Housing, Arts and Civil Rights Committee 8/3/26

Hello?

Okay, there we go.

All right, good afternoon.

The August 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Housing Arts and Civil Rights Committee will come to order.

It is 2.02 PM.

I'm Dionne Foster, chair of the Housing Arts and Civil Rights Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council President Hollingsworth?

Here.

Council Member Juarez?

Here.

Council Member Rink?

Here.

Vice Chair Lynn?

Here.

Chair Foster?

Here.

Chair, there are five members present.

Great.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently we have 17 speakers in person and 19 remote.

Okay, great.

So that is more than 30 people.

So each speaker will have one minute.

We will start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they are registered.

We will begin with in-person speakers and then move to remote speakers.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will mute if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first speaker is Jesse Swisher Spears, will be followed by Howard Gale.

Hello.

Council members, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Jessie Swisher Spires, and I'm the executive director at Seattle Humane.

We are part of an animal welfare coalition in support of CB121254, especially as it relates to the prohibition of pet fees beyond a reasonable, refundable pet damage deposit.

Housing instability is already one of the top reasons that pets are surrendered to shelters.

At Seattle Humane, 15% of pet surrenders are directly tied to housing-related barriers, meaning that these costs are not abstract.

They are separating families from their animals.

Fees that are not connected to actual damage create unintended consequences.

They push renters into impossible choices, increase surrender pressures on shelters, and shift private housing costs onto already strained animal welfare systems.

We ask you to act affirmatively on the junk fees ordinance so fewer renters are forced to choose between a roof over their heads and keeping a beloved pet.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Howard Gale, followed by Hannah Ziff.

Good afternoon.

I've lived and rented in Seattle for a few months short of 30 years now.

Over those 30 years, probably I would say 200 times would be an underestimate of how many times I've made complaints about insufficiency in my building, which landlords have not responded to.

And SDTI, I would say 98% of the time, does nothing.

The question is, we're now hoping and praying under this new legislation that SDI does something after not doing anything for many, many decades.

I will also point out in the fall of 2023, there was a slide passed to create a work group for a renter standards entity, just like we have an Office of Labor Standards.

SDCI undermined that.

So what I'm requesting and what I've requested in emails to all of you, and I don't see it on the amendments, is some way to audit and actually track what it is that SDCI does or doesn't do.

That is severely lacking.

This is minimal legislation as it is, but not providing some kind of guardrails to ensure that it's acted on is really devastating.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Anna Ziff followed by Kevin Schilling.

Hi, my name's Hannah Ziff and I'm lobbying on behalf of downtown not being empty.

I think that a city thrives when there's a lot of artists downtown and I'm saying we also need to stimulate the economy for the people who live here.

So when we're making these choices, can we please try to promote a thriving artist community downtown?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kevin Schilling followed by Carter Nelson.

Good afternoon, Chair Foster and members of the committee.

Kevin Schilling, Director of Government Affairs for the Rental Housing Association of Washington, representing over 1,000 independent rental housing providers in the City of Seattle.

We support transparency in rental pricing.

Renters should know the full cost of a home before they sign a lease.

But this ordinance goes far beyond just transparency.

The ordinance bans itemized fees, but it doesn't eliminate the costs behind them.

When they can't be charged to the resident who uses the service, they move into base rent for everyone.

and the enforcement regime is built for corporate portfolios but it lands on small providers.

A national operator has a compliance department for that, the owner renting out half a duplex does not.

That could be someone put out of business and our membership does not have access to the private equity safety nets of full-time compliance and accounting staff.

We ask you to amend it, a disclosure standard instead of a fee ban, scaled requirements for small providers, a public hearing before you act, and a curing period for housing providers to solve problems before they become lawsuits.

We're ready to help write that language.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carter Nelson followed by Clive Mayward.

Good afternoon, Chair Foster and members of the committee, Carter Nelson on behalf of the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, or CREDA Washington State, representing those who design, build, finance, and operate rental housing across Seattle and Washington State.

CREDA strongly supports transparency and adequate disclosure.

Renters should know what they're signing up to pay, and we support reasonable policies that ensure those costs are communicated clearly and upfront.

We appreciated the opportunity to participate in the mayor's stakeholder process.

However, the feedback and recommendations made by housing providers are not reflected in the legislation before you today.

Our concern is not with transparency.

It's that this proposal sends another signal of regulatory uncertainty at a time when Seattle desperately needs more housing development, not less.

Affordability will ultimately be solved by increasing housing supply.

renters will bear the cost when fewer homes are likely to come online in the years ahead.

We urge the council to take additional time for stakeholder engagement.

We can achieve greater transparency for renters while also maintaining predictability necessary to encourage investment and much needed housing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Clive Hayward followed by Violet LaVardy.

Thank you.

And just a reminder, when you hear the chime, you've got 10 seconds left and we'll try to be moving that a little bit more closely to the time.

Thanks everyone.

My name is Clive Hayward.

I'm a magician.

I've performed on the Seattle waterfront for 11 years.

The city has painted five blue boxes on the waterfront and called them free speech zones.

Outside those boxes, my act isn't a performance, it's a trespass.

Police called, banned for up to a year, arrested if I come back.

That's prior restraint on protected expression in a public space.

It's not just magicians, it's balloon twisters, living statues, musicians, and painters.

The city excluded a painter from the waterfront on the 4th of July.

Waterfront artists have rent or mortgages and bills and families to feed.

Enforcement is arbitrary, doesn't silence just artists, it destabilizes households.

I've written the Mayor, the Seattle Center, Inspector General, the Office of Civil Rights, no one has answered.

The committee has civil rights in its name.

Will you have someone help?

And you can add additional comments there in the box.

Thank you.

Our next speaker will be Viola Glavardi followed by Alice Lockhart.

Yeah, Viola, you're up.

Good afternoon, council members, Dion, Foster, Eddie, Lynn, and everyone.

Thank you for hearing all of us.

I represent the community.

First, my name is Violet Labatai, and I'm an executive director of a housing justice, also a community activist for many years.

I speak for hundreds of tenants right now.

Junk fees is a bill that really will help many people and we support the amendments that are coming that we read is one and two, but we urge city council that to take in consideration many years these unnecessary fees have led to sometimes evictions and more barriers that tenants face every day.

And I'm not just talking because I'm a renter too.

I'm talking about the hundreds of people that come to TOA about these junk fees.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alice Lockhart followed by Tanika Thomas-Bird.

And then our third speaker will be Michelle Thomas.

Good afternoon, committee members.

I'm Alice Lockhart with 350 Seattle.

Our ED, Shimona, couldn't be here, sent me.

We would both like to thank you all so much for working with community recently.

This has been a great council recently.

We appreciated the the come on, come on data center moratorium, and now you're working on this, which is so important.

