Sustainability & Renters' Rights Committee 9/21/21

Thank you.

Good morning.

This is a specially scheduled meeting of the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee of the Seattle City Council.

Today is Tuesday, September 21st, 2021, and the time is 9.34am.

I am the chair of the committee, Councilmember Kshama Sawant, and I am happy to welcome committee members Juarez, Peterson, and Morales here, and I'm sure we will be joined by Councilmember Lewis soon.

So in the meanwhile, Ted Verdone, who's the clerk and who's a staff member in my office, please call the roll.

Councilmember Sawant?

Present.

Councilmember Peterson?

Present.

Council Member Juarez?

Present.

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council Member Lewis?

For present.

Thank you, Ted.

In today's committee meeting, my office is hoping, as I've informed committee members and the city council at yesterday's briefing, to bring to a vote two important renter rights bills that this committee has been discussing for the past several months, which will help address the crisis faced by renters due to skyrocketing rent.

We do have another committee meeting scheduled for Thursday this week.

If committee members need more time, however, you know, and before the council begins budget deliberations, however, both of these bills have been discussed extensively.

So I really hope that we are able to.

carry out the committee vote today.

One bill is the Economic Displacement Relocation Assistance Ordinance.

It requires landlords to provide relocation assistance when they displace their tenants with outrageous rent increases, a process that has come to be known as economic evictions.

Over the past decade, there has been massive displacement and gentrification in our neighborhoods, primarily driven by skyrocketing rents.

And this is proven through data analysis overwhelmingly with statistical significance that skyrocketing rents are the principle and the overwhelming reason for this, forcing thousands from their homes, neighborhoods, and often the city.

Some become homeless according to nationally recognized studies that show that every $100 increase in average rent in a city results in a 15% increase in homelessness, which is a staggering statistical link.

And it is clear that the housing and homelessness crisis is on the verge of becoming much, much worse.

Apartmentlist.com, a corporate landlord website, has reported that rents in Seattle have increased more than 25% in 2021 so far, on track to increase 40% by the end of this year.

And we are seeing the effects.

The Seattle Times reported yesterday that 60,000 Seattle area residents, renters, I mean, are behind on their rent, most of whom owe more than one month's back rent.

Imagine 60,000 more households becoming homeless when the eviction moratorium ends and then add to that everyone who will be priced out as rents continue to rise out of control.

Out of control rent and housing costs is not just a problem in Seattle as we know, it is happening throughout our region and all over the country because it is being driven by macroeconomic factors.

The prices are not being driven by the cost of housing as housing.

They are being driven by ballooning real estate speculation.

The cost of residential housing goes higher and higher because investors believe they will be able to sell it for even more in the future.

And then property owners charge ever higher rents to cover the artificially inflated mortgages.

And regular working people are left with nowhere to live.

What we really need is rent control without corporate loopholes.

to regulate the out-of-control housing rents, and we will discuss that in the committee meetings.

In the meantime, we do need legislation immediately to continue to help mitigate the harm done by skyrocketing rents, in addition to the bills that this committee and the council has already passed this year, and that's what today's two bills will do.

In Seattle, renters who are displaced by redevelopment are eligible already for relocation assistance to the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, also known as TRAO, in our city council discussions.

But renters who are forced to move by outrageous rent increases, who face exactly the same burdens of displacement, the same difficulties, and the time investment they have to make to move to another location, they get no compensation.

So this bill from my office, the economic displacement relocation assistance ordinance makes renters eligible for relocation assistance when they're forced to move by a rent increase of 10% or more.

This is similar to relocation assistance programs in other parts of the country that are already in place.

In 2018, Portland, Oregon enacted an ordinance requiring landlords to pay relocation assistance to renters economically displaced by rent increases of 10% or more.

Another bill in today's committee meeting we'll discuss and hopefully vote on is the legislation from my office requiring landlords to provide six months notice for rent increases.

Currently in Seattle, only two months notice is required.

This bill was originally requested by the City of Seattle Renters Commission.

The way the bill appears on the agenda is unfortunately a little more confusing than it should be simply because of the way the city's electronic legislation tracking system works.

On the agenda is the proposed substitute which makes only technical edits and adds whereas clauses but does not change anything substantive in the law.

So if members of the public read what is listed on the agenda as, quote, proposed substitute without track changes, end quote, it will show you what the bill actually does without filling your screen with technical changes.

Increasing the notice landlords are required to give renters for rent increases cannot stop the rent increases, but it does give renters the time they will need to find new housing and rearrange their lives.

If and when a rent increase forces them to move and these kinds of exorbitant rent increases, you know, many of them greater than 10%.

that we are seeing all around us.

It's not an isolated or rare phenomenon.

It is almost an everyday phenomenon.

So this bill is extremely important in terms of alleviating the difficulties that renters face in Seattle.

Committee members, I just want to let you know that the agenda got inadvertently posted in an order that I had not intended.

I apologize for the confusion.

And I would like to switch the order of the items on today's agenda and take up the six month notice bill first and the economic evictions bill second.

So I will ask committee members, are there any objections to changing the agenda for today's committee in accordance with that?

Seeing no objections, the agenda is amended for today's committee meeting and we will discuss the rent increase notice first and the economic eviction second.

