Lincoln City Council
Lincoln landlords object to paying trash ordinance

 

[July 05, 2021] 

The Lincoln City Council is revisiting the ordinance pertaining to payment of trash bills for landlords and will place a moratorium on landlord responsibility for those bills until October 1st. This stems from two separate council meetings when representatives, speaking for all landlords of single family dwellings in the city, voiced objections to the decision made by the council in February, 2021.

The vote taken in February was the product of issues with nuisance trash left behind by tenants becoming a burden for the city, and unpaid trash bills becoming a burden for Area Disposal. Area Disposal was not being paid and discontinued services to these locations. The trash was being allowed to stack up causing health and safety concerns for the city. Neighbors were calling the city with complaints and city officials were left with trying to figure out how to get the trash cleaned up.

The council ultimately decided that the best recourse was to mandate that the landlords of single family rental properties would be made responsible for paying the trash bill. The landlords could pass the extra cost on to the tenant through the monthly rent, and hopefully, Area would get more timely payments, and the city would have to deal only with the landlord if trash became a nuisance.

Immediately following that vote, Steve Hankins called a public meeting of all landlords at the Elk’s in Lincoln. The meeting was called on a city council meeting night, so no city representatives were present at the meeting.

After that, nothing was heard from the landlords until the Monday, June 21st voting meeting of the Lincoln City Council. That night, Kevin Bateman was serving as Mayor Pro Tem in the absence of Mayor Tracy Welch.

Monday, June 21st public participation

That night Steve Hankins, and local attorney and landlord Doug Muck, spoke to the council during public participation.

Hankins spoke first saying that the city had made a decision that impacted the landlords without talking to the landlords beforehand. He said that he felt the city had not followed the “chain of command,” had not given notice to the landlords, and had rushed through the changes. He asked that the council table the actions taken in February. He also said he felt that the city was overstepping its authority in making such a decision.
 

Muck noted that as a landlord, he was not in attendance for personal issues, he was there as the representative of the landlords. He said that the city had made changes that significantly impacted landlords, during a pandemic that was already having a negative impact on them. He said that because the state had placed a moratorium on rental and evictions there were many tenants in Lincoln who were not paying their monthly rent, even though they could probably do so. Tenants were taking advantage of the moratorium to avoid their responsibility. Because of this, he noted that there are some tenants who are thousands of dollars in arrears.

Therefore, landlords are not receiving their due income, and now the city is adding to their burden. Muck said the landlords were not seeking to cause trouble over this, they only wanted to have more input. Muck asked for a ‘short moratorium” on the ordinance. He said the issue needed more time, more communication and more compromise.

The changes made in February had come with a stipulation that the new rules would take effect on July 1st. With that date approaching, Kevin Bateman asked Muck what would happen if a tenant moved out in June leaving behind a mess and a new tenant moved in July 1st. What would Muck tell the landlord to do?

Muck said that he would not share advice he would offer his clients. However, as a landlord, Muck said he would clean up the mess. Muck then went on to say there was another issue. Area would not come pick up the mess until the trash bill was paid. Therefore, the tenant would be gone, perhaps leaving unpaid rent, and now the landlord also had to pay off the former tenant’s trash bill to get service for the new tenant.

Bateman, said that wasn’t accurate. He said that it had been specified that the landlord would not be responsible for past tenant bills, and that Area had agreed to that stipulation. Muck said that regarding Area, “they tell you one thing and do another.”

Muck had indicated that the landlords wanted a sit down meeting with city officials. Bateman said that such a meeting would be advisable and could certainly be done.

This week, Hankins returned to the Committee of the Whole meeting held on June 29th. Mayor Welch had returned and presided over the meeting.
 

Tuesday, June 29th public participation

During public participation, the first person to address the trash ordinance was Lance Conahan. He is a renter in Lincoln and said that he prefers to pay his own bills. He doesn’t want his trash bill going to his landlord. In addition he said that there was an issue if he wanted to have something extraordinary picked up, such as a mattress. As the ordinance and rules have been, Conahan would call Area who would pick up the mattress and bill him for the additional service. With the new rule, the landlord would get that bill for additional service. Conahan said that wasn’t fair to the landlord. Welch said there appeared to be an easy solution - work it out with the landlord.

Conahan said that the city gets a list of delinquent accounts from Area. He wondered what the city does with that list. Welch said that the city still gets copies of letters issued by Area, and the list is kept by the city clerk’s office. When people call and say their trash has not been picked up, the clerk first checks the list to see if the customer is behind in payments. If so, that is more than likely the reason trash was not collected.

Conahan also wanted to know about code enforcement as it pertains to homeowners, not tenants. If a homeowner doesn’t pay their bill, does the city get involved. City Zoning Officer Wes Woodhall said that the city goes after the nuisance violation in all cases, and does not serve as a debt collector for Area.

