FAIRMONT — During a public hearing about proposed changes to Fairmont’s rental ordinance, local landlords delivered the same message to the Fairmont City Council on Monday: The existing ordinance is enough, but it needs to be enforced.

After hearing the concerns, the council decided to hold a meeting with landlords and city staff before taking any action.

The proposed changes to the 2014 ordinance include reducing the licensing and inspection terms from three years to two, mandating that landlords run criminal background checks on all tenants and providing proof of an existing garbage contract for all units.

One by one, landlords addressed the council. Several recalled the months and months of negotiations and compromise involved before the ordinance was adopted, acknowledging the hours of work put in by city staff, council members and landlords. And they questioned the need for the changes.

“I don’t think it’s necessary,” said John Madsen, who owns five rental units. “I think it’s just going to create additional costs for the landlord and/or the tenants.”

He added there already is a process in the original ordinance to deal with deficiencies or complaints from tenants, and City Code exists to address the issues of garbage or junk in plain sight at all Fairmont properties, not just rental units.

Russ Luedtke said he had no problem with the existing ordinance but questioned the proposed requirement for criminal background checks.

“For what reason? I don’t know what good it does. You’re not saying I can’t rent to them,” he said, noting that the information he would obtain would not be available to the city due to privacy concerns.

“It’s my business. It’s my investment, and if you’re not going to use it for any reason because I’m not going to give it to you anyway, what’s the use?” he asked.

Leland Leichtnam, who was involved in drafting the original ordinance, questioned the reduced time period for licensing and inspection, and echoed Luedtke’s concern about the background check.

“Tell me what that is going to solve,” he said.

Councilman Tom Hawkins said the background check would not prevent a landlord from renting to any individual, but it would possibly be a deterrent to somebody who would not want their background checked.

“The idea is to keep somebody who might be a nuisance from even applying,” Hawkins said.

Leichtnam said he already conducts criminal, credit and rental history checks on all his applicants and passes the cost on to them.

“You’re basically making my case,” Hawkins said.

Leichtnam said he has been doing the checks since 2014.

“In my experience, that hasn’t deterred anybody. It’s not going to solve anything,” he said.

Leichtnam said none of the current council members were in office in 2014 and challenged them to read the current ordinance.

“If you did that, you would know all the procedures and processes are in place,” he said. “It was very well thought out. It took months of landlords, tenants and city staff compromising on what makes sense for everybody.”

The problem, he said, is that many people don’t understand the process to fix a problem.

“It sounds like we have an enforcement problem,” said Councilman Bruce Peters. “I think we should address that before we stack more rules on.”

Leichtnam suggested meetings with all parties concerned, similar to ones held in 2014. This would help determine what is working and what is not working.

“I think we’ll find what we already have what we need,” he said, calling on everyone involved to help educate people on the process involved.

Councilman Randy Lubenow, who campaigned on cleaning up rental properties, agreed there is an enforcement problem. He singled out 520 Blue Earth Ave. as an example, saying it “turned into a garbage yard.” He said he met with Police Chief Mike Hunter, City Administrator Mike Humpal and Hawkins and asked how to stop such situations from happening.

“I want them to be safe and healthy houses, but how do we go about doing that?” Lubenow asked. “I can tell you right now, that anybody who comes to me with a housing problem, they don’t want to go through the process of filling out a form when their landlord won’t fix something because they fear they won’t be rented to.”

“I’ve heard that same exact concern, and I don’t know how we fix that,” Peters said.

Hawkins said he would like nothing better than to eliminate the ordinance completely, but that is not feasible.

“As with every ordinance out there, there’s a very minute number of people that force it on the rest of you because they don’t comply,” he said. “That’s what happens with all laws, not just this law. The amount of restrictions we have here is miniscule compared to other towns our size.”

Doug Willner said the city has about 1,400 rental properties and estimates these units house more than 4,000 people. Using information he obtained from city staff, Willner said the city received 10 complaint calls in 2014, four of which were building code violations. In the last five years, the city has received between 5 and 10 complaints each year.

“With 1,400 rentals, that’s less than 0.5 percent per year. That’s phenomenal,” he said. “Name any type of business that can run at less than 0.5 percent of problems.”

Willner admitted there are problems with some rental units but believes they were caused by out-of-town landlords.

“Does anybody take the time to talk to them?” he asked.

Lubenow said police and city staff should talk to landlords to rectify problems, but he has been told the ordinance lacks proper language to allow them to do so.

When Willner pushed for the number of complaints, Lubenow responded with, “How many didn’t complain? They’re scared of landlords.”

Willner then asked for a name, but Lubenow declined.

“Then how do we know you’re telling the truth?” Willner asked. He added that he debated whether to attend the meeting, wondering if the vote was already predetermined at 3-2 to pass the ordinance.

“There was no intent to vote on this tonight,” Lubenow said. “I wanted this to be an open discussion. If you’re going to come in here and intimidate people, then that is not proper etiquette. If you want to sit down and discuss this, I’d be happy to do that, but when I have the city administrator and the police chief tell me they can’t clean up 520 E. Blue Earth Ave. because we don’t have the proper statutes on the books, what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to say I’ll have a garbage house in my backyard.”

Several other landlords and residents offered input and ideas, but closing comments were offered by Danny Klous, who owns and manages about 75 properties in Fairmont, including the aforementioned 520 E. Blue Earth Ave.

Klous said the tenants there live “a challenging life.”

“They have a story. They have little kids with disabilities. They have a hard life,” he said.

Klous said he has never been contacted by Lubenow or law enforcement about the property.

“The only step to comply is eviction, which puts a family with three kids on the street,” he said. “I’m doing everything I can as a landlord to comply with you and this ordinance.”

Klous said the majority of his properties are problem-free, but there are one or two that have “people issues.”

“I’ve invested millions of dollars into my properties,” he said. “This is my livelihood. This is how I pay my bills. This is very, very important to me.”

The council decided to hold meetings that include city staff, law enforcement and landlords to dissect the ordinance and discuss any changes before any vote is taken.