350 Seattle has been a member of Stay Healthy Coalition since its inception, because we meet our climate goals when we can provide safe and stable workforce housing that doesn't include a long commute.

This isn't about transparency, this is about basic fairness, and you all are working to put basic fairness into the agreement between the less powerful and the more powerful.

Thank you all so much.

Our next speaker is Tanika Thomas Bird followed by Michelle Thomas and then Owen Knight.

Hello, my name is Tanika Thompson Bird and I'm campaign director at Got Green.

I'm here today to speak in favor of strengthening and enforcing renter protections and banning junk fees without watered down amendments.

I have been working with tenants living in Reno Vista in District 2 for a very long time.

as one of the many public housing sites that are owned and operated by Seattle Housing Authority.

The stories that I have heard from Rainer Vista and other SHA tenants about living in disrepair and neglect are extremely concerning.

Tenants are living in unhealthy conditions, living with broken appliances, mold, leaks, floods, electrical issues, and more.

Waiting weeks, months, and even years for repairs to get done.

If you are interested in learning more details about the conditions tenants are living in, you can read our report on Gottgrin's website.

Because tenant protections are not strong enough, it has been challenging for tenants.

I can add additional comments in the box there.

Okay, it's challenging for them to hold SAJ accountable.

That's Michelle Thomas, then Owen Knight followed by Lomho.

Hi, I'm Michelle Thomas with the Washington Housing Alliance here in strong support of the proposed ban on junk fees.

We're hearing from renters across the city and across the state about unfair, expensive, and deceptive fees that they're already paying on top of today's sky-high rent.

Many tenants report that fees are added after a move-in and at lease renewal trapping tenants who can't afford to move into something that they can't afford to pay and mere transparency cannot solve.

Tenants report so many fees, including fees to pay the rent, fees to cover utilities and common areas in the management offices, improvement district fees, and my favorite, fees to submit maintenance requests.

Out-of-state third-party companies are increasingly entering into contracts with landlords for sham services that tenants pay and that landlords take a cut of.

This is one of the big reasons that junk fees are on the rise nationwide.

You have an opportunity to stop this.

Please vote yes today on this critical legislation.

However, as others have said, we believe that amendments three and four need a little bit more work in full council to address some possible misinterpretations.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Owen Knight, followed by Lam Ho, and then Heidi D. Andrade.

Thank you, counsel, for bringing this proposal forward.

My name is Owen Knight.

I'm a renter in District 4. I pay about $100 each month just in junk fees on top of my rent.

So that's about $1,200 a year just in junk fees, setting aside the cost of rent.

I recently signed my lease again and paid a $100 renewal fee, which is a little goofy there.

So I hope that this proposal moves forward so that if I do have to sign my lease again, I can save $100.

Much appreciate if the council can do that.

I also want to thank Council Members Rank and Foster for bringing forward Amendments 1 and 2. I think those are really constructive and help strengthen the bill.

I did want to raise some concerns in particular about Amendment 3. I think the intention to that amendment is good.

We should try and give second chances, but I also think that the existing proposal with its first-time offense waiver is a good first step there, and I think this proposal needs some more work.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lam Ho, followed by Heidi D'Andrade.

Thank you, Council Members.

My name is Lam Ho, and I'm the General Manager for the Transit Riders Union.

I'm also here today as the co-coordinator of the Stay House, Stay Healthy Coalition, which is a coalition of over 40 organizations representing thousands and thousands of tenants who need relief.

And this legislation here today provides relief.

It doesn't simply say, we can tell you how much we're screwing you over.

We're actually going to do something about it.

and so I'm here today on behalf of these thousands and thousands of community members who are asking for you to help us avoid yet another year of record evictions in Seattle to pass this legislation with amendments one and two but amendments three and four are actually potentially really powerful tools for our tenants and tenant rights, and we support those in spirit.

However, we do have concerns about them being potentially misinterpreted and misused by landlords and their attorneys.

I really hope that we can work with you to make sure that the spirit, what you're trying to do, is effectuated.

Thank you.

All right, the next speaker is Heidi D'Andretti, followed by Lexi Salas.

Thank you for letting me speak.

My name is Heidi D'Andrade.

My brother is Jamie Fackler, so if you need to know more about this, please reach out to him.

I am here on behalf of my son, Macario D'Andrade.

He is not here today because he committed suicide in January.

due to being evicted.

His eviction was due to a work injury where L and I did not pay him in a prompt enough time.

When I went through his things, the fees that Rubs were charging him were $180 a month on a $1,300, 600-square-foot apartment.

It had started at $50 when he first went in and went up.

The stress of not being able to afford to live in the city is the text I got when he killed himself.

So I am hoping that you pass this.

I know that I haven't read it all.

There's more to it.

But the rubs fees are not sustainable.

We need to have more support for the people in the city.

We don't have it.

Renting in the city is unaffordable for most people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next speaker is Lexi followed by Hallie Willis.

Thank you, Heidi, for sharing that story.

My name is Lexi Salas.

I live in District 3, and I'm here because our city needs to ban junk fees and create systems where renters can truly seek justice when our landlords violate our protections.

I like Amendments 1 and 2. I appreciate the spirits of 3 and 4, but I think they need more work.

I have sought support from both SDCI and the Hearing Examiner about existing violations, and it resulted in my landlord getting a slap on the wrist while continuing violations.

Our city's affordability crisis is life or death for renters, as you just heard.

And while landlords emphasize the cost of business, us renters emphasize the cost of life.

and so I ask you to stand with strong renter protections and accountability against exploitation, against renters.

It literally saves lives.

Our final three in-person speakers are Hallie Willis followed by Kate Rubin and then Lydia Rubinstein.

Good afternoon, committee members.

My name is Hallie Willis, and I'm the policy manager at the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness.

I'm also a renter and pet owner in District 5, here in support of the junk fee legislation sponsored by Council Member Foster.

We appreciate the intent of amendments put forward and also want to make sure that none of them inadvertently let landlords off the hook for violations.

We also appreciate your acknowledgement that transparency alone is not sufficient to solve this problem and that we need to regulate fees to protect tenants.

Many people experiencing homelessness and poverty have pets.

It's not fair or reasonable to charge extra rent just because someone has a pet in their household.

That makes it harder for people to afford rent and forces people to surrender their pets to the shelter when they can't afford the fees.

Please vote yes to ban junk fees and bring down costs for tenants.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Kate Rubin followed by Lydia Rubinstein.

Then we'll move to online speakers.

My name is Kate Rubin.

I am a renter living in District 2, and I serve as co-executive director of Be Seattle, co-coordinator of the State House Stay Healthy Coalition, and co-chair of the Seattle Renters Commission.

The cost of rent includes the cost of doing business.

Landlords have full control over what amenities they include in the building and they set the rent accordingly.