Before we begin our items, we of course have public comment.

I will read the names.

Ted, have you shared the document with the names with me?

I believe we have 30 people signed up for public comment, and I'm just opening up the spreadsheet here.

And each person will have up to one minute to speak.

So please try and wrap up your comment within a minute.

As you all know, we try to give two minutes public comment, but with 30 people signed up and with the committee having to do the discussions on the actual votes, I'm appealing to everybody in public comment to keep your comments to a minute.

And Ted Bordone from my office will be monitoring the public comment microphone.

And thanks also to the IT staff for helping us with this.

Having said that, our first three speakers who are showing as present also are Catherine Dawson, Daniel Cavanaugh, and Nishan Burns.

First is Catherine, go ahead.

Hi, I'm Catherine.

I'm a renter in District 3. I'm calling to voice my support for the renter protections proposed by Councilmember Sawant, including the six-month notice for rent increases and the relocation assistance for people displaced by economic eviction.

The majority of Seattle residents are renters like me, and over 40% of us are rent burdened, meaning we spend more than 30% of our income on rent.

That leaves little, little room to absorb the cost of rent hikes, yet rent, as Councilmember Sawant mentioned, has risen 25% at the start of this year.

We know Seattle is dominated by a handful of corporate landlords who make these huge profits off the backs of working people.

They don't have an interest in the community's survival or well-being.

As for small landlords who might rent out one room in their house, they can afford to give their tenants a six-month notice of a rent increase.

There's no reason beyond exploitation for a huge and immediate rent hike.

We can't allow behemoth corporate landlords to continue to profit at the expense of everyday Seattleites.

We need rent control and protection.

Thank you for your time.

Next, we have Daniel Kavanaugh.

But before Daniel goes ahead, I just wanted to recognize for the members of the public that we've been joined by Council Member Lewis.

Thank you for being here.

And so, yeah, Daniel goes next.

After Daniel will be Nishan Burns and then Jacob Scheer.

Go ahead, Daniel.

My name is Dan.

I'm an organizer with Socialist Alternative and a renter in First Hill.

And I want to strongly urge all the council members to vote yes on the renters protection bills from Council Member Sawant's office.

Rents in Seattle have risen more than 25% just since January of this year, you know, and people are really feeling the crunch, everyone I know.

So we really need citywide rent control with no corporate loopholes.

I want to thank Council Member Sawant and renter advocates who are bringing forward rent control legislation.

Over 200 working people and union members gathered at Cal Anderson Park on Capitol Hill over the weekend, despite the rain, to rally for Seattle to have rent control.

So we really need strong renter protections.

And most immediately, I really urge Council Members to vote yes on the two bills.

Coming up for a vote from Council Member Sawant, six-month notice for any rent increase which the Renters Commission supports, and also requiring landlords to pay three months rent as an economic eviction assistance to the tenant.

Next we have Nishan Burns followed by Jacob Shapir and then Hannah Svoboda.

Go ahead, Nishan.

Hi, my name is Nashawn Burns.

I'm a renter in District 2. I'm calling in support of the renters' rights legislation proposed by Councilmember Sawant.

I know I went to a powerful rally for rent control organized by our office last weekend where speakers shared the statistic that average rents in Seattle have increased 25.6% since January, where after the initial shock to housing costs caused by the pandemic, corporate landlords have apparently now decided that the recovery is in full swing and they have free reign to price gouge their tenants as much as they want.

Well, that's showing no signs of slowing down, and rent is now substantially higher than before the pandemic ever hit.

At the start of the pandemic, the portion of people who were rent burdened was over 42 percent, and it's only ever gotten worse since then.

So now is not the time to be worrying about burdening the corporate landlords who have profited off of struggling people during the pandemic, or to be cramming loopholes in vital renters' rights protections.

We need to be making things easier on regular working people, and that means passing both these proposals for six-month notice on any rent increase and for economic eviction assistance, and then it means passing real rent control.

Thanks.

Next is Jacob Shear followed by Hannah Svoboda and then Kate Rubin.

Go ahead, Jacob.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

Sorry about that.

Hi, my name is Jacob Shear.

I'm an organizer with Real Change and I'm calling in to urge all council members to vote yes on council member Salon's six months rent increase notice and relocation assistance legislation.

It should be very clear to every council member that we are in a full-fledged crisis and on the precipice of further and utter disaster for thousands of renters here in Seattle.

Recent estimates show that around 60,000 Seattle renters are behind on rent as the local eviction moratorium nears expiration and this number is likely an underestimate.

The COVID pandemic crisis is not over despite what landlords would like us to believe and we need to be taking every possible measure to keep our neighbors in their homes.

Every eviction is an act of violence that we know leads directly to homelessness and Council Member Steinwald's legislation provides urgently needed protections that will keep people in their homes and limit the total power that landlords have over their tenants' well-being and safety.

There are lives on the line if we do not take measures like these immediately.

Please vote yes on Council Member Steinwald's six months rent increase notice and relocation assistance without delay or loopholes.

Thank you.

Next we have Hannah Savoda followed by Kate Rubin and then Kendall Gregory.

Go ahead, Hannah.

Hey, my name is Hannah Svoboda.

