LISBON — After months of discussion and at times heated debate, efforts to strengthen rental regulations in Lisbon have seemingly stalled — at least as far as mandated inspections go.

In a 3-to-2 vote, council decided to remove proposed legislation drafted by Mayor Pete Wilson and Village solicitor Alec Beech that would require annual inspections, a registry and a registration fee for all rental properties in the village from consideration. Under the now axed proposal, the yearly inspection would have covered a basic checklist such as running water, working furnace, functioning electrical and wiring, adequate roof and windows and proper sewage and drainage.

In making the motion to “take the proposed draft ordinance off the table”, Council President and safety committee member Melissa Hiner said her committee remains “open to review further and look into other ideas”, but for now, she requested the draft would be removed regarding ” actual inspections” and council “could move forward in a different way.”

After the motion was made (Hiner, Tom Darcy, Jerry Cox voted for it with Susan Temple and Zach Smith voting against it and Linda Donnnelly not in attendance), Wilson, who has been advocating for rental regulations for years, asked if other ordinances regarding the matter could be proposed.

“We have beaten this to death. It’s been two months. Council has been silent at every meeting,” Hiner responded. “I haven’t heard anybody give feedback as to how to change or update it. Even us as a safety committee, didn’t go back to [the draft] ordinance so that’s why I am making the suggestion. If I think the council would have been interested in it, there would have been suggestions made and there weren’t. You have brought it to the table several times.”

In those two months, council has heard from both proponents of the proposed legislation and those against it. Nearly all who voiced opposition to such mandates were village landlords, while most who expressed support were residents living next to rundown or unmaintained rental properties.

Those discussions included open dialogue in council meetings, committee of the whole meetings and safety committee meetings. Nearly everyone — village landlords and all members of council included — conceded that “something needed to be done” to remedy dilapidated and unsafe rental properties but that “something” differed wildly. It wasn’t so much a lack of suggestions, as Hiner maintained, but rather too many that seemed to conflate the conversation.

That conflation led to a meeting of the safety committee to work through the ideas and come up with a proposal of its own. During the March 11 council meeting, safety committee members (Hiner, Linda Donnalley and Jerry Cox) said they agreed upon a rental registry in the village and suggested a yearly $25 registration fee per rental unit and a complaint-based inspections, calling it a “a good place to start.” Under the safety committee suggestion, when a complaint is received, that property would undergo a mandatory inspection. The funds generated by the yearly $25 rental registration fee that all landlords would be required to pay would be enough to cover inspections on an as-needed basis.

Wilson was asking for $60 per unit, required inspections and the establishment of a housing department within the village.

During the March 11 meeting, Cox said that Hiner, Donnalley and himself have “a lot of homework to do” regarding the proposal but should have no problem submitting one to council within a month – a timeline requested by Wilson. The proposal was expected at Tuesday’s meeting but was not presented.

On Tuesday, Hiner said she believed that the police department was “doing a great job” with the complaints they received recently.

“My suggestion is when there are complaints, when you do see raw garbage or anything out in public, contact the police department and they will do their job,” she said. “They are going to have to follow the law. It’s going to take time, it’s not going to be done immediately. But that’s the same way with a housing inspector. They are not going to be any more authorized than a police officer. They can cite that house all they want. They don’t have to pay the fine and eventually it will have to go to court.”

Hiner added that those complaints have proven that they can be taken care of and are being taken care of.

Wilson agreed the police department has stepped up with recent complaints, but disagreed that any meaningful change can occur without inspections.

“A police officer cannot enter a house or rental property. We have gone through this several times. They can only look at the exterior, not the interior and we have people living in unsafe, unsanitary conditions,” Wilson said. “The people, residents come to us, saying they want action taken and this council doesn’t want to do it.”

During Tuesday’s public forum portion, one landlord spoke in opposition of rental mandates with two residents expressing support.

“We own these homes. I bought [ a rental house] at a sheriff sale and I put a lot of money in that home, and it would pass your stupid regulations, but it’s the idea of it,” said village landlord Kenneth Simballa. “You want to come in and tell me you don’t like my house, you don’t like the paint or there’s a leak in the roof. It’s my damn roof. If the renter doesn’t like it, there’s the door.”

Donna St. Clair, who has advocated for rental regulations nearly every week since Wilson introduced the topic, said she shouldn’t have to suffer because of the condition of the rental property next to her.

“I try really hard to keep my property looking good, but when you have a property next door to you that if you don’t keep on them, the garbage overruns, the rodents overrun, is it fair to me to have to put up with their rats coming onto my property? Absolutely not,” she said. “And I will fight it at every meeting there is because it is not fair and we do need these regulations. The landlord needs to be held accountable for letting their tenants live like they do.”

Fellow village resident Ernest Thomas echoed St. Clair’s sentiments that rental regulations are needed.

“People who rent can be bad neighbors. They don’t have anything invested. They don’t care,” he said. “Low and behold, most of the time, the landlords don’t care because if they did they wouldn’t allow it to happen and they would kick them out. They got money coming in, so they are not going to do that. I have investment in this village. I don’t want to lose my investment.”

In other matters on Tuesday, Council:

— Agreed to update the village ordinance related to vacant buildings in the village.

— Tabled a decision on repaving the streets in the downtown squares as well as the alleyway of South Nelson Street until more information regarding the winning bid could be obtained.

— Allowed Wilson to move forward on a grant from Home Depot that would provide both the paint and labor to repaint the gazebo.

–Heard updates on the Grant Street Bridge and E. Washington St. paving projects from Wilson.

— Heard the re-mulching project of Playtown is complete with one work order of $1,050 received.

— Approved the purchase of a pH monitor or the “brain’s of the pool” for the swimming pool at a cost of $3,000.

— Approved Resolution 2223-2025 to participate in the 2024-2025 winter season ODOT rock salt program with the purchase of up to 75 tons.