Surprise! The City of DeKalb has been paying the “proposed” Rental Inspection Program Manager for the better part of a year now:
According to records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, filed by DeKalb County Online, the City hired an independent contractor, retired DeKalb Police Lt. James Kayes, to perform the duties of a Rental Inspections Manager in October, 2007. The contract, which runs through September, 2008, states that Kayes is paid $40 per hour for each hour of work he turns in on a bi-weekly basis.
The contract does not specify a limit to billable hours and includes reimbursement for expenses incurred by Kayes, plus use of a City vehicle and equipment. Kayes reports to the Community Development Director, Russ Farnum.
City attorney, Norma Guess, explained in a response letter regarding the FOIA request that the contract was approved by City Manager, Mark Biernacki. Her letter stated that the position and the contract was discussed by City Council during closed sessions and therefore the minutes regarding those discussions are not available to the public.
Mr. Biernacki is allowed to approve expenses of up to $20,000 per year without Council approval and Mr. Kayes has been paid up to about $6000 per month. Watch the monthly check registers and you do the math. [Update for clarification: If there is not a cap of $20,000 per year in the contract--and there's not--only the negotiations should have been private. The contract itself should have been approved in open session, a la Daley Group.]
27 comments
Comment by anon on July 13, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Any chance Mr. McIntyre could scan this up and make it a PDF so we can see it for ourselves? Thanks
Comment by yinn on July 14, 2008 at 4:34 am
That’s a great idea. I’ll ask.
Comment by Mac McIntyre on July 14, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The requested PDF is online.
http://www.dekalbcountyonline.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=171
Comment by yinn on July 14, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Thanks!
Comment by anon on July 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Lisa Madigan’s website has a compilation of legal opinions on the Open Meetings Act which is helpful here:
http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/government/openmeet.pdf
Scroll down to page 21 and read that.
Comment by anon on July 14, 2008 at 3:47 pm
continued…
I am not a lawyer.
The council can waive the bidding process for contractors by a 2/3rds vote. However this should(?) be required to be in public. The OMA explicitly prohibits consideration of the hiring of contractors in closed session. The manager can bypass all of this only during a state of emergency.
So from my untrained perspective, the City needs to justify why this contract is valid given the fact that there doesn’t seem to be any council action on this. This closed session business is very suspect.
Comment by -Jack on July 15, 2008 at 11:29 am
From the Midweek “The rental program has stirred controversy even though it has yet to be formally brought to the council for consideration. The projected revenue from the program – $240,000 – was removed from the budget while the projected cost – $279,000 – remains. Espiritu said that it would “not be the most prudent idea” to remove costs and add them back in later.”
I always suspect that the code enforcement was justifying the jobs from the fines of the owners. Not I am confirmed. They only removed the revenue due to pressure, but the thinking is there to collect more money from us to justify the overstaffing that they have.
Comment by anon on July 15, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Our city management – despite the denials – thinks that the rental inspection program is a done deal. They have all the people hired (using contracts to get around the freeze), they have the budget expenses lined up and ready to go, and soon they will bring the labor negotiations to a close as well.
It’s pathetic that our council has degraded to the point that the management thinks there will be no objections to this.
Comment by yinn on July 15, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Let’s say that I get a work bonus, or win a little money in the lottery. Do I pay the light bill with this little windfall? Not unless I’m in such big trouble that I have to! The light bill is MOL a fixed expense and should be paid out of the regular income I can count on.
That’s the whole problem with RIP. The revenues could be quite variable depending on how much resistance there is to inspections: how many times they have to return to places to get inspections done, number of re-inspections, and the lawsuits that they already know are coming on 4th Amendment grounds.
Plus, as Jack has pointed out, their projected expenses already outpace the rosy revenue projections!
Fixed expenses should be tied to stable revenues. Fees, fines and other variable revenues should go toward building funds and reserves.
We should say R.I.P. to the RIP.
Comment by anon on July 15, 2008 at 7:29 pm
That sounds like a great theme for a protest. Cardboard headstones propped up in front of city hall with messages about this disaster in the making.
Comment by Ed Pevonka on July 16, 2008 at 7:43 am
Looking outside the financials I have a few questions. Also included in this RIP program is a ” Crime Free Housing Program”. I would think it is one of the goals to hold the landlord responsible to who they rent to. The idea would be not not welcome gangbangers, drug dealers, prostitution houses etc.
When drug houses are identified and neighborhood drive by shotings occur because of gang activity the community needs to take some action and hold the landlord responsible to whom they rent.
What am I missing here??
Pevo
Comment by Ivan Krpan on July 16, 2008 at 8:37 am
The problem that I see that landlords are going to have is discrimination. Thank God my parents do not rent any longer but we were always told that you have to rent to all. I think most landlords have a certain “gut” feeling as any of us would probably have when it comes to people and whatw they are like. Unfortunately, it is not always right. Many landlords stay out of trouble because of this instinct and would rather error with a few bad judgements and not rent to a questionable.
