts. Barrett said he still intends to use one of the courts for a batting cage, at least temporarily, to see if there is enough interest in having the facility and it doesn’t displace too many tennis players.
• Authorized the Lake Committee to buy a used refrigerator to replace one that has stopped working at a cost of $150, to be paid with cash generated from the sale of scrap metal from the lake. The refrigerator will be used for bait sold at the Lake Office.
• Approved a resolution regarding a deferred compensation plan update from Massachusetts Mutual. Polo said the document brings the plan’s administration into alignment with current IRS rules.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

There are plenty of ways to keep up on BenGil news:

Sign up for our weekly email newsletter

Follow us on Twitter for the fastest breaking news updates and score updates

Like us on Facebook for a slightly different take

Comments

comments