In a recent turn of events, the controversial ordinance proposing a shift in responsibility for tenants’ unpaid utility bills to landlords took center stage in Casper City Council’s discussions. The proposed amendment to Chapter 13.03 of Casper’s municipal code has stirred heated debates, prompting councilors to table it for further research before its second reading.
Key Points
Background and Initial Reading
Initially scheduled for its second reading on Jan. 16, the ordinance faced postponement as the council sought additional research and time for deliberation. The proposed amendment aimed to modify how the city bills utility rates and collects late charges, emphasizing that if the city couldn’t collect from the tenant, landlords would bear the financial burden. City staff argued that this approach aims to prevent ratepayers from shouldering the costs of rising unpaid bills.
Council’s Recent Decision
On Jan. 23, councilors revisited the discussion, ultimately deciding to let the ordinance proceed unchanged for its second reading, scheduled for the council’s Feb. 6 meeting.
Account Ownership Debate
A significant point of contention during the debate revolved around whether tenants should be allowed to have a utility account in their name. The proposal suggests landlords or property owners should oversee the accounts, a practice observed in Laramie and Cheyenne. The bill would follow the property, and new services wouldn’t commence until the previous bill is settled, aligning with practices in other Wyoming municipalities.
City Manager Carter Napier expressed interest in this approach, emphasizing its potential to reduce past-due bills, collections, and write-offs. However, it remains a topic subject to further council deliberation.
Deposit Handling
The discussion delved into the city’s current practice of holding deposits indefinitely, with no return for customers lacking a good payment history over 12 months. While this acts as a deterrent, the city has returned 12 deposits over the past year. The memo highlighted the intricacies of the current deposit process, emphasizing its impact on customers’ payment behavior.
Other Considerations
Councilors raised concerns about the feasibility of implementing practices observed in neighboring municipalities like Bar Nunn, Evansville, and Mills, where new services are not initiated until outstanding bills are settled. There was also debate about the possibility of moving up the date of delinquency.
Legal Basis and Varied Opinions
City Attorney Eric Nelson cited the Wyoming Supreme Court’s previous rulings, establishing a legal basis for the proposed ordinance. Councilors expressed differing opinions, with some emphasizing the business aspect of being a landlord and others raising concerns about government regulation.
Councilor Jai-Ayla Sutherland expressed a preference for adopting processes similar to Laramie and Cheyenne, providing options for landlords while protecting the city’s interests. She acknowledged the risks involved in any business venture and supported the ordinance moving forward.
As the debate unfolds, Casper City Council navigates the complexities of balancing the interests of landlords, tenants, and the city’s financial stability. The second reading on Feb. 6 promises further discussions on this contentious ordinance.