I'm a renter in District 3, and I'm calling in to urge City Council to vote yes on the two bills from Councilmember Solan's office, one requiring six months notice for any rent increase, and then the other one requiring landlords to pay economic eviction assistance when they raise rents by 10% or higher.

Since the start of the year, Seattle rents have risen at five times the national average.

Eviction moratoriums are ending, and like Jacob mentioned, the Seattle Times just reported that 60,000 Seattle renters are behind on their rent.

The majority of those people say that they're somewhat or very likely to face eviction in the next two months.

So this and the fact that rents are rising at 25% in Seattle are not isolated facts.

Renters are facing a massive crisis of unaffordable housing.

Meanwhile, corporate landlords are making huge profits.

So we need these basic renter protections to stop this barbaric practice of corporate landlords making a quick buck at the expense of people's lives.

Vote yes today.

No delays.

No watering down.

Thank you.

Kate Rubin followed by Kendall Gregory and then Margo Stewart.

Go ahead Kate.

Good morning.

My name is Kate Rubin.

I'm the executive director of B Seattle and a renter living in District 2. It's common knowledge that wages haven't kept up with rent prices and nearly half of Seattle renters are rent burdened.

Renters are usually required to sign a fixed-term lease that doesn't give any flexibility if their economic situation changes.

Currently, as it stands, landlords are required to give only 60 days' notice for rent increases, most of which come with an additional fee of several hundred dollars per month on top of the rent increase if the tenant isn't willing or able to commit themselves into another fixed term at whatever rate the landlord chooses.

The landlords justify this gouging as income stability, but why are we allowing them to prioritize the stability of their passive income over the stability of the people who actually live and work here?

Extending the increased notice to six months and offering economic eviction assistance will give renters much needed time and flexibility to adjust their budget or find other accommodations that will actually allow them to stay rooted in their communities.

Thank you.

The next speaker on the list, Kendall Gregory, is now showing as not present.

So, Kendall, we will call on your name once you show up as present.

So the next present speaker is Margo Stewart, followed by Jordan Quinn, and then Bruce Becker.

Go ahead, Margo.

Hi, my name is Margo.

I'm a renter living paycheck to paycheck on First Hill, and I'm calling in the support of council members to launch measures to require a six-month notice for any rent increases, relocation assistance, as well as the legislation being brought forward for rent control.

I spent last month couch surfing because I had to move out of my old apartment suddenly, and that meant having to rapidly find a new place I could afford an expensive and competitive housing market while still working full-time and not having a consistent place to stay.

You know, aside from just the humiliation of it all.

And I was lucky enough to have friends to stay with, which is a luxury many don't have.

So if tenants have to deal with increased rent, you know, they need at least six months notice so they can make necessary arrangements to move if they need to.

And if tenants are going to be economically evicted by landlords price gouging and substantially raising rent, those landlords should need to pay three months rent of relocation existence.

And these are measures we urgently need now with the end of the eviction moratorium creeping up and with no watering down and no loopholes.

But the only way we can guarantee actual housing stability that we need is strong universal rent control.

So I was happy to be at a part of the rally this weekend with over 200 renters and union members in the rain.

We have Jordan Quinn next, and the next person who's on the list, Hafida Akwe, sorry if I'm not saying your name right, is not showing his presence.

Hafida, if you want to You know, make sure you're calling from the correct phone number and you can show up as present.

I will call on you.

So next we have Jordan Quinn and then Bruce Becker and Emily MacArthur.

Go ahead, Jordan.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yeah.

Great.

Hi, my name is Jordan.

I'm a renter in District 2 and I'm calling to urge the council or committee to vote yes on Council Member Sean Masao's legislation that would make landlords pay for relocation assistance if they raise rent 10% or more, as well as legislation requiring landlords to provide six-month notice for any rent increases.

As an activist with Socialist Alternative fighting for rent control, I've talked to hundreds of renters in recent months who told me that their landlords jacked up their rent by $300, $400, sometimes even $500 this year alone with absolutely no willingness to budget and negotiate.

They've had to move to Kent federal way other places in king county even outside of the county and i've heard similarly from striking rank and file carpenters who attended the rent control rally last saturday that they live out there too because they can't afford to live in the city they build passing economic eviction relocation assistance will make it easier for working-class renters to live in the city that we work in and disincentive we have bruce becker followed by emily macarthur and then barbara finney go ahead bruce

Hello, my name is Bruce Becker.

I'm a small landlord here in Seattle and I'm opposed to both of these and I encourage the committee and the council to vote against them.

It's just very clear that having landlords provide relocation assistance to the two and three months rent, you've got one landlord basically paying another landlord for the rent of a tenant.

The tenant has already paid the last month's rent, who's leaving, and so it doesn't pay again now.

It's already paid for, and then the tenant gets the deposit back to cover the new damage deposit.

And so it just makes no sense to have one landlord paying rent for a tenant to another landlord, to the new landlord.

It's not needs-based.

You've got sometimes wealthy tenants dealing with small landlords who have low incomes.

Thank you.

Emily MacArthur is next, followed by Barbara Fenney and then Matthew Wilder.

Go ahead, Emily.

Hi, my name's Emily MacArthur.

