Water Ordinance Amendment Discussed,
Old Issues Surface
By
Mick Parsons for The
Prairie Advocate News
Mount Carroll – Changes to the city's Water Ordinance, as proposed
by Tom Charles (Ward 3) were discussed at length, and the input of
landlords and property owners being taken into consideration as the
council works on the final draft. In spite of the generally
favorable response to most of the changes to the amendment draft,
however, some old issues surfaced delineating clearly the factions
and tensions within the city council that many voters hoped to get
rid of in the last election. And in spite of the fact that half the
council being in their first term, the same old divisions that gave a
sense of gridlock to the last council still pervaded the
conversation.
Water On the
Brain
The big discussion
for the night was draft of amendments to the city's water ordinance.
Even though the new ordinance calls for an additional $100 deposit
for new water accounts – with only landlords and residential owners
being able to get the deposit back after 12 months of timely payments
– and it also provides a time line between the date the payment is
due and when service is cut off for nonpayment... and essentially
removes any discretionary ability on the part of City Clerk Julie
Cuckler, who has been critisized by current aldermen Sisler and Bork
and former alderman Nina Cooper for her more humanitarian and one on
one approach in dealing with delinquent payments... the major issue
among the more vocal residents present at the meeting still boiled
down to whether or not a new water ordinance would do any good.
Before going over
the draft, Alderman Charles (Ward 3) tried to organize the
conversation into two parts. He intended to first discuss the water
ordinance “going forward” and wanted to keep the more contentious
arguments related to delinquent water bills as a separate issue. He
was also careful to point out that the purpose of discussing the
ordinance draft was so that area landlords and residential owners
could give their input, ask questions, and voice concerns.
One local
landlord, Leo Haag, insisted that the only problem with the current
water ordinance was enforcement – or the lack of it. “Most of
the mistakes with delinquent water bills have been made in the
building.”
Trying to keep the
conversation on track – or perhaps hoping that his elegant solution
would calm the concerns of those present – Alderman Charles went on
to read more of the proposed changes. If the proposed changes pass,
the city will not turn off the water at any landlord's property
without a notarized letter stating that the property is vacant...
this is in response to a previous situation in which a landlord had a
tenants water turned off while they were still living there. Also,
landlords will be responsible for 2 months worth of delinquent water
bills, if there are any, should a tenant move and leave a delinquent
bill; that two months will be offset by the $100 deposit, however.
If a landlord includes the water in the cost of the rent and gets
behind on the bill, the city will leave the water on until the
property is vacant.
The new ordinance
would also add a $50 administrative fee for lien preparation that
will be passed on to the landlord, along with the court establish
legal fees.
Charles
passed out copies of letters to delinquent water bill customers –
one to property owners, and one to tenants. The language of both
letters was pretty much the same, except that landlords and
residential property owners would have to pay 10% interest on the
past due amount and tenants would only have to pay 5%. This was met
with some grumbles of displeasure from the landlords in the audience,
but Charles said that since landlords are in business to make money,
it's important that the city hit them where it will most affect them.
Alderman
Bob Sisler (Ward 2) took issue with the “legally possible”
clause. In other words, the state statute does limit the city in some
respects. For one, no public utility can be shut off between December
1st
and March 1st,
and for another, it's illegal for any utility to be shut off when it
will exacerbate a medical problem and place the resident at risk...
and if the city did so, it would be open to legal action. City
Attorney Ron Coplan pointed out, however, that there's no state law
restricting evictions for non-payment of rent.
Alderman Doug
Bergren (Ward 3) then asked Coplan whether or not it's true that
state law makes landlords responsible for the unpaid water bills of
their tenants, and Coplan conceded that Bergren was correct.
And while there
weren't that many vocal objections to the the proposed Water
Ordinance Changes, there were when it came time to discuss how the
city will deal with delinquent water bills. After Andy Shaw asked
what happened to large water bills left behind by former tenants who
move out of the area, Charles reminded the audience that the city has
found a collection agency, Tri-State Adjustments, to track those
people down and attempt to collect the debt.
The biggest issue
that those present – clearly landlords – had was that in the end,
they could still be held responsible for the unpaid water bills of
their tenants. As Bergren, Charles, and City Attorney Ron Coplan
pointed out, however, that's the state law.
Mr. Haag also
pointed out that no other utility operates the way Mount Carroll
operates it's water utility. He insisted that neither JoCarroll nor
Nicor would allow an account to get as behind as some of the
delinquent accounts on the city's past due list.
Jan Handel,
echoing Haag's complaint, asked “Why do the bills get so high?”
