Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Occupancy Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
O'Fallon council approves occupancy-fees ordinance after public objections to inspection program
Summary
The O'Fallon City Council approved an ordinance amending Chapter 158, Section 227, on occupancy fees. Public commenters argued mandatory inspections and fees could violate constitutional protections and urged exemptions; council approved the ordinance on a roll-call vote.
The O'Fallon City Council approved an ordinance amending Chapter 158, Section 227, to establish occupancy fees after a second-reading vote Tuesday.
The ordinance, proposed by Council Member Roach, passed on a roll call after no additional discussion. The ordinance text in the meeting packet described the ordinance as an amendment to occupancy fees; the specific fee amounts and implementation details were not specified during council discussion.
The vote followed public comment opposing a related occupancy inspection permit program. A resident who spoke during public comment argued that mandatory home inspections and associated fees could infringe constitutional protections and statutory requirements. "Frankly, it seems like extortion," the resident said, and urged an exemption for newer residences and protections for military and other rotating families.
The resident referenced state and federal legal limits on searches and inspections and cited the U.S. Constitution and court cases by name in arguing against mandatory inspections without consent or warrants. The resident also urged greater election transparency for Saint Clair County; the council did not act on election matters during the meeting.
Council discussion on the ordinance itself was brief. Council Member Roach made the motion for second reading and approval; a second was recorded but the seconder's name was not specified in the meeting record. The roll-call recorded a majority in favor and at least one dissenting vote (Byler recorded as voting no). The ordinance was recorded as approved by the council.
The ordinance packet and meeting minutes supplied to the council did not include published specifications showing how inspections, if any, would be scheduled, how fees were calculated, or whether exemptions (for example, homes less than five or ten years old) would be provided. A city official confirmed that the ordinance language was before the council for adoption but did not offer additional implementation details during the meeting.
The council did not take further legal findings or request a staff report on constitutional or statutory compliance during the meeting. No litigation or formal legal opinion was presented on the floor.
Next steps: The council approved the ordinance on second reading; the minutes do not specify an effective date or an implementation timeline. Details such as exact fee schedules, inspection procedures, appeal processes, and any exemptions were not specified in the council discussion or on the record at the meeting.
