Round 2 was fought last week over Oxford Village’s proposed rental ordinance, but still no decision has been made.

For more than an hour, public safety officials and local property owners made their cases for and against a proposed ordinance that would mandate the registration and inspection of all residential rental properties.

Public safety officials wholeheartedly support it.

“I have seen the latest incarnation of the ordinance and agree with it completely,” said Dan Durham, the village’s code enforcement officer.

Local property owners vehemently oppose it.

Township resident Ron Dix called it an example of “government intervention” and “a money grab,” while Chuck Schneider, a local property owner, landlord and developer, described it as “subjective” and “arbitrary.”

After listening to all the comments, for the second meeting in a row, council once again voted to set aside the first reading of the ordinance rather than approve or deny it. Ordinances require an approved first and second reading prior to a vote on adoption.

The proposed ordinance would compel owners of residential rental units within the village to complete and file a registration form with the municipality.

The registration process itself would be free, however, after filing, the rental unit would be subject to an initial inspection, within 60 days, costing $25. If a re-inspection is necessary, it would be free. However, if a second re-inspection is necessary, it would cost $100. Additional re-inspections after that would cost $200 each.

Under the proposed ordinance, if an inspection is generated by a complaint and violations are found, the owner would be charged a $35 fee. However, if no violations exist, there’s no inspection fee.

Village officials claim the goal of the proposed ordinance is to get a registration process in place so public safety personnel know exactly where all the rental units are located when performing their duties.

They claim it’s also designed to ensure these properties are meeting “all applicable standards.” Inspections would be conducted in accordance with the International Property Maintenance Code.

Durham told council the majority of housing stock in the village is “very nice,” however, “there are places in town that no one on that dais would live in. That I can guarantee you.”

“Are they all bad? Of course not. I’ve been in rental units that are nicer than the house I live in now,” he continued. “(But) I can tell you, (with) 100 percent certainty, you do have substandard housing here. I don’t know how many (units).”

“People are at risk. They don’t need to be. We can fix this,” Durham noted.

He sees “the meat and potatoes of this” proposed ordinance as “strictly safety-driven.”

“That’s all it is,” Durham said.

Fire Chief Pete Scholz told council he’s been in rental units where smoke detectors are hanging off the walls, missing batteries or completely missing. He’s also seen extension cords running through holes in walls and connected to multiple power-strips running several appliances.

“Those are the concerns that I have, (the issues) that bother me more than anything,” Scholz said.

The chief spoke of visiting rental units with all sorts of major problems such as an exterior staircase that was “so rickety” he wouldn’t send fire personnel up it, no ductwork to heat the upstairs and 3-to-4 inches of standing water in the basement.

“I understand some people need cheaper places to live and can’t afford it,” he said. “But there’s no reason anybody should have to live in deplorable conditions like that.”

Scholz also expressed his concern about all the houses in the village that have been divided into multiple rental units, but his personnel have “no idea” where they are located because they look like normal houses. In an emergency situation, such as a fire, this makes it difficult for firefighters to know how many occupants there are and where they are in order to ensure they all get out safely.

The chief noted houses converted into multiple rental units are “not always done to code or done as they should be.”

“Most of them have never gone through the permit process,” he told council.

The property owners and landlords who spoke against the proposed ordinance view it as unfair and discriminatory because it subjects all rental properties to a new set of requirements that owner-occupied dwellings are exempt from.

Dix said if the village is “interested in protecting the public,” then this proposed ordinance needs to apply to properties “across the board.”

“If we’re going to inspect properties, we’re going to inspect all properties,” he said.

He told council he’s seen some owner-occupied homes that are “unsafe” and in “deplorable” condition. Under the village’s proposed ordinance, these homes would be “given (a) pass,” while rental homes “take the hammer.”

Dix understands there are “some bad operators” out there when it comes to landlords, but he said it’s just as easy for owner-occupied homes to suffer from unsafe conditions because of negligence, lack of care or lack of money.

“They occur in all properties. It’s not just the rental properties,” he said.

“If we are genuinely concerned about the health and safety of the residents of the Village of Oxford, why are we only concerned about certain people?” asked Schneider.

“We’re only concerned about the health and safety of people who happen to rent? We’re not concerned about the health and safety of other people?”

Schneider told council there are owner-occupied dwellings in the village where people live in “squalor.”

“For you to sit there and say these units are all bad and these units are all good, it’s an insult to my intelligence,” he said.

Schneider agreed with Dix about making all properties subject to inspections, not just rentals.

“If you want to inspect everybody, I’m on board,” he said. “We’re all the same. I pay the same taxes as all these other people. So, why am I being singled out?”

“There is no distinction between a rental unit and a private home. There’s good and there’s bad in both,” Schneider noted.

Dave Weckle, a local developer, property owner and landlord, agreed.

“Make it fair for everybody,” he said. “Just don’t pick on the rentals.”

It was pointed out to council that rental properties are already subject to inspections required by insurance providers and tenants must sign off on checklists regarding a unit or home’s condition prior to moving in.

“We’re inspected and inspected and inspected,” Weckle said “I don’t think one more inspection is going to make a difference for the safety and the welfare of those tenants . . . It’s pretty well covered.”

Adding village inspections on top of this sounds like a “money grab” to Weckle.

“I hope it’s not,” he said. “I don’t want to think our community’s trying to do that.”

Schneider noted the proposed ordinance unfairly penalizes landlords for issues caused by tenants. He pointed out the proposed inspection checklist includes items that tenants are often responsible for such as the removal of batteries from smoke detectors, the cluttering of egress paths with possessions and the misuse of electrical systems.

“If the place burns down because the tenant put too many extension cords in the plug, is that my fault? Did I do it?” he asked.

Durham admitted a lot of items on the checklist could be “tenant-driven.”

“It could very well be the tenant who did it, so getting it fixed would be, in some cases, the responsibility of the tenant,” he said.

Critics of the proposed ordinance were skeptical of the village’s ability to handle the additional workload this proposed ordinance would generate.

“You can’t stay open five days a week and you’re going to take on this administrative burden?” Schneider asked. “Who the hell’s going to do all this work?”

Since July 1, the village office has been closed on Fridays as a cost-saving measure.

“We can’t hardly even get permits in a timely manner and we’re going to do (an estimated) 400 (rental) inspections in 60 days? It’s not going to happen,” Weckle said.

Despite their criticisms, some of the property owners indicated their issue was with the inspections, not the registration portion of the proposed ordinance.

“I don’t have a problem at all with registration,” Weckle said.

“Registration, I have no problem with,” Schneider said. “It’s when we try and implement some type of inspection process that things just fall apart.”