However, we all know that this is wrong in todays society and the landlord can have legal action taken against him/her. Now, you have to rent to all and now you are responsible for their actions in your building. I think this is where the confusion really lies. It is the landlords building and the landlord should be able to make the financial decisions they see fit for their property. The only time government should step in is when government dollars was used to fund that building. I didn’t really have a problem with guaranteeing equal opportunity to rent but at some damn point, the renter has to be responsible for their own actions, not the landlord. If this is to be the case, allow the landlord to choose their tenants as they see fit.
Comment by anonymous on July 16, 2008 at 8:57 am
Obviously, the city manager is not learning. When Elgin tried a similar program (which I think this one is a carbon copy), the Latinos organized and I believe filed a lawsuit, saying their program was going to cause discrimination.
Comment by Ed Pevonka on July 16, 2008 at 9:18 am
I guess that depends on your definition of discrimination.
What is the answer? Raise taxes, hire more police, make more arrests and pray someone you know does not get hit by a stray bullet?
Establishing a Crime Free Housing Program is not discriminatory it is common sense.
Pevo
Comment by Mac McIntyre on July 16, 2008 at 9:28 am
The Crime Free Housing program originated in Mesa, AZ in 1992. It began and in most states remains a voluntary program. It is a police dept program in most of those communities.
The program utilizes a three-phase approach. When each phase is completed, a certificate of completion is awarded.
Phase One involves an 8 hour seminar presented by the police and fire departments.
Phase Two certifies the rental property has met requirements for the tenants’ safety.
Phase Three requires a tenant crime prevention meeting prior to full certification. Participating landlords are granted the use of large metal signs to display on the property. They are also be granted the use of the program logo in all advertisements.
To renew their membership landlords must host one safety-related crime prevention meeting with the residents each year.
No other state in the nation ‘enjoys’ the authority Illinois Home Rule communities receive. So the CFHP’s voluntary element has been replaced by mandated ordinances and, in Illinois, the program has been identified as a “revenue source” and shifted from police departments to bloated code enforcement departments.
Comment by Ed Pevonka on July 16, 2008 at 10:01 am
Thank you Mac.
What you described looks like a program that can be improved and would be good for the city not one that should be killed without further discussion.
I like to keep a close eye on the dollar but any program, idea, project or whatever that will untimatley benefit the community needs more community support rather than the constant critisism. I know you agree with this.
The answer isn’t always “we just need more police”.
I think we need to separate the financials of this program and concentrate on what it is trying to accomplish.
Generally, I find the people who contribute to these sites as well minded, well educated, well informed and very well opinionated. There is nothing wrong with that , as a matter of fact, that is good. I do think, however, that more time needs to be spent imporving on ideas rather than just trying to kill them or put them down.
Regards
Pevo
Comment by yinn on July 16, 2008 at 10:08 am
Pevo, I’m gonna take issue with your last paragraph. How can one improve without being critical or at least skeptical in the first place? CityBarbs provides some of the most constructive criticism you can find anywhere.
Comment by Ed Pevonka on July 16, 2008 at 10:24 am
YINN
Didn’t mean it that way. I appreciate the constructive critism just at times it feels we all cross the line and seem like complainers to much. Me included. At times we need to provide more solutions rather than just criticize others
MAC
Can’t pass on this one. Crime free neighborhoods were not established first in Mesa Ar in 1992 but by Wyatt Earp and his brothers is Tuscon Ar in the 1800′s when they made the cowboys check their guys at the Sheriff’s offcie when they came to town.
Enough for today. Off to Cincinnati for work and a $6 beverage
Again apologies to Yinn
Pevo
Comment by anonymous on July 16, 2008 at 11:54 am
I think everyone here just might be in agreement that as proposed RIP has some flaws. So, I think the direction this is headed is to find the bits and pieces of what might be really good, what is needed, and chuck what might be really bad.
Something does need to happen about the crime yet not be done in a way that does not discriminate against certain groups of people.
Comment by anonymous on July 16, 2008 at 11:55 am
Yikes, sorry about the poor grammar in the last sentence.
How about:
How about something that helps reduce crime but does not discriminate against certain groups of people?
Comment by Mac McIntyre on July 16, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I would support a voluntary Crime Free Homes program. I also support an agenda-free property inspection program but such a program cannot single out rental units elst it discriminates. The chronic nuisance ordinance is simply a formula for disaster as it will place untrained civilians into circumstances such as domestic disputes that they are ill-equipped to mediate or face fines, liens and forfeiture? How Draconian is that?
I take great exception to the fear-based marketing of the proposed programs. Any program that requires a singling out of segments of our population to portray them as “bad guys” should be viewed with great skepticism. Any program that was initiated behind the curtain of closed session should be regarded as suspect.
I do try to offer researched, constructive alternatives. In that I am limited by my abilities.
Comment by yinn on July 16, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Thanks, Pevo. I appreciate your clarification. I reacted to what I felt was getting just a tad personal but now I understand better.
As for improving what might be a good idea at its foundation, I think first we really do need to investigate code enforcement as it is currently practiced.
Comment by Ed Pevonka on July 16, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Mac
I thought the Wyatt Earp line deserved at least a laugh. Why no comment?
Pevo
Comment by -Jack on July 23, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Using credit score is the easiest way to predict if a tenant will pay.
You must be logged in to post a comment.