Landlord Registry Debate and a Failed Vote

Residents pressed the council to license landlords and fund regular inspections, while others warned of higher rents, delays, and staffing strains. The motion failed 5–4 with one recusal, triggering a rules debate over majorities and the mayor’s required no vote. 39mins

Was this helpful?

Original Meeting

Tuesday, November 18th, 2025
12864.0
Full Meeting on YouTube
avatar
Zach Adams
Springfield IL
I am a Photographer/Videographer working for Illinois Times
View full bio
In This Video
  • Denise Church advocated for a landlord registration and regular inspection program in Springfield, citing Kankakee’s model and describing how such measures could protect tenants from hazardous rental conditions.
  • Brianna Roberts urged support for Ordinance 2025-470, arguing that licensing and regulation for landlords would provide tenants with accountability comparable to other licensed professions and allow voters to decide on housing standards.
  • A speaker urged placing a landlord registry measure on the ballot, arguing that fees could fund inspections, accountability would target negligent landlords, and improved standards would benefit neighborhoods and reduce city enforcement burdens.
  • Silas Johnson supported landlord licensing despite potential costs, emphasizing that tenants deserved safe, quality housing and urging landlords to prioritize tenant well-being.
  • Seth Morrison opposed Ordinance 2025-470, warning that mandatory landlord registration and inspections would strain limited housing supply, raise tenant costs, burden taxpayers with staffing needs, and punish compliant landlords despite existing complaint-based enforcement.
  • The council’s vote on the motion failed with five in favor, four opposed, and one recusal, which did not constitute a majority.
  • City officials clarified that a recusal was not counted as a vote, so the 5–4 tally was not a majority of council members; under the consent decree the mayor was required to cast a vote, which was recorded as no.
  • City officials explained that under the consent decree the mayor could vote when half of the aldermen voted in favor despite no tie, clarifying that a recusal differed from a present vote and that five votes were insufficient without a majority of the council.
  • Council members discussed whether a recused alderperson could change participation after the mayor voted, with Corporation Counsel advising that a motion to reconsider would be required, which was promptly made and seconded.
  • Corporation Counsel Moredock explained that the recused alderperson could not participate in reconsideration and that a motion to reconsider was out of order because it was not made by someone on the prevailing side.
  • Alderman Gregory urged a member from the prevailing side to move for reconsideration so a recused alderperson could participate, calling for clarity on rules for recusals and present votes and citing past practices.
  • Alderwoman Notariano questioned whether a recusal counted toward the prevailing side and expressed confusion over how recusal differed from abstention under Roberts Rules, while Corporation Counsel Moredock clarified that the recusal meant there were not enough votes for passage.
  • Alderman Williams questioned how a 5–4 tally with one recusal failed to meet a majority, pressing for clarity on whether recusals and present votes count toward the required majority of council members.
  • Alderwoman Notariano, Alderman Gregory, and Corporation Counsel Moredock debated whether a 5–4 vote with a mayoral no and one recusal met the required six-vote majority, with Notariano citing an IML explainer on concurrence while counsel emphasized that recusal was not counted toward passage.
  • Alderman Williams moved to reconsider the vote with a second from Alderman Gregory, but Corporation Counsel Moredock advised the motion was out of order because Williams was not on the prevailing side, prompting continued frustration over the 5–4 tally and the mayor’s role.
  • Alderwoman Purchase explained recusing from votes tied to personal interests, including liquor licenses, landlord matters, and the Enos Park TIF, citing updated guidance from Corporation Counsel and committing to participate in working groups to share lived experience despite not voting on landlord registration.
  • Tiara Standage criticized council indifference to renters’ unsafe conditions using a racial justice framing and announced a community Friendsgiving event to support unhoused and underserved residents.
Your Governments
Your governments list is empty.
Manage Your List
More from this government
Should Landlord Oversight Go to Voters?
Nov 13, 2025
Greenway Funding Clash and 19th Street Promises
Nov 4, 2025
19th Street Safety Fight and Opioid Response Plan
Oct 29, 2025
Springfield City Council
Nearby governments
Sangamon County Board
Springfield District 186 Board of Education