Conahan said that the city is saving $60,000 a year because it no longer pays Logan County Joint Solid Waste for recycling bins. He wondered what has happened to that money, and why the city couldn’t use that money to pay some of these bills and get Area back on the job.

Conahan concluded that the city now has some new council members and that with those new members on hand, the city should revisit the trash ordinance. He also thought it would be good if the landlords refused to pay their property taxes until the issues are resolved. Welch said that was a decision for the landlords, but he would remind them that the city share of property tax is only 13 percent of the total. Other taxing bodies would also be impacted by such a decision.

Welch said that even though he was not in attendance at the June 21st meeting, he had watched the meeting live via the city website. He noted that there had been a discussion of a meeting between the landlords and city officials. He said he has not heard from the landlords and he is waiting for them to contact him about said meeting.
 

Wanda Lee Rohlfs asked what happens when a citation is issued for nuisance trash and goes unresolved. Woodhall said that it goes to the courts and a monetary judgment comes from the presiding judge. City Attorney John Hoblit expanded on this saying that all nuisance judgments are placed against the property owner, be it a landlord or a homeowner. He explained the steps and the time involved in getting the judgments and getting the trash cleaned up. He noted that often times this will take a few months and then within a month after the first issue is resolved, a second issue will arise.

Steve Hankins also addressed the council Tuesday night during public participation. He said that Muck could not be present because he was dealing with a stone quarry topic at a county board meeting.

In summary, he said that the landlords were seeking the 60 to 90 day moratorium on the ordinance change and wanted to be active participants in the decision making process for future changes. The landlords also want a representative from Area Disposal present at those future meetings.

Welch said that he and other members of the council would be happy to sit down with the landlords. He said that the city has tried to be helpful and wants to reach a common ground with the landlords. He again noted that the landlords had not requested that meeting.

Much of what Hankins had to say was a repeat of the conversations from the week prior. He said that landlords of single family dwellings were being singled out and that those landlords were already struggling because of the moratorium on rent and evictions during the pandemic. Now the city was adding to the burden. He queried, “if the tenants aren’t paying us, should we stop paying Area?” Again he asked about the non-payment letters that Area sent to the city and what was the city doing. Welch again explained that it was not the letters that prompted action from the city, but rather nuisance complaints coming from the neighbors of a troubled property. Hanks said that the city should “back up the train,” that the landlords had no participation in the past decisions and they do resent it. He said, “if we don’t stand up now, what will you shove off on us next?”

Welch said he wanted the landlords at the table, but also, he wanted them to come to the table with solutions to the problems.
 

Bateman said that the issue with the tenants has never been about paying the bill, it was always about cleaning up the trash. He said the issue for the city with rental properties is that there are so many “hand offs” when it comes to finding the person responsible. The landlords pass the responsibility to the tenants, the tenants pass the responsibility to the landlords and sometimes the city has to deal with landlords that are not even in the state.

As the 45-minute mark approached in public participation, Rick Hoefle suggested that it was time to move on. Discussion continued on for a few more minutes, then Welch thanked Hankins for coming forward and moved on with the evening agenda.

Agenda item 12 – Discussion of trash ordinance 2021-937 passed on February 1, 2021

To keep it all together, Welch moved item 12 of the agenda, which pertained to the trash ordinance to the top of the night and opened the discussion saying he would suggest that the city delay the effective date of the new trash ordinance.

Steve Parrott asked about the status of public meetings during the time when the ordinance changes were being made. It was noted that the meetings had been closed to the public in January and February of 2021 due to the pandemic. Even so, there had been ample opportunities for public participation via telephone calls during the meetings and speakers were permitted to attend for the time it took them to speak. No one had come forward during that time.

Hoefle agreed that the city should put the new ordinance on hold and give the landlords and city time to meet and try to work out good solutions for the problems.

Hoefle said that there were also issues with Area that could be worked out. He noted that he personally had dealt with a problem at a four-plex rental in Ward Four. He had to dig out tires that had been put in the dumpster so that area would pick up the rest of the trash. He said that instead of seeing the violation and just driving away, Area could have contacted someone to remove the tires so that the rest of the trash could be collected. That had not happened to the best of his knowledge. Also, they could have thrown the tires to the side and taken the rest of the trash.
 

Street Superintendent Walt Landers said that had actually happened the first time. He said Area removed the tires and took the trash the first time, then when they came back, the tires were back in the dumpster so they left everything and drove on. Landers said that Area had tried to do the right thing but they couldn’t just continue removing the tires only to have them placed back in the dumpster. Hoefle said that it was good to know, but he still felt that Area could have done a little bit more.

In the end, the council agreed to place an item on the next voting agenda that will place a 90 day moratorium on the July 1 effective date of the trash ordinance.

The next voting meeting of the Lincoln City Council will be Tuesday, July 6th due to the Monday holiday in observance of the Fourth of July.

[Nila Smith]