Brookfield is considering a new ordinance that would require owners of rental properties to register them with the village.
Deanne Adasiak, Brookfield’s business and economic development coordinator, presented the program to trustees at the village board’s committee of the whole meeting on Oct. 13. She said the implementation of such an ordinance would allow the village to be proactive in managing health and safety issues, enforcing standards outlined in the municipal code and collecting data on who owns each property.
While trustees were generally supportive of the effort, including the costs to property owners, the item will return to the committee of the whole for another discussion to iron out the finer details before it could be put up for a vote of approval.
As proposed by village staff, the ordinance would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026, and require rental owners to register their properties each year by March 1, incurring a registration fee of $125 for buildings with four or fewer units or $225 for those with five or more. Common areas of each property would be inspected annually, while in-unit inspections would be required every three years.
The village would also be able to inspect individual units should a tenant come forward with a complaint of a potential code violation, which Adasiak said staff now cannot do.
Property owners who failed to register by the deadline would have to pay an additional $100 fine, up to $750 imposed through an administrative hearing for continued non-compliance.
New developments would be exempt from the registration program for three years.
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning data shows 7,656 occupied housing units in Brookfield, 1,570 of them — about 20% — are inhabited by renters, according to documents from the meeting agenda.
Other nearby municipalities like Riverside, North Riverside and Oak Park have similar programs, Adasiak said, with varying details on which buildings must be inspected and how often as well as the costs to property owners.
Adasiak said there was disagreement between Brookfield’s economic development commission, which reviewed the program in April and again in September, and village staff on some elements of the program.
“They were supportive of the program, but they did not want us to implement fees or annual inspections,” she said of the EDC. “Staff recommends having the program with an administrative fee to recoup costs for having staff resources used for the program. We do want to implement inspections.”
Trustee Kit Ketchmark, the village board’s liaison to the commission, underscored the members’ perspectives.
“They felt it was an additional tax. [They were] concerned about the tremendous burden on staff in terms of inspections. With 1,570 units, that’s 1,570 yearly inspections for the common areas,” he said, on top of the roughly 500 properties each year that would have dwelling units inspected. “This could lead to the owners [being] hesitant to register or not registering, tenants not wanting to rent here because they’re going to have their living quarters inspected and owners not wanting to locate here because they’re going to have to go through the inspection process.”
He said the commission did support registration generally to ensure the village has up-to-date information on who owns which properties should there be a need for accountability.
In response to questions from trustees, Adasiak and Village President Michael Garvey said the inspections would likely be performed by B&F Construction Code Services, Inc., Brookfield’s contracted inspection firm, as the village’s sole inspector on staff would not be able to handle the workload alone.
Trustee Jennifer Hendricks said she supported inspecting the common areas of properties annually to proactively tackle health and safety issues that could cause emergencies if left alone, though she felt in-unit inspections could be too invasive.
“I’m definitely a proponent of the inspections, although I would be in favor of making them less often,” she said. “This could keep people safe.”
Trustee Kyle Whitehead agreed, calling in-unit inspections a “renter’s penalty.”
“We don’t go into a single-family home on a regular basis. There could be all sorts of life/safety issues, but we respect their private property,” he said.
Garvey asked what proportion of “significant” health and safety violations are found within dwelling units in other municipalities, which Adasiak said she would research.
The board agreed to have her bring the discussion back at their next committee meeting so trustees can reach a consensus on the details before it is put up for a vote at a regular village board meeting down the line.