I'm a renter in District 3. I, too, stood proudly in the rain with 200 community members on Saturday, and I can't stop thinking about a speaker who bravely shared how she escaped homelessness, got her son back, got a job, and has stability, only to have her life rocked by a 25% rent increase on her apartment.

For that family and so many more, council members who want six months notice for rent increases, which the renters commission supports, would be an absolute lifeline, as would the relocation assistance, which the previous speaker, I think, incorrectly spoke against in terms of, I've never known anyone who got their deposit fully back, even if they've had their apartment professionally cleaned.

But this speaker on Saturday heard thousands of renters also need rent control urgently to stop this people being pushed out of the city, where they desperately need to be housed.

If Seattle thinks of itself as a progressive city, we should pass rent control now, as well as put yes on the six months and the relocation assistance being put forward by Council Member Seward.

Barbara Finney is next, followed by Matthew Wilder, and then Madeline Olson.

Go ahead, Barbara.

Hi, my name is Barbara Finney, and both the union I belong to, AFGE 3197, and the 32nd LD Dems, have already endorsed the rent control campaign from council members who want office.

Council committee members, I'm asking you to vote yes on six months notice for any rent increase and economic eviction assistance.

No loopholes, no delays.

We need regulation in the common interest like this in Seattle.

The majority of people in Seattle are renters.

The well-being of renters is completely connected to the well-being of our neighborhoods and communities.

support council members to want legislation and vote yes on six months notice for any rent increase and economic eviction assistance, no loopholes, no delays.

Thank you.

Matthew Wilder followed by Madeline Olson.

And then the next speaker who's listed here, Michael Malini showing is not present.

So unless Michael shows up in time, then after Madeline will be Karen Taylor.

Go ahead, Matthew Wilder.

Hey there, my name is Matt.

I'm a renter in District 3 calling in support of Council Member Swantz to renter protection bills.

As other folks have mentioned, rents have gone up 25% this year, over 25% this year, and over, yeah, over 200 people gathered in a fight for rent control at a rally organized by Council Member Swantz's office over the weekend despite the rain.

Most of the tenants who are facing eviction are not Wealthy, as a previous speaker said, these are working class people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck.

And when corporate landlords evict, they're making a choice to protect their profits at the price of working people.

And this is what's creating the housing crisis in this city.

And so there's no excuse for landlords not to give six-month notice for rental increases and for a city experiencing such a serious housing crisis.

It's not only immoral, but illogical not to require landlords to pay relocation assistance.

And ultimately, we need to fight for rent control with no loopholes.

Thanks so much.

Madeline Olson is next, followed by Karen Taylor and then Meg Gallagher.

Go ahead, Madeline.

Hello, can everyone hear me?

Yes.

Hi, my name's Madeline.

I'm a renter in Green Lake neighborhood.

Yeah, just calling in support of Council Member Sawant's legislation.

I really think that the concept that it's onerous to require advance notice on rent is absolutely ridiculous.

I think As many have said, the stability that provides for the renter as well as the landlord is great, I think.

You know, if you're a genuine landlord, you know, you're not trying to evict your tenant, unless you are, in which case, why would we allow that as a society?

But I would also just like to kind of poke a hole here in this mythical, very wealthy renter that magically decides that they can't afford the rent and therefore needs assistance.

Renters don't want to be evicted.

People don't want to leave their homes for arbitrary reasons for not affording it.

If folks can't afford to move, they should absolutely be provided the assistance by the landlord jacking up the rent.

Thank you.

Next is Karen Taylor, followed by Meg Gallagher, and then Josh Smith.

Go ahead, Karen.

Hi there.

My name is Karen Taylor.

I'm a renter.

I'm just calling because I'm terrified for like four months a year about what's going to happen.

I'm on a fixed-term lease.

And I'm really glad we closed the loophole so that I'll have to be offered the ability to sign the lease first, but I don't know what the rent's going to be like.

And I don't want to be terrified four months a year and looking for places that I may or may not need.

And part of the reason I'm terrified is because I would have no money to relocate anywhere for sure.

And so I think six months is a fair amount of notice.

And I do think that helping folks like me would just have to have their stuff put out on the street, you know, hire movers or whatever would be really great.

And I don't care if it's on or if it's on the landlord.

We have, sorry, Meg Gallagher is now showing as not present.

So we'll come back to you, Meg, if you show up again.

So next we have Josh Smith.

And then the next speaker after Josh, Jim Henderson, is also showing as not present.

So we'll go to the next person who's showing as present, who's Kil Freitas.

Sorry if I'm not saying your name right.

So we have Josh Smith and then Kil Freitas.

Go ahead, Josh.

Josh, you are still muted and need to hit star six to unmute.

Hello, my name is Josh.

I'm sorry about that.

I am part of Seattle's LGBTQ plus community and I am asking you to vote yes on six months notice for any rent increase and yes on economic eviction assistance.

From January to August alone, corporate landlords have bloated Seattle rents by a staggering 25.6%.

Now, I don't know about you, but I certainly did not get a raise to match that.

And the data shows that my fellow Seattleites didn't either.

Over 60,000 Seattle renters are behind on rent, and 64% of these renters are facing eviction in a matter of days.

This disproportionately affects the LGBTQ plus community, exacerbating the housing crisis we face.