I urge the committee to support the bill to ban rental junk fees and pass amendments one and two.

And then the coalition would love to work with council members Foster and Lynn on amendments three and four.

We recognize the intent of these and we think that they are really powerful and we can make them strong for renters in general.

Thank you so much.

Next is Lydia Rubenstein.

Hello, my name is Lydia Rubenstein.

I'm a Seattle renter in District 3 here as a renter and on behalf of the Tenants Union of Washington in strong support to pass the bill to ban junk fees.

We appreciate the council taking on action towards reducing hidden and unnecessary housing costs and holding landlords accountable by supporting the proposed ban with amendments one and two, and I'll echo what a lot of others have said, and I'm excited to work with you to adjust to three and four to better align with the spirit.

As a tenant educator, I speak to thousands of renters statewide, but especially in Seattle, who are seeing excessive junk fees attached to their leases, as well as that show up suddenly.

One of the most concerning ones that we've seen lately that I can speak to is someone who I spoke to in July, who is a person using a Housing Choice Voucher.

It put her at risk of eviction very quickly.

and immediately the junk fees that were added were for an emotional support animal that she didn't have time to get the proper documentation for, resulting in hundreds of fees that she was expected to pay suddenly.

Thank you.

All right, we will now move on to virtual speakers.

The first remote speaker is Lydia Felty.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt that you have been unmuted.

Hi, my name is Lydia Falte.

I'm a renter in D3 as well as a co-chair of the Seattle Renters Commission.

The Renters Commission supports standing junk fees to reduce hidden and unnecessary housing costs.

As renter advocates and renters ourselves, we are no stranger to the intimate impact of junk fees on housing stability.

This legislation is about transparency and predictability and about upholding the renter protections designed to protect renters from price gouging.

which does not prevent landlords from setting fair market rents or charging for truly opt-in services.

As such, the Commission strongly supports Amendment 1, closing a loophole that would allow landlords to skirt this important legislation by bundling optional fees.

While the Commission has not been able to discuss Amendments 2, 3, and 4, the Commission is part of the Stay House, Stay Healthy Coalition, and I hope that you'll work with the Coalition on discussing those amendments as others have mentioned.

This comprehensive junk fee ban with its enforcement mechanisms and Amendment 1 is a clear need.

Please pass this ordinance with Amendment 1 and without any weakening amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Angie Girald followed by Holly Golden.

Hi, my name is Angie.

I'm a small housing provider from Ballard and a member of Seattle Grassroots Landlords.

This legislation is not ready to move out of committee.

I realize there's tremendous political pressure to deliver a new win for renters, but this looks at only half the equation and sends a strong message that Seattle is business as usual, anti-business, allergic to providing a holistic public process.

It's how Seattle has approached landlord-tenant regulations for more than a decade with an ever-growing stockpile of unintended consequences.

This is not good governance.

It's August and you haven't even received the 2025 end of year Rio report.

There's no accountability for what is already in space, but you are forging ahead with a million dollar new program.

It's sad to see the lack of questions council is asking and the lack of evidence that you understand and have a relationship with the operational side of rental housing from the smallest providers on up.

If you want to work together, we're all available through the Rio contact database.

Please do not advance this legislative package out of committee.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Holly Golden, followed by Hannah Whitworth.

Good afternoon.

I'm Holly Golden, a land use attorney at Hillis Clark and one of the co-founders of the Seattle Housing Roundtable, a group of about 35 housing providers and operators in Seattle.

We support the goal of improved transparency.

Nobody benefits when tenants are surprised or feel uninformed.

There are concerns about some of the fees, restrictions on some fees.

The reality is if the costs can't be disclosed and collected, then they will be absorbed into increased base rent for all tenants without transparency.

For instance, we know dogs cause wear and tear and cleaning costs.

Residents without dogs shouldn't have to pay for those costs.

Reasonable dog fees are a more equitable solution.

There are also concerns about rules changing midstream, like building-wide technology investments that can no longer be recovered, even if the fees are disclosed.

is problematic when the mask changes on housing after it's already built.

Finally, on enforcement, honest mistakes will happen.

We urge your support of amendments three and four to allow quick and reasonable resolution.

Otherwise, it will force tenants into expensive lawsuits and cause small landlords to remove their units from the market.

These changes are beneficial for everyone.

Thanks.

Our next speaker is Hannah Whitworth followed by Casey Burton.

My name is Hannah Whitworth and I'm the Domestic Violence Housing Systems Manager at the Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence.

Our work as a coalition is to care for, connect with, and mobilize over 35 local gender-based violence programs who are all working to support survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking.

We'd like to express our support for this proposed legislation to ban hidden rental fees and we urge the Council to do the same.

We also support the amendment prohibiting mandatory bundling of optional services.

Transparency is a critical component in working with survivors, and we need to carry that over into our housing survivors.

Time and time again, I hear from advocates about the barriers they and survivors encounter when navigating the rental market.

They get several steps in and find out that the rental they're considering is not an option given their resources.

This erodes trust, increases the sense of hopelessness, and extends the time of survivors unheld, all of which can make it harder for survivors to leave abusive relationships and stay safe.

It's also an inefficient use of our already limited housing support services.

Banning hitting rental fees would improve the transparency of our housing market and, in turn, improve support for survivors who are navigating homelessness.

Survivors deserve transparency and accurate information about the all-in cost of rent so they can make informed choices as they heal from abuse.

This legislation is a step in the right direction to do just that and we ask for your support.

Thank you for the time to speak today.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hannah Burton followed by, sorry, Casey Burton followed by Justin Merriman.

Good afternoon, and thank you for your time today, Council Members.

My name is Casey Burton.

I am a member of the renters' commission in the Stay House Stay Healthy Coalition.

I am asking you to pass those bills, as well as Amendments 1 and 2, while continuing to work with community partners on Amendments 3 and 4. Seattle renters deserve to know what they're getting into before they show up to sign a lease, realize they can't afford the apartment, and lose their holding deposit, their application fee, and anything else they've paid the landlord.

In particular, I ask that you support the ban on pet rent.

Landlords say it's to cover damage since the deposit simply isn't enough.

My landlord charges folks $95 a month for pet rent per pet.

That's almost $1,200 to my landlord per year.

I've lived here almost three years.

If my pet doesn't cause any damage, I don't get any of a dime of those thousands of dollars back.

There's no increased rent because we're already paying this amount.

Let's be honest about what we're actually paying before it's too late.

Thank you.

It looks like Justin is no longer on so we'll jump to Kat Munson but Justin if you join we'll come back to you.

So Kat Munson followed by Leslie Shelton.

Good afternoon, Chair Foster and members of the committee.

My name is Kat Munson.