She later added that there was already an ordinance on the books that
wasn't enforced. She was echoing a criticism going back to the
previous council, and to previous council meetings during which –
like this one – the city clerk was openly critisized in spite of
the fact that she, like the mayor, were re-elected. Alderman Sisler
has made much of his stance in favor of going by the letter of the
law, and others, like Alderman Bork and former Alderman Nina Cooper,
haven't been shy of their public critiques of either the Clerk or the
mayor. And while there was a point when it seemed like the tension on
city council was going to dissipate so that while disagreements
would remain that business could at least get done, it seems like the
same old tensions and same old factions are again having sway.
And in this case,
even though the proposed ordinance would do precisely what some
critics of the city, the clerk, and the mayor have wanted – namely,
remove the clerk's discretionary powers when it comes to dealing with
past due water bills – there were still those who took the
opportunity of a public forum to voice their dissatisfaction with
what they see as a history of mismanagement. To hear the group
present at last week's council meeting, one would think the entire
town was in an uproar.
Of
course, the other significant group of people who will be impacted by
the new water ordinance – the tenants – was not present at the
meeting; though to be fair, unlike the landlords they weren't
expressly invited to what is an open public meeting. That they
didn't come out themselves suggests that they've been busy on the
phone with their aldermen, or there's an apathy to what goes on, or
they think their thoughts don't matter.
One resident did
speak up, however. Terri Evansberger pointed out that there are
“extenuating circumstances” that might cause people to get behind
on their water bill, and that those things should be taken into
consideration. Alderman Charles pointed out that the new Health and
Welfare Fund – which was approved by ordinance that same night –
would give people options to pursue in trying to get their water bill
paid.
Alderman Rose
raised the point of seasonal restrictions again and Alderman Charles
said, “We won't break the law.”
Alderman Sisler, wanting to get in one more dig before the
conversation moved on said, “Not anymore.”
To TIF or Not to
TIF
Another issue that continues to draw attention to the divisions on
the board is the Mount Carroll TIF District and how TIF funds
actually work. The TIF fund has been the focus of ire, complaints,
and confusions among some present and past members of the city
council; and even though one alderman, Doug Bergren, deals with TIF
Funds in his day job and in spite of the exhaustive efforts of
supporters as well as the media to explain how and why TIF works,
when the issue came up last week the same old confusions bubbled to
the surface.
The owners of Mount Carroll Bowling wrote a letter to the city
council asking it to take action regarding their TIF request.
According to the TIF agreement that Mount Carroll Bowl has with the
city, it can receive 90% of it's TIF increment, and the owners are
hoping they can use the TIF funds – which are tied to the Estimated
Assessed Value (EAV) of the property – to make up some of the
$78,000 they've invested since buying it in 2009.
The problem is that when the owners and the city went back to look at
the business's 2007 EAV, it was inflated well beyond what the owners
think the property was actually worth. And while that can be looked
into, the end result is that because of the higher assessed value in
2007, Mount Carroll Bowl may not be able to draw from the TIF Fund
because they haven't paid in.
To keep it simple – mostly because is simple – supporters of TIF
Funds claim they are a way for localities to use local money for
economic development. In the case of Mount Carroll's TIF District,
which also includes Pearl City Bank, Schneider House Furniture, and
Main Street Commons, the TIF Fund is fed by the difference between
the 2007 EAV and what the business actually pays in property taxes.
For example, If a business in the TIF District paid $3000 in property
taxes in 2007, but they paid $4000 in 2011, that extra $1000 would go
into TIF. Conversely, if they paid $3000 in property taxes in 2007
and $2500 in 2011, then nothing would go into the TIF.
Generally, a business only qualifies for TIF Funds – based on an
agreement with the city requiring passage by the city council – if
they pay in. The owners of Mount Carroll Bowl claim the 2007 EAV was
so high and that it's dropped so much since then that there's no way
they will ever get TIF money.
Mayor Carl Bates
suggested two options:
They don't
get any money, as per the agreement, since nothing has been paid in,
or
The bowling
alley and the city agree on an amount – a smaller amount than what
they're asking. – and they get that.
The mayor was clearly pushing for the
second option, saying he wanted to encourage a business that has
helped bring people into downtown. “All I can do is suggest,” he
said. “I feel we should participate at some level. That's my
opinion.”
Alderman Bergen
suggests a specific number: $15,000 – which could help Mount
Carroll Bowl install much needed air conditioning on the lanes. The
mayor said that is a separate thing and not really covered by the TIF
contract.
The only concern
that Alderman Mike Risko (Ward 1) raised was one of favoritism. “I
don't want to play favorites,” he said.
As of the council
meeting last week, the TIF Fund has a balance of $31,021.20.
According to the agreement between the TIF District and the City of
Mount Carroll, once disbursements are made to those businesses which
get them – Pearl City Bank for one – the balance of the TIF FUND
will then be transferred to the Water Fund to pay on the Debt
Service.
Bergren, who was
clearly displeased with the notion fo draining the TIF, said “If we
keep a low number in TIF, we'll never be able to do anything.”