Renters are the majority in Seattle and it is your duty to represent us.

We have sent a clear message and have asked for these protections for a long time.

We demand that you pass this legislation immediately and without watering it down.

Thank you.

The next person who's present is Kill Freitas, followed by Kathy Sims and Tamar Wilson.

And Donald Doty is showing is not present.

So Donald, if you can hear me, so just make sure you're calling from the correct phone number.

So go ahead, Kill or Quill, I'm sorry.

Hello, my name is Quill Freitas.

I'm in district two and I live in emergency supportive housing and want to voice my approval for passing one a minimum 180 days written notice and relocation assistance to economically displaced tenants.

It's especially important because I don't believe just from my personal experience that the emergency supportive housing is equipped to deal with the onslaught of renters that are facing evictions and especially at this time and this emergency bill would help especially in this moment to keep things from getting worse in a logical manner, it's important that we do not displace more tenants at this time.

Of course, I want to add that the fear of being a tenant should default in Seattle.

Thank you.

We have Kathy Sims followed by Tamar Wilson and then Laura Lowe.

Go ahead, Kathy.

Hello my name is Kathy Sims.

I'm a renter in District 2. I'm here today to urge City Council to vote yes on rental protections brought forth by Council Member Swat and underscore the importance of these protections for Seattle renters.

City Council must protect families and low income renters by mandating landlords to give six months notice for all rent increases and provide economic relocation assistance.

The cost of moving is crushing for rent burdened people living paycheck to paycheck which can often amount to three to four months of their of their income.

Renters are being displaced.

City Council must act to stop this displacement which disproportionately impacts renters of color and families with children.

Sixty thousand renters are behind on rent.

Act now to protect Seattle's renters who are the majority of Seattle's residents.

Demar Wilson, followed by Laura Lowe, and then Liam Easton Calabria.

Go ahead, Demar.

Demar, you are muted and should hit star six.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hello, are you listening?

All right.

Thank you.

Hello council members.

My name is Tamar Wilson and I am a renter in District 2. I'm also a Black Lives Matter organizer and a proud member of social alternative.

I just want to talk about in support of council members the law on drinks legislation.

Code and back that is due to Seattle's history of racist redlining practices.

homeowners were systemically disenfranchised, strictly disenfranchised from actually attaining and now through the middle of January, the eviction crisis that is nearing its cliff and thank you to Council Member Sawant for extending it in Seattle, extending the eviction moratorium.

Now that that is about to end, they are going to be disproportionately affected.

So I am calling on all Council Members to vote yes on her legislation as well as yes for six months notice and yes for eviction since we need it now more than ever to be here.

Laura Lowe is next followed by Liam Easton Calabria and then Eric Baker you're showing as not present Eric if you can hear me make sure you're calling in the right number and then after that is Sonia Ponat so go ahead Laura Lowe.

Hi, my name is Laura.

I'm a renter in Northwest Queen Anne, but I'm calling today on behalf of Share the City's Action Fund.

We have about 7,000 followers on Twitter, many renters, as well as 150 folks in our Slack group.

We are in favor of both the six-month notice for rent increase and in favor of the economic eviction protections.

We are very concerned that renters are losing hope in government.

Governor Inslee and the state legislature do so little for renters that our cities are stuck making our own policies.

We obviously need statewide rent stabilization.

In the meantime please give the renters of Seattle hope.

We need to prioritize them land where they're running a business but housing is like health care and unpredictability of renting has become a public and mental health crisis.

We need stability.

We especially encourage Council Member Lewis to continue being a champion for renters and being a very important vote for renters.

Thank you.

Liam Easton Calabria followed by Sonia Fonat and then Gabriel Mahan.

Go ahead, Liam.

Hi there.

My name is Liam Easton Calabria.

I'm a renter in District 4. I want to support the bills put forward by Councilman Sawant's office for eviction relocation assistance and to force landlords to give a six-month notice on rent increases.

I think the question we need to ask ourselves is who do we want to pay for the homelessness crisis, working people or their landlords?

When people are economically evicted, where do they go?

I've worked as an EMT in an emergency room for the last two years, and I've learned that ERs are used as proxies for housing when homeless shelters are full.

People understandably seek hospital beds instead of sleeping on the streets.

And as many have said, thousands are at risk of eviction in the coming months, and surely ERs and shelters will see massive increases in visits.

And what does this mean?

This means that the brutality of economic evictions also increase the burden on an already stressed healthcare system.

And each and every one of these visits is usually paid for by our tax dollars through Medicaid.

So the working class and the public at large should not pay for the housing crisis with our tax dollars.

Landlords need to pay for eviction relocation assistance

Sonia Ponath, followed by Gabriel Mahan, and then Marilyn Yim is our last speaker who is present.

Let me just, Sonia, before you go ahead, let me just read out the names of the speakers who are showing as not present so that they can correct it if they want to.

Kendall Gregory, Afida Akwe, Michael Malini, Meg Gallagher, Jim Henderson, and Donald Doty and Eric Baker.

Sorry one more Sylvia Schweinberger.

So you're all people who are not we're showing that is not not present.

So make sure you're calling the same number that you used to sign up for public comment.

Go ahead Sonia.