I'm a renter in District 4 and I'm the Community Engagement and Advocacy Manager with Sound Generations.

where we serve older adults across Seattle and King County through Meals on Wheels, the Hyde Shuttle, senior rights assistance, and much more.

I'm here in strong support today of the ordinance to ban junk fees.

Low-income older renters that we serve live on fixed incomes, so even a seemingly small hidden fee can tip the balance towards housing and security.

And the older adults are often specifically targeted by predatory landlords who capitalize on the fact that they're much less likely to move.

My own mom, who lived in a Capitol Hill shag housing complex for 15 years, fought against pet rent for her beloved dog and companion, Phoebe, and her neighbor tried unsuccessfully because I helped her for months to unbundle the cables she didn't want from her internet service.

So council member brings amendment addressing this as a crucial piece of the legislation.

Thank you for voting yes on amendments one and two, refining three and four, and protecting older renters in Seattle.

Thank you.

Next we have Leslie Shelton followed by Margaret Shield.

Hello, my name is Leslie Shelton.

I live on First Hill.

The way the current tenant's rights laws are shut up creates a loophole.

This loophole allows corrupt third-party utility management companies to charge unregulated and unchecked fees of any amount they choose, never needing to disclose in advance how much these fees will be or when these fees may increase from month to month.

This leaves tenants unable to create a consistent budget for their living expenses and can cause great hardship for working class families, as you've heard.

Months after I renewed my current lease, I found I was being charged an extra $165 by a third-party billing company called RealPage.

I cannot afford this, so I tried to look for a new place to live.

I was surprised to find that the average price posted for a rental was low, and I wondered why.

After some digging, I found out that most of these management companies were charging huge junk fees on top of rent, upwards of $200 or more a month after you signed the lease.

It felt like a bait and switch, and it's not just a few companies doing this.

It has become standard practice that this continues in May 4th.

Working-class people like myself to leave Seattle altogether.

You can prevent this.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Margaret Shield followed by Elizabeth Arkenbald.

I'm Margaret Shield in Lake City in D5 here in support of Councilmember Foster's bill to prohibit unfair, unexpected rental fees that some landlords use to get around renter protection laws.

Thank you for working on this big problem.

This bill is critical to preventing homelessness.

Last year I heard a resident of 10th City 4 explain how he had been working so hard to stay in his apartment because he had previously been homeless.

He had a housing voucher and was just managing to pay his share of the rent each month.

Then the landlord added an extra fee for garbage and recycling.

Those added fees piled up.

He was evicted and ended up in a shelter.

That's wrong.

I used to be a renter, too, in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, and these junk rental things were just not a thing then.

I paid a deposit, plus a pet deposit, and rent, and that's it.

And I noticed that the landlords were doing .

Now, more than half of all Seattle people are renters.

Please make our city stronger.

Protect them.

Next, we have Margaret Archambault, followed by Mark Angelillo.

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Archambeau and I'm a renter in South Lakes Union neighborhood.

I'm testifying today, excuse me, to support the proposed junk fee legislation.

And I wanted to let you know that in talking with my neighbors in the building that I live, when junk fees are added to their monthly amount of rent, people have a really hard time and struggle to keep on top of their paying rent.

can often lead to 10-day notices and possibly facing eviction.

So I think it's really important, and I urge you as a committee to go ahead and vote yes on the proposed legislation to ban junk fees and to reject any of the amendments that reduce the protection for tenants and renters.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Mark Angelillo followed by B.

Ilana Rodenhamel.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mark Angelillo.

I'm the managing member of Stream Real Estate.

We are a local developer focused on housing, both market rate and affordable in the Seattle marketplace.

We've been building in Seattle for approximately 20 years and I've lived in the city of Seattle for 35 years.

Here today is a small local developer to comment on proposed CB121254.

As drafted regarding pet rent, it will force us to charge all tenants more rent to cover the cost of those tenants who do have pets.

Dogs and cats do real damage and have real impacts on wear and tear.

Any of you that have pets can surely attest to this.

Our buildings are currently pet friendly and we disclose all pet costs, impacts, and deposits up front to potential tenants as we always have.

We also believe landlords should be obligated to do the same disclosure and all costs related to having pets up front and in writing to potential tenants and current tenants.

The legislation is drafted regarding bulk internet is a significant issue.

For instance, we're just completing the 74 unit building, the internet is optional service, that candidates can choose to sign up for.

The bulk cost of the internet to us is approximately $80 a month.

Our next speaker is B.

Ilana Rodel-Hammel, followed by Dylan Greer.

As a reminder, if you have additional comments in your virtual, you can email those to Council Member Foster.

And B, Ilana, you should be able to press star six to unmute.

My name is Bilana Roadhamel and I am a renter in West Seattle and I support the proposed ban on rental junk fees.

When my wife and I were preparing to move, we found a rental that seemed to fit our budget.

But then, before we could move in, we were told that because we had a cat, we also were charged an additional $300 non-refundable pet cleaning fee.

Seattle renters are already responsible for paying any damage their pets actually cause, but this fee wasn't applied toward damages or extra cleaning.

And because landlords hold the power during the rental process, saying no wasn't really an option if we wanted to rent a home.

It takes a lot of time to find a rental and also rental application fees stack up.

Walking away would have meant starting the search over, Paying additional application fees with no guarantee the next rental wouldn't come with its own hidden fees.

Just two months after we moved in, our elderly cat passed away from old age.

She never caused any damage that would justify an extra $300 cleaning charge, yet we never got that money back.

This experience showed me these fees are not intended to recover actual costs.

Instead, they're about charging renters more while obscuring the true cost of housing.

Our next speaker is Dylan Greer followed by Amy Damani.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Dylan Greer.

I'm a current UW graduate student studying real estate.

I'm a current District 4 renter and will be moving to District 7 as a renter this Friday.

I'm speaking today on Council Bill 121254, specifically regarding pet rent.

Landlords have the obligation to maintain common areas and multifamily units in between tenants, and this maintenance represents a significant operational cost.

Pet rent allows this burden to be placed on the pet owners directly.

As pet rent is eliminated, either base rent for all tenants will increase or common areas will not be upkept to current standards.

Pet rent and other similar fees make renting more affordable overall for the individual renter.

Rather than bearing the increased cost of pet-related maintenance in my monthly rent, I can make the choice to not be a pet owner and therefore not pay the cost of pet ownership.

Thank you for your time.

Next, we have Amy Damani followed by Bradley Dosh.

Amy, if you can press star six, you should be unmuted.

All right, we'll circle back.

We'll next go to Bradley Doche and then Ethan Steger.

Bradley, if you press star six, you should be able to unmute.

Okay, we'll next jump down to Ethan and circle back for Amy and Bradley.

So we have Ethan Steger followed by Talulana Reid.

Ethan, are you able to press star six?