There was some
talk that the TIF agreement needs to be reviewed in light of the
issue with Mount Carroll Bowl. According to the mayor, it's an issue
they are likely to come up against again in the future with other TIF
businesses. But some alderman – Sisler and Risko – claimed to
not understand how TIF works. Sisler claimed that it might make sense
to “someone that's smart.” Neither Risko nor Sisler were on the
council when the TIF district was formed, but the issue has been
discussed so much that does beg the question as to whether it's a
matter of being smart enough or a matter of being politically
cautious enough and tip toeing around a topic that has been a
contentious point among members of the current and past councils. In
other words, if all else fails, play dumb.
Who's The Boss?
Some of the
current tensions among members of the city council showed while
Alderman Sisler reported some of the complaints and comments he'd
gotten from some of his constituents. Sisler said he was fielding
calls from residents in Ward 2 about pot holes on Washington Street
between Clay and Main; that people in a town this size call their
elected officials, many of whom are also neighbors and friends, isn't
really all that surprising. But apparently, in spite of all the years
of leadership experience boasted to by many of the aldermen, and in
spite of all the focus lately on following proper procedure in wake
of JoCarroll's Public Relations campaign of tutoring new alderman in
Parliamentary Procedure, there's still apparently some stark
philosophical disagreements on the role of alderman in a town the
size of Mount Carroll.
“I don't
understand the chain of command,” Risko complained. After
essentially accusing his fellow alderman of nitpicking and
micro-managing, Risko said the job of an alderman was to provide
overall leadership and not to “get involved in minutiae.”
“You're way
off,” Sisler said. And other members of the council, including
Alderman Bergren, along with residents sitting in the audience,
seemed to agree.
In other council news, Lou Schau of the CDC talked about the Historic
Preservation Fund. It has $6,000 to hand out this year, and they have
decided to lend $3,000 each to Deane King of Second Rose and to Mary
Kernan of New Morning Glass. Since it's inception in 2006, $41,000
has passed through the fund and into improvements in the downtown
district. Also mentioned that there are three more flower boxes
downtown, all paid for by downtown business owners and that Bella's
and Brick Street Coffee have extended hours. Alderman Doris Bork
(Ward 2) asked whether all the loans from the Historic Preservation
Fund have been repaid. Schau said that there hasn't been a problem or
default yet. Risko praised the CDC for it's work and the way it's
improving the downtown.
Alderman Sisler asked about the golf cart – which isn't running –
and whether it is meant to run on the street. Charles pointed out
that the golf cart is technically a city vehicle... which Sisler
didn't think was an answer to his question. Generally, however, in
order for a vehicle such as a golf cart to be street legal, it must
have head and tail lights and be registered with the state and
plated.
Len Anderson
reported that the next Cruise Night is on 8/20. He also asked the
council to consider another $800 donation for next year. This
donation comes out of the band fund, and usually in 4 increments of
$200. The council went ahead and voted to approve the donation.
Jeff
Woodside from The Carroll County Chapter of Pheasants Forever was at
the meeting to ask the city for it's annual $100 donation towards the
Pheasants Academic Scholarship Program. It was motioned and passed
after a short discussion. Risko did ask if the city donated to other
organizations for similar reasons. The mayor answered no, but added
that the city does donate to the After Prom and other worthwhile
projects when there are available funds and when the council is
approached.
Former Alderman
Diane Lego was named to the Mount Carroll Planning Commission. Lego,
who served on the council until she decided not to run last year,
made quite an impression of her leaving when, at her last meeting as
an alderman, she returned the $100 Christmas bonus check she received
from the city because she was an alderman. Prior to Lego being voted
onto the the Planning Commission, Alderman Risko asked her why she
wanted to serve when she made her displeasure with the current city
administration so clear. She answered that she simply wanted to serve
and that the only reason she returned the check in such a grand
manner was because she didn't feel that aldermen should get a holiday
bonus.
During the general audience portion, Andy Shaw said
that his property in Mount Carroll has sewage back up problems every
time it floods and that he hopes the city will look into the issue,
since it's clear that last year's flood wasn't the last flood of any
magnitude that the city would have to deal with.
Jean Schintzler commented that the city still hasn't done anything
about her water problem, even though city workers have been up to her
house and tested her water. She maintains that the water she put in
her pool was “as brown as the Mississippi River” and that when it
comes out of the tap it often smells like rotten eggs. Alderman
Sisler couldn't resist the urge to ask if that meant the water was
“pot-able.” Schintzler went to say that when she called the mayor
at home – again – to complain about the problem that the mayor
told her he'd just shut the water off.” Bates later said that he
said it out of frustration and that of course that wasn't the
solution to the problem. During the meeting Mayor Bates said that
even though the city has tested her water that it will take another
sample and send it off to a lab in Sterling, which will test for more
than chlorine and lead.