Hi I'm Sonia Ponath.

I'm a working mom in District 3 and a landlord myself.

I do support rent control and these two bills coming up for a vote.

It was tremendously encouraging to see so many turn out for rent control rally in the rain.

I mean, building a movement is the only way we're going to win these things.

And rents have risen now more than 25%, and 60,000 Seattle-era renters are behind on rent.

But income isn't rising.

In fact, because of COVID, people have limited ability to work.

So the eviction moratorium really must be extended as well, and I urge other council members to join in and ask the mayor and governor to extend it.

I also support six months rent notice for any rent increase because as a landlord I have a pretty good idea what my needs are and I can communicate that to renters.

I also support the eviction assistance.

It's pretty rare that an actual small landlord is going to hike rents up so high.

So this means corporate landlords are going to be responsible and pay these three months rent.

I'm a tech worker and renter in District 3 calling in support of Councilmember Siwan's bills on rental protections.

I live in an apartment complex in the CD, and earlier this year, our complex, which houses over 100 people and everyday jobs like teachers, social workers, administrative jobs, etc., was bought out by another rental corporation.

And, you know, lots of residents got livable rents when they signed the lease during the pandemic.

And now my neighbors are scared, not just that the rent is going to increase dramatically, but we're terrified of the uncertainty of not knowing how much our rent is going to go up.

You know, two months is not nearly enough time to plan for what could be a dramatic uprooting of our lives.

And while we really need rent control and the stability that comes with it, at the very least, we could get a decent heads up, you know, and if we're priced out, get some help and relocate.

I understand that costs rise, but there is absolutely no reason that our corporate landlords can't give us a reasonable heads up.

I urge council members to vote yes to both bills.

My neighbors deserve nothing less.

Next is Marilyn Yim, followed by Eric Baker, who is now showing his present.

Go ahead, Marilyn.

Hi there.

Seattle lost 5,000 rental homes in the last year.

That's 16% of the rental stock, mostly owned by small mom-and-pop housing providers.

Six months notice means that rent can't be tied to real costs because it's hard to predict what the cost will be six months from now.

But I really wanted to talk about the relocation legislation.

It is not based on need, despite what you're hearing.

The legislation does not include income or affordability requirements.

The payment is unlimited, whereas the current program, the payment is capped at $2,000.

In council's example, it showed a payment of five times that.

It was $10,000 cash payment with only seven days notice.

No small mom-and-pop housing provider could come up with that which is why they are fleeing Seattle.

With the loss of affordable family sized housing renters in this city will lose.

Housing providers include union members and working people just like myself but we've been shut out of this entire legislative process and that cannot make you feel good about voting on this.

Please you must vote no on these ordinances.

Thank you.

Eric Baker go ahead.

Restar 6 to unmute yourself.

Hello, my name is Eric Baker.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, sorry.

I'm calling in opposition to both of these ordinances.

I'm a small landlord in a central district, District 3. And I'm concerned that our costs, it's going to have unintended consequences for small landlords like myself.

We have one house.

We're not a corporate landlord.

If I have to raise, if I, say, have a tenant who gets evicted or leaves because of a 10% raise, that's going to take me two and a half years to earn back that money at that 10% raise.

It's going to cost us a significant amount of money, and we're not a big corporation.

I'm also concerned with the 180 days for any amount of raise.

We typically don't raise our rents between tenants.

We have short-term, long-term renters, but typically we won't raise it 10%.

But we may raise it five.

And if we have to wait six months to offset our cost increases, that would be hard for us.

So I'm urging you to reconsider both of these ordinances.

Thank you very much.

So all the speakers who were showing us present have spoken and the rest who didn't speak are showing as not present.

So because we've reached the end of the list, I will close the public comment now and apologize for those who were not able to speak and thank those who did.

we will go to our first item on the agenda, which is the bill increasing the notice required for rent increases for six months from the current situation, which is two months notice that is required.

I will read the bill into the record first.

Council Bill 119585, an ordinance relating to residential rental properties.

requiring a minimum of 180 days prior written notice to renters or tenants whenever the housing costs to be charged a tenant are to increase and amending section 7.24.030 and 22.202.020 and 22.206.180 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

This legislation is straightforward and we have discussed in committee over the last several months, but Asha Venkatraman from the city council center staff is here again to answer any questions council members may have.

And I, as always, I thank you, Asha, for your technical support and for being at the committee, you know, in sort of many committee meetings.

So I will open the floor for council members to ask their questions or make comments.

Go ahead, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Sawant.

And thank you, Asha, and our central staff for your work on these two bills.

Colleagues, I know our council rules allow us to walk on amendments to bills.

I know it's ideal to give everybody as much notice as possible.

I was not able to do that in this case.

So we did circulate it via email, the two amendments.

But I wanted to walk, I wanted to, There's one amendment on this bill and then one amendment on the other.

So I wanted to, I don't have questions on this.

Well, actually I do have one question, I'm sorry.

The notice, the 60 days notice, that's the current notice provision, it was changed by state law.

Was that in 2019 or, okay, in 2019. Before that it was, what, 14 days or?

So before the 2019, oh, sorry, Asha Venkatraman, Council Central staff, for 2019, the requirement was 30 days notice for any rent increase, and then the Seattle City Law had 60 days notice for any rent increase over 10%.

But then in 2019, everything became aligned, both state and city law, to provide 60 day notice for any rent increase.

Thank you for that context.

And Chair Sawant, I can either step aside so others can ask questions or I can try to move my amendment.

Maybe just, let me just check, go around the table, so to say, and see if Council Members have any comments or questions before we go to amendments.

Go ahead, Council Member Morales.

Yeah, I like your new glasses, Asha.

Very nice.

So I don't really have questions, but I, in general, support the idea of extending the notification.

Just because I do think as somebody who was renting until fairly recently, I know that it is stressful to try to think about how you're going to find a new place to live, taking the time to find something that's affordable, organizing your packing, perhaps hiring help, figuring out how you're going to pay for security deposits and application fees and all of that, and that all takes time and resources and money.

And so to me, it makes sense to give folks as much notice as possible.

And I do think, you know, especially if you've got kids trying to figure out where you're going to put your kids in school, there's just a lot that goes into having to move.

And so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to have tenants have that, as much stability and protection as possible, to be able to make the plans that are needed, to get themselves stabilized in the new place where they're going.

So I don't have any questions.

I'm curious to hear about your amendments, Council Member Peterson.

But at this point, I think this is something that makes a lot of sense.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Lewis and Juarez, I'm not seeing your hands go up.

I don't have any questions, Madam Chair.

OK, thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Juarez, go ahead.

I just had a point of order.

So I know that Council Member, or maybe Council Member Peterson, I was going to, I understand that you're walking on one and you've already, or you're walking on both amendments.

Are you just walking down the one, Council Bill 119-585?

Yes, one amendment for this bill and then a different amendment for the second bill.

The one ending in 173?

Yeah, this bill before us now, I believe it's ending in 585 for the six month notice, and then we'll go to item two.

We switched the order of the items on the agenda today.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I did not know you switched.

Sorry.

I was confused.

What are you doing?

OK.

That's my fault.

I'm sorry.

I wasn't tracking.

OK.

I was ready to second that.

So whenever you're ready, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Asha, you're trying to say something.

Just to clarify, there are two amendments to Council Bill 119-585.

The first is the technical amendment that Council Member Sollins mentioned earlier, and that's in the form of the proposed substitute that's on the agenda.

And then amendment two is Council Member Peterson's amendment.

Right, so am I okay?

Okay, so just in terms of process, I do need to move the bill formally before the amendments can be considered formally, but Council Member Peterson, go ahead and describe your amendment and then we'll do the process aspects.

Thank you, Chair Sawant.

Colleagues, the amendment that was circulated by email this morning to you would, this is the bill that is the notification period of six months, what my amendment would do would exempt small landlords who own fewer than five units in Seattle.

And I can talk about that further later.

Unless you want me to go ahead and pitch it now, or if you just wanted a quick description, that was the quick description.

Okay, and Asha, were you trying to say something?

And share my screen if you want to see the amendment language now or we can do it when you want to do the vote, whichever let's do.

Yeah, let's do it in a second.

And let me just go ahead and do this motion.

I move Council Bill 119585 for a vote.

Second.

Thank you.

So the bill has been moved and seconded.

Now we can consider amendments formally.

And actually, before that, I have to move the substitute.

Am I right, Ted?

Yes.

Sorry, Ted Verdone, Council Member Salas' office.

For simplicity, I would recommend moving the substitute, voting on the substitution since it's technical, and then there will be kind of a amended based in front of the committee to consider Council Member Peterson's amendment after that.

Okay.

So we have a second for the bill itself.

I will now move the proposed substitute as shown on the agenda.

Do I have a second?

Second.

As I said, this technical substitute does not make any substantive change.

So is there any discussion on the substitute?

Seeing no request for discussion or any further comments, Ted, please call the roll on the substitution.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Five in paper.

Thank you.

So now we have the amended bill with the technical adjustments in front of us.

We can now consider amendments.

Go ahead, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Solan.

Colleagues, I'd like to move my amendment, which is Amendment 2, which is what was circulated this morning to exempt small landlords.

So it's just a motion to discuss.

Second.

The amendment has been moved and seconded.

Are there any council members who want to speak to it?

Or Council Member Peterson, if you want to first make more comments.

Thank you, Chair Sawant.

Colleagues, I appreciate the intent of this bill, and I agree with a lot of what Council Member Morales was saying earlier.

And a theme of our response to the COVID pandemic has been to boost rental assistance for those in need.

We've also adopted several renter's rights bills during the past two years.

including the winter ban on evictions, which I supported.

I have heard from many small landlords that the influx of multiple changes to the landlord rental regulations have created confusion and discourages many of them from continuing to provide rental housing in our city.

Currently, there's a 60-day notice requirement.

And I support expanding this notice period as written in the proposed legislation for the larger corporate landlords.

But my amendment would exempt small landlords who own fewer than five units in Seattle.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have the amendment and the description.

Are there any council members who want to speak to it?

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

I appreciate what Council Member Peterson is trying to do, but I think, you know, First of all, I think it's important just to acknowledge, as we all have, that there is a crisis right now with people getting pushed out, with increased homelessness, and we certainly don't want to be contributing to that.

I think a broader context is also that we understand that landlords are having trouble paying mortgages right now.

Everybody is in a crisis.

The difference is that if a landlord is falling behind or if their return on investment is less than they would prefer, they have the option, drastic though it may be, to sell their property.

Whereas a renter, if they fall behind on their rent, they get evicted.

And so I do think that there's a really important distinction between the degree to which folks are at risk here.

This bill doesn't prevent landlords from raising the rent.

It just asks them to give a couple more months notice to folks.

And I think that whether you live in a small apartment building or a large apartment building, that need for protection is the same.

So I understand that there's some concern, but I think all of the small landlords that we heard from today said to themselves, they would never raise the rent more than 10%.

And so the issue is really just asking to give a little bit more notice so that folks have the ability to make a plan and decide whether they're gonna be able to afford that rent increase or if they have to begin the process of moving out.

So this amendment is not something that I can support.

Thank you.

Sorry, sorry, I was muted.

Is that what you were trying to say, Asha?

So I have, so I was just thanking Council Member Morales for her comments.

I do have my own comments, but I wanted to see if other committee members wanted to have an opportunity to speak to this amendment first.

I'm not seeing any, just to be clear this, just to make sure that my points are accurate, Arshad, this is an amendment that would exempt landlords with fewer than four units.

Is that accurate?

With four or fewer units.

Four or fewer units, sorry.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say, four or fewer units.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I don't see any other council members trying to speak, so I will go ahead and make my own points.

In my view, this amendment, even if it is well, it may be well-intentioned.

I mean, I have my own questions, as I've said many times before in this committee and city council meetings.

question of small landlords is often really fraught because it is not easy to figure out who is a small landlord, which is the most important problem with this kind of amendment.

We saw these discussions happen at the King County Council as well in renters' rights discussions just before the summer break.

amendments to exclude landlords with four or fewer or something like that, with the idea that it would exempt small landlords.

Actually, the effect of it is arbitrary and it will, and data from throughout the country shows that it will just be used by corporate landlords to exempt themselves from crucial renter protections by dividing the units they own into many LLCs.

I mean, this is a very common thing.

We see slumlords doing this all the time.

The corporate landlord lobby Of course, we'll endlessly use small landlords as a shield against basic rental protections, but it is precisely those corporate landlords who have the legal means, you know, they have batteries of attorneys, they have the cash on hand to do all this kind of paperwork to to try sort of to try to fly under the radar of laws if these kinds of exemptions are made.

And as Morales and many public comments said, for renter protections to be the most effective, which they need to be now, because renters are reeling in an unprecedented crisis, they need to be as consistent as possible.

And most renters, and this is absolute reality, the vast majority of renters are not going to know how many units their landlord owns, and it is not It is not fair or correct for the City Council to put that burden on a given renter, an ordinary person, a barista at Starbucks.

How are they going to figure out how many units their landlord has?

And so even in the most benign case scenario, this amendment would just make the bill more complicated, aside from, I think, the actual problems that exist with it.

So I will be voting no on this amendment.

Council Member Juarez, you're off mute.

Were you trying to speak?

Yeah, I was talking to myself.

I'm sorry you heard me what I was saying.

I was listening to what you're saying, Madam Chair.

And, you know, I do think we have to be a bit reasonable.

And I'm going to support this amendment and only because it is about four or fewer rental units.

And, you know, I understand, obviously, we all do what we're going through with renters and the moratorium.

that's going to end and what the renters are going to have to deal with.

We know that we are, you know, we still have to deal with rent control and what that means for the city and the state.

Um, I don't, I don't think it's fair to say to somebody who owns property, who pays the mortgage, who owns four rental units while they can just sell it.

Um, it's not that easy.

And people who own this kind of property have to make those mortgage payments.

And that's, that's hard for them too.

So, I don't want to make this a us or them corporate landlord versus small landlord versus, you know, I kind of get tired of that after a while.

So, I guess my comment is, I will be voting yes on this because I think it's reasonable.

I think we can always revisit it.

And at some point counselor, so on, I still want to engage and discuss with you.

how we can actually have a really good discussion and come to some good conclusion about rent control.

And you and I have talked about that offline a few times.

And I look forward to those conversations, but I will be voting and supporting this amendment because I think it's reasonable.

So thank you.

And I will put myself on mute so you'll quit hearing me mumble.

Thank you.

I'm always open, as you know, for any kind of conversation about any of these really crucial political issues.

So please let me know when you would like to talk about rent control.

I do believe that this bill as drafted is absolutely reasonable because the crisis is falling, the brunt of the crisis is falling on renters.

Absolutely, we need to support small landlords, but if you look at the landlords who are increasing the rents, it is not the small landlords.

So this bill is meant to protect the vast majority of tenants of corporate landlords, which is, I mean, again, you have to go by statistics and data, and as a matter of fact, the bill is meant to protect those tenants.

It will not affect small landlords who don't, who don't really, you know, make a practice of gratuitously increasing rents, which is what you see from big real estate companies.

Look at the real estate increases.

They are coming from corporations like Goodman Real Estate, from Essex Corporation, from Konam.

You know, these are examples of corporate landlords, property management corporations.

And then you have, of course, a really bad landlord with