Hope we're not having technical difficulties.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Ethan and I'm a Seattle renter.

Thank you for gathering today for us all to discuss the bill to ban junk fees.

I'm proud to support this bill that protects renters, the majority of Seattle, and provides them more financial freedom and options in housing.

When considering this bill, I encourage you to think about the thousands of renters that are preyed upon by these fees and how you could ease their lives and feelings of housing insecurity by passing this bill with no weakening amendments.

Grand junk fees.

Thank you.

Next we have Tau Luana and then we'll circle back to Amy Damani.

Hi there.

My name is Tawana Reed and I'm with the Trinity Community of Washington State in support of the Junk Fee Ordinance with Amendments 1 and 2. And I'm here today on behalf of the thousands of tenants who contact advocates because they are being addicted and because they can't afford their rent and also junk fees.

Every single day, tenants contact us already struggling to keep up.

What makes it the struggle even harder is the unexpected fees that people move in or throughout the Tennessee.

Package fees, payment processing fees, valet fees, payment portal fees, Slap your mom's feet, whatever he is.

Let's be honest.

Landlords operate as a business, yet they do not pay taxes like businesses on the rent they collect.

They're currently permitted to charge whatever they want to profit.

Tenants slash the consumers need to be protected.

A unit advertised at one price ends up costing hundreds of dollars more each month.

These charges are not about improving the quality of living.

They're not increasing profit.

I respectfully urge you to vote yes on this ordinance.

Thank you.

All right, we'll try Amy Damani and then Bradley Dosh again.

People who rent are not- Amy, you're cutting out.

We'll restart your time.

All right, go for it.

Hi, I'm Amy from New District.

I wanna be clear that consumers are for businesses and renting a house, having a home is not a business.

We're just people trying to make a living and having hidden rental fees add up in such a way that it can be between people having a home and a place to sleep and a place to eat versus being on the street.

So I'm here to voice my support for banning rent junk fees.

And in addition, I know this is not about rubs, but rubs utility billing is the same concept, same principle, being charged an unknown amount of money each month with quite a sticker shock.

And if you don't fight against one thing, it's just going to keep piling up.

So please fight for Seattle renters.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our final speaker is Bradley Dosh.

Hello, my name is Bradley Dosh.

I'm a mentor in Capitol Hill and I'm speaking in support of banning junk fees.

I pay the water bill every month in my apartment here and just a few months ago I received notice that they were going to shut the water off from Seattle Public Utilities.

That was infuriating because we pay that bill every month and clearly our management was not paying the water bill with that.

And I think we all suspect that similar things are happening with other bills and that, again, it's not actually about charging true costs that the building owner has, but rather just trying to suck more money out of tenants, out of working people who are already struggling.

Thank you all for your time and please ban junctures.

Thank you.

All right, that is, there are no additional registered speakers.

All right, fantastic.

Thank you so much.

We will now move on to our first item of business, item one.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one, council bill 121254, an ordinance relating to rental agreement regulation requiring disclosure of fees prohibiting and limiting certain fees requiring retention of compliance records, expanding investigative authority and restablishing new enforcement mechanisms, amending section 7.24020, 7.24050, 7.24060 7.24120 and 7.24130 of an adding new section 7.24039 7.24040 7.24045 7.24.170 7.24180 7.24190 to the Seattle Municipal Code for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

You all are too wonderful.

I was actually going to say, can we give it up for the clerk, but you already knew.

So that was great.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Sage.

All right.

Fantastic.

I'm really excited to have this discussion today.

I'll be saving my kind of longer comments for the end.

So I'll just get right on into it.

I move that the committee recommend adoption of Council Bill 121254. Is there a second?

Second.

Alright, thank you.

So first as we know there's a few amendments and so I want to invite up and she's already at the table, H.P.

Harper from Council Central Staff who's going to provide an overview of the four amendments being brought forward and will answer any questions about the legislation.

So colleagues, the process here is going to be that we're going to discuss and vote on each amendment one at a time.

So don't hold your questions for later because we're going to talk about the amendment then vote on the amendment and move forward.

So HB, once you're ready, please introduce yourself and go ahead.

HB Harper, central staff.

So we'll start with Amendment 1.

Okay.

Council Member Rink, would you like to move your amendment?

Certainly.

I move to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1.

Second.

All right.

It has been moved and seconded.

Council Member Rink, as sponsor of the amendment, I'll invite you to speak to...

Oh, whoops.

I'm sorry.

I think we're going to go over to HB and then I'm going to go to you, Council Member Rink.

I apologize.

So Amendment 1 requires that when optional fees are bundled, each discrete portion of that bundle shall also be separately available.

So as you may recall, there were three categories of fees in the bill, those that are permitted, those that are prohibited, and those that are optional that tenants can opt into affirmatively.

All of those optional fees had to meet certain requirements related to disclosure, the process by which opting out is given to the tenant with no fee, et cetera.

and so this would add a further requirement for those optional fees, such that if there is a bundle offered, that the landlord shall make each component of the bundle available separately as optional as well.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Councilman Burink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Foster, and thank you for the overview.

HB colleagues, this is the amendment that we discussed during our last committee meeting.

We have not changed it in any type of way, just to affirm that point, but I brought this amendment forward today after our discussions with tenants' rights advocates, as well as those who provide tenant support services and legal aid.

I believe it serves as important clarification, but also a closure of a loophole to ensure the junk fees that we're banning would not be required to receive a service that to many is very essential.

So while bundling isn't the most common issue that we face today, I have concerns that it would become more frequent.

So this is the reason that I brought forward this amendment.

and I wanna note that since our last committee meeting, I've had a conversation with internet providers such as Comcast.

We had a productive meeting.

There were no major concerns with the amendment by the end of that meeting.

And so I'm bringing it forward today and I hope I have your support.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Rink.

Colleagues, are there any questions before we vote on this amendment?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment one?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Vice Chair Lin.

Yes.

Chair Foster.

Yes.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and none opposed.

Fantastic.

The motion carries and Amendment 1 is adopted.

I will go head back over to HB for a description of Amendment 2.

Amendment 2 clarifies disclosure requirements.

So as transmitted, the disclosure requirements didn't clearly include estimated utility costs.

And there was also ambiguity about time-limited discounts.

So for instance, first month free or first two months free of how those would be disclosed in that upfront total monthly cost.

So this amendment clarifies that those time-limited discounts, for instance, should not be averaged over the year for monthly costs.

They should be not included in the total monthly cost, but clearly disclosed separately.

And it also clarifies that utility charges should be estimated, similar to how variable fees were proposed to be estimated, using either past information or other ways to estimate them.

And those should be included in that total monthly cost.

And finally, it was left sort of to the viewer to decide whether the total monthly cost should include those optional fees.

So again, if the tenant has the ability to opt in, that would change their total monthly cost and it was unclear in the draft whether or not optional fees should be in addition to being disclosed upfront actually added in to that total monthly cost.

So the amendment specifies that optional fees would not be included in the total monthly cost because they are only if the tenant chooses to opt in.

So I think that encompasses the various pieces of the puzzle, but I'm happy to speak to it if folks have any questions.

Thank you so much.

And I'll pause to see if there are questions for HB.

And I actually need to do my job and say I move to amend Council Bill 121254 as presented on Amendment 2, Version 2 as distributed via email.

Is there a second?

Second.

Great.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the bill.

I do want to clarify colleagues that a technical change was made for clarification purposes to Agenda 2 after the agenda was published, stating that disclosure under this section 7.24.039 is distinct from disclosure requirements in Chapter 7.25.

The updated version was emailed to council members 24 hours in advance of the meeting, and we will be updating the agenda with the new corrected version after this meeting.

Having said that, the intent of this, and thank you for that HB, is to provide clarity to both tenants and landlords about the disclosure requirements of the bill.

and in particular to make sure that when we are discussing the total monthly cost to be paid by the tenant that we have clarity across the board on what that is to include because a big part of this legislation is to ensure that we have clear and transparent and comparable fees.

So I believe this amendment moves us closer to that.

And thank you to the stakeholders who provided their input on this amendment.

Any further questions on amendment two?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2?

Council President Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lynn?

Yes.

Chair Foster?

Yes.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and none opposed.

Okay, the motion carries.

We will now move on to Amendment 3 and I'm going to first move to amend Council Bill 121254 as presented on Amendment 3. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it has been moved and seconded.

HB, please describe Amendment 3.

Sure, so Amendment 3 relates to an existing amount of discretion that is afforded to the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections related to voluntary compliance.

So the bill, aside from the bill, even existing regulations, but also with the proposed bill, there's a wide runway for SDCI to take actions before they take formal enforcement actions.

So there's already codified an ability to issue a warning and to work with landlords to get into compliance before going down those formal paths of enforcement where they have citations and penalties, etc.

So this amendment codifies that discretion that the director has in administration and enforcement to bring landlords into compliance, but also gives clarity to tenants regarding reimbursement, which would likely be expedited under this amendment.

It's important that this discretion exists because of the need to be sort of efficient and strategic with resources.

If SDCI had to pursue formal enforcement in every single complaint, it would likely way slow down their ability to enforce particularly related to sort of bad actors and so under the existing sort of practice as well as under the bill, they do have this ability to decide when to actually begin enforcement and they are directed in the bill to create a director's role regarding when they will initiate investigations.

So that's really a wide open area where they will publish something that gives clarity on when they pursue investigations because they simply would not have the resources to do it in every instance.

so this amendment really writes down something that already exists today and that is proposed to continue under the bill where prior to pursuing those formal avenues the director seeks voluntary compliance and what it does is it specifies that that shall include at a minimum full reimbursement to tenants plus interest which is currently I think the practice but it's not written down and so there might be a lack of clarity for tenants and landlords without that in code and so that's what the amendment does.

Thank you for that, and I'll speak to this briefly.

I know we heard some questions about this earlier today, and I wanna just, actually before I speak to you, I'll just say, HB, can you just repeat for us, this is an existing authority that the department already has.

Yes, under the existing regulations as well as under the proposed regulations that are transmitted as part of the legislation.

So whether or not this amendment goes forward, this authority exists.

Okay, thank you for that.

And one of the things that was really important to me was to be able to clarify what a tenant is entitled to if there is voluntary, excuse me, if SDCI seeks to obtain voluntary compliance.

So can you speak to that second half of this amendment one more time and what we're clarifying there?

Right, so a reimbursement to the tenants plus interest for any unauthorized fee or charges, and so I think the idea here is that if you have a situation in which a landlord is unaware that they have been in violation, you know, SDCI tries to work with landlords to first make sure that they are aware, and they do a lot of outreach, you know, to try to get landlords in loop on all regulations, but this makes sure that it's clear that they do have to pay the tenants back plus interest if they discover that they have been in violation of the chapter and if SDCI has not yet and pursued formal enforcement.

Thank you for that.

And with that, I wanna speak to why I thought it was important to bring this forward.

So one, as HP has already said, this amendment codifies existing discretion and it lifts it up in this piece of legislation so that we can clarify what SDCI is going to seek when they are going through the voluntary compliance process so that we know and we have clarity from the department with their existing practice and that we have transparency with the public around what that existing practice is.

So without this amendment, that practice would be in place, but we would not have clarified and codified what the minimum standard is that we have for SDCI when it comes to recouping any of the fees that tenants have incorrectly paid when they are going through voluntary compliance.

So this says you are allowed to continue to do voluntary compliance and here is a minimum for the department to seek when they do use the voluntary compliance standard.

So from my perspective, this is really important because it gives that clarity and it allows us to understand and have sort of a shared expectation across the department and the public for when the department does use that tool.

So with that, that is why I am excited to bringing this forward.

I also wanna appreciate Council Member Kettle for working with our office on this amendment and colleagues, I'm happy to see if there's questions that you have.

Council Member Rink, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Foster, for bringing this forward and to providing that clarification.

So just so I'm crystal clear, SDCI currently has the discretion to be able to exercise this.

This is about clarifying and codifying that discretion?

That's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying that point.

This isn't about expanded discretion, but rather making it abundantly clear.

I appreciate that and I'll be supporting today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Questions from any other colleagues?

Okay, seeing no questions, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 3?

Council President Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lin?

Yes.

Chair Foster?

Yes.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and Amendment 3 is adopted.

Council Member Lin, would you like to move your amendment before I head over to HB?

Yes, I would like to move Amendment 4. Second.

it has been moved and seconded to amend the bill.

HB, can you please describe Amendment 4?

Sure, so this amendment provides tenants with a path to reimbursement and certain damages for prohibited fee and security deposit violations without filing a private right of action and incurring legal fees.

So essentially, right now under the Private Right of Action section, there's a number of stipulations regarding what the landlord shall be liable in a civil action for.

However, this amendment would provide a path for the landlord to cure the violation within 30 days of receiving written notice, and this is just for prohibited fees and unlawfully withheld security deposits, so not including other areas of Chapter 724 regulations that exist today.

There are a number there.

and it would require that the landlord within 30 days pay the tenant back for full reimbursement of all prohibited fees or unlawfully withheld security deposits charged plus interest, as well as double the amount of that fee or security deposit.

And it would stipulate that if the tenant is paid back within that 30 day window at that sort of three times level, the tenant could not pursue further remedies under the sections of the bill.

so it provides sort of an alternative to utilizing legal representation on the private right of action path.

Thank you.

Councilmember Lin, you are recognized.

Yeah, thank you so much, colleagues.

I think as we heard earlier today, part of the issue is a right is only as powerful as kind of the ability to enforce it.

And we heard concerns around the ability of SDCI to their limited resources to enforce new laws.

I know there's certainly a goal staff up SDCI but even so I think they they will have limited capability to address you know when half of our city is renters there's a lot of violations out there and so you know empowering tenants to act on their own behalf to get prompt relief without having to rely upon SDCI without having to rely upon an attorney is one of the primary motivating factors here.

The other idea is just that oftentimes, sometimes attorneys are necessary.

Sometimes litigation is needed.

But sometimes attorneys can just add costs and time.

It can take a long time to go to court.

to get relief.

Some folks might not want to have their name in court records and might not want to have to go to court.

And so the idea behind this is to give tenants the ability to to send a simple notice to their landlord and say, hey, you overcharged me, reimbursed me, plus interest, plus two times, and if you do so, then we're done.

And, you know, if you do so within 30 days, we're done.

I can move on with my life if I need to move out of the area because I'm, you know, I don't have to be tied up in this lawsuit and you don't have to be tied up in a lawsuit for a year or more.

So that is the motivating factor.

It also gives landlord a very strong incentive to settle quickly, to be responsive.

And hopefully part of the idea behind this is, you know, I would hope that if this passes that STIs could come up with a very simple form and guidance for tenants.

We did get some feedback that there might be some ways to improve this even more and certainly open to that.

You know, we were only able to circulate this on Friday, so we didn't have a ton of time to get all the feedback that we would have liked, but we did get some positive feedback in general, some support, but also some suggestions to how to improve it even further.

certainly open, continue to be open to that.

And with that, certainly open to any questions or comments.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Council Member Lynn.

I see a hand from Council Member Juarez.

First of all, thank you, Chair, for putting this forward.

I was here in 2016 and 2017 when we first start passing the tenant rights issues in legislation.

So I'm going to address my questions to HB.

First of all, thank you for the summary and fiscal note and walking us through the five components of this legislation.

All of them are fine as far as I'm concerned.

I voted yes, obviously.

The one that gave me the most pause is Amendment 4. and I'm gonna ask some questions just so I understand.

So on the enforcement piece, are we now establishing SDCI now for the first time in the right with subpoena power?

I'm sorry, on Amendment 4, we are not weighing in on anything related to SDCI's powers.

Amendment 4 is only related to a private right of action between the tenant and the landlord.

Okay, so the private right of action, I guess the concern I have is on the damages piece.

So they have 30 days to cure, and so when I go through that, I guess my concern is, and I'm just asking before everyone gets upset, On the 30 days to cure, so the landlord says, okay, our SEI says, prohibited fees, I got 30 days to fix this.

And within those 30 days, tenant gets reimbursed for those prohibited fees.

And then even within the 30 days, if the landlord is going to cure, we still impose or will be imposed double damages.

Correct.

So explain that to me, because it seems punitive in nature, so I'm trying to understand that.

Right, so again, the city will not impose anything.

This is only between the tenant and the landlord.

So separately, SDCI could pursue an investigation, but this is just between the tenant and the landlord, and they would be liable for this amount.

And so what this actually does is provides a more cost-effective alternative to the private right of action, because as transmitted under private right of action, the landlord is liable for not only the damages plus interest and double the amount of the fee, but also double the penalty that SDCI would have imposed, as well as reasonable attorney's fees.

So as transmitted, they are already liable for significantly more than what this amendment is providing as sort of alternative to.

So just to say it again to be very clear, under a private right of action, as transmitted in the bill, the landlord is liable for three times the fee, plus double the penalty, which could be $750 or up to 1,500 for subsequent violations, in addition to reasonable attorney's fees.

So what this amendment does is say, rather than going the full route of lawyering up and incurring that level of cost, if you're able to pay the tenant back at that three times level within 30 days, you are no longer liable for double the penalty or reasonable attorney's fees.

Okay, so let me ask you quickly on the question.

I'm looking at your memo on page three under civil penalties and remedies.

Am I in the right section?

Okay.

Well, that would not be related to private right of action.

Okay, so I guess I'm confusing that with I'm actually looking at the amendment.

Can you just walk me through if we are actually codifying the rights or the privileges that SDCI directors' administration has already, I know some of the other amendments, we were just codifying what they're already doing.

Is that what we're seeing here?

No, in this case, we're providing a new avenue for landlords and tenants to basically resolve their differences without going through formal litigation.

So there are many paths to enforcement that are in this ordinance.

There's private right of action, there are class action suits, and then there are several paths that SDCI can take.

So this amendment is only concerned with that private right of action path.

It does not touch what was transmitted related to SDCI's enforcement.

It only talks about the tenant and the landlord in a private right of action.

So the thing is that whether under a class action suit or under any of the other pads that SDCI would be involved in, you know, they would take into account whether a tenant had already been paid back.

So you're not looking at a situation where we're going to be piling on lots of different penalties.

What we want to do throughout all of these enforcement mechanisms, I think it's safe to say, is to make the tenant whole and to bring the landlord into compliance and generally as quickly as possible.

so whether that happens via a private right of action, in which case I believe SDCI would sort of say, well that one's taken care of, we're no longer going to pursue enforcement because that tenant has been paid back, or whether it's taken care of via a formal citation or a formal investigation and notice of violation and all of these other pathways, the point is to as soon as possible pay that tenant back plus at that three times level, and if it has risen to that level of needing an order of investigative findings, then potentially at that point you've got $750 or $1,500 per violation.

And in that case, just to keep going down this path, the director has the ability to waive those penalties for timely reimbursement to the tenant.

So I would say that this amendment is really in line with the general ordinance regarding really prioritizing payment back to the tenant at that three times level, which I would agree is somewhat punitive to say, look, the tenant's been paid back and then some, you know, we don't need to further penalize that landlord necessarily.

And we didn't do that before?

With the punitive nature?

Well, the private right of action section of code does already exist, yes.

Yes, it does already exist, and it did already have double the amount of security deposit unlawfully withheld, as an example.

So this really extends that to this new area of fee regulation.

And so part of the education process would be not only for the tenant but for the landlord to say, this is new, not like what we did in 16 and 17. We're codifying what's already there and we're strengthening on the data that we now have regarding junk fees.

But I just want to make sure that we can withstand a legal challenge that a landlord, whether they're commercial or smaller are on notice.

This is what the requirements are.

Because there's retention requirements now.

There's a subpoena issue now.

There's all these other tools, which are good, and they strengthen it.

But I think in the intent of this legislation, if I can, Madam Chair, is to ensure that renters are treated fairly and have transparency and full notice of what they're paying for.

And also to bring landlords into compliance to make sure that these things are addressed and that there's an arena where we can address these issues without having to go to an administrator or municipal court.

Right, and there are initial outreach costs that are anticipated to come as part of budget legislation, I think, to help with that, right, to update all of the landlord resource information and, you know, they hold periodic landlord workshops and that kind of thing to try to get the word out about everything.

So my understanding is on the budgetary requirements, we would be seeking three FTEs to be, are we actually calling them investigators that we already have at SDCI?

I don't know the exact titles I know the sort of classification but you know I think they would have three slightly distinct titles and yes those are all contained in the fiscal summary note but they are not of course authorized as part of this legislation because they'll come during budget but that it is the implication of this legislation is that during budget will be getting legislation to add three FTEs and as well as additional outreach costs for the first year and the FTEs of course would be ongoing to pay for the increased level of enforcement that SDCI anticipates based on this new legislation.

So you did the summary and fiscal note, did you also do the summary of the charts that were attached?

Yes, and just to be clear, I actually didn't do the summary and fiscal note that was provided by the exec, but I did do the memo and the attachments one and two to help sort of explain the different components.

Okay, I'm sorry, I'm getting the, this is what, I apologize, that's on me.

I was getting your summary or your memo dated July 14th confused with the one that we got from the administrator, was Quinn?

on that one as well.

Okay, I apologize.

So there was, I was getting my notes confused on their actual charts of positions, FTEs, costs, when it would come in the budget, when they would be asking for it and what it would, the impacts.

Right, that was all transmitted by the executive.

And so when they transmit it from the executive, you had a chance to, and I'm sure the chair did as well.

I'm just going to ask for the public.

I just think it's important to note for people to look at on the race and social justice initiative impacts.

I think that the data there, for those who may not be in complete agreement with this legislation, can see that, I think it's on page nine, that the race and social justice initiative impacts are pretty powerful with the data that they've provided.

So with that, I guess I should be thanking Quinn for that, right?

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much, Council Member Juarez.

And I see a hand from Council Member Lynn.

Yeah, thank you.

for those great questions.

I just wanted to clarify the intent, which was to HPE just clarify that this is not a new cause of action.

Correct?

That's correct.

But I did want to incentivize landlords to resolve things quickly and without the need for formal legal action when possible.

and so I just want to clarify that that was the intent behind this.

Given the kind of new language, the amendments that we're making to private rights of action, I felt like this lined up with those new amendments but also provided a strong incentive for landlords to quickly come into compliance.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Lynn.

Colleagues, any further questions or discussion on this amendment?

Council Member Juarez, is that a new hand or an old hand?

Nope, you're great, you're wonderful.

Thank you, that's all good.

I will just share a couple of quick comments.

I appreciate you, Council Member Juarez, for bringing up the recent social justice information.

I'll just read it in case folks are curious about what Council Member Juarez is referencing just from the report that we have.

So rental housing fees further exacerbate disparities including consumer housing trends report in 2025 from Zillow that found that renters of colors at 67% and AAPI at 74% and Hispanic renters at 66% were more likely to report paying at least one fee compared to white renters at 63%.

And renters age 18 to 29 were also significantly more likely at 82% to report paying at least one fee compared to other age groups.

So there's more there, but I won't death by PowerPoint by reading the entire report, but thank you for calling that out Council Member Juarez.

And I will just say in terms of this amendment in particular, I think it's important and I appreciate you Council Member Lynn for bringing this forward because I believe the spirit and the goal of the overall legislation is to, and find ways to keep renters whole.

And part of that also I think comes to other forms of time and expense such as pursuing lawsuits.

And I think this provides a way for renters to seek remediation while also perhaps saving time and still being aligned with other components of the legislation.

So I will be supporting this today.

With that, clerk, can you...

I'm just checking for hands because I always forget.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on Amendment 4?

Council President Hollingworth.

Sorry, aye.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Vice Chair Lynn.

Yes.

Chair Foster.

Yes.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and none opposed.

Okay, the motion carries and amendment four is adopted.

Thank you, HB.

We really appreciate you for walking through all of the amendments and all of the work that you did on this legislation over the last several months.

So I wanna express my appreciation to you and the rest of central staff.

You all work incredibly hard and we just really appreciate it.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Alright, with that we are all through amendments, so now we are on to the speechifying portion before we take our vote.

I want to say I'm really excited to be voting on this legislation before us today, and I want to express my gratitude to the Mayor and her team, especially Karim, for your work on this bill over the last several months.

It has been no small feat.

As we saw during our first committee hearing, this bill had over 30 members show up and speak in favor of it.

on the first time that it was heard.

Today is the third time that we've had it in committee.

And as a majority renter city, we know and we see there's a strong desire for us to act and make our rental market more transparent and put a stop to excessive rental junk fees in the city.

I really appreciate all of the thoughtful engagement.

I want to appreciate the folks from the Stay House, Stay Healthy Coalition, who's been here, the Tenants Union, the Transit Riders Union, I'm forgetting other people, but we really appreciate you all for showing up and being such a consistent presence and sharing your support, including we heard from Seattle Humane and Got Green and others today.

And appreciate all of the stakeholder work that was done before this was sent to us here at Full Council.

You know, it's really my belief that enhancing consumer protections in our city is one of the ways that we can make it easier for renters to understand the cost of housing, one way that it's easier for people to compare and make decisions about where they wanna live, and that through that comparison, we can support greater affordability and livability for all of our residents.

And I think this legislation takes us a step further in that direction.

I think this is a really smart way to allow for competitiveness and clarity amongst different kinds of landlords, because renters will no longer have to wonder whether the price they see online is gonna be the price they are gonna pay when they arrive.

And that's an important way of making sure that life is better for renters, but also that landlords of different sizes are communicating the same thing to the public.

And as we heard in the last part of this conversation, I believe we're allowing for the right kind of enforcement tools to ensure that our laws are followed.

And lastly, I just wanna make sure that I think Council Member Juarez, you already did this through some of your questions, we will be taking up and we expect to get legislation later on this year that tackles how to pay for the enforcement component.

So with that, I will say I am really excited to bring this bill to a vote.

So I move that the committee recommend adoption of Council Bill 121254 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend adoption of the bill.

Are there any further comments?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to adopt Council Bill 121254 as amended?

Council President Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Vice Chair Lin?

Yes.

Chair Foster?

Yes.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and none opposed.

All right.

The motion carries and the committee...

Sure.

The motion carries the committee recommendation that the council bill be adopted as amended will be sent to the August 11th, 2026 city council meeting.

Are there any comments or questions for committee members?

Okay, that concludes the August 3rd, 2026 special meeting of the Housing Arts and Civil Rights Committee.

Our next scheduled meeting is on August 12th.

Thank you so much for attending.

It is 321 PM and we are adjourned.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.