A city subcommittee killed part of an amendment Thursday that would have increased the fees to landlords for various violations for property management violations.

After being referred from previous city entities such as the Madison City Council and Housing Committee, the Landlord and Tenant Issues Subcommittee failed to pass the amendment.

According to the current draft, the amendment would have raised the amount for some violations, including entering a residence without 24 hours notice, failure of a landlord to deliver possession of a leased premise, confiscation of property without a previous agreement and eviction of a tenant in another process other than the lawful eviction procedure, among others.

The amendment would have raised the various fines for the violations on a gradient based on the number of offenses. For most of the offenses, the first occurrence would be a fine of $600, the second of $1,000 and the third, $1,800.

Ald. Bryon Eagon, District 8, who sponsored the bill, said the fines would have been used to more effectively bring up the issue of landlord problems and “give some teeth” to the issue.

“This is not something we would (have been) forcing down anyone’s throat,” Eagon said, adding the changes would have only provided an additional option in enforcement.

Lt. Kristen Roman of the Madison Police Department was somewhat skeptical the fines would act as deterrence to the violations, given a citation is not the first action the police would usually take on a landlord and tenant issue.

“On the whole, our approach to landlord and tenant issues is one more of a civil matter,” Roman said, adding there is much discretion on the police’s side as to whether to issue a citation.

The police seldom use the fines currently available to them, Roman added. The high amount of the fine may deter the police from issuing one; however, it would be an additional tool and leverage for non-compliant landlords.

Committee member and Madison developer Curt Brink opposed the amendment on the basis the fines were “one-sided,” since no fines were presented for the other end of the issue — tenant violations.

Brink offered some examples in which the landlord would be fined for tenant behavior, adding the fines are premature.

The subcommittee also addressed an amendment requiring landlords whose properties have been deemed a chronic nuisance to apply for a license before renting to other tenants. A property considered a chronic nuisance is one that has generated more than 3 police calls on separate days within 30 days or five or more cases from building inspectors within one year.

According to the amendment, the property owner must apply for the license within 15 days of a premise being deemed a chronic nuisance.

One aspect of the amendment requires the notification a premise has been deemed a chronic nuisance to be posted in the residence. The committee debated the details of what this posting would look like and whether the notification could be specifically tailored to tenants who have caused the premise to be deemed such.

After discussion and no changes made, the committee sent the amendment to the Housing Committee, where it will be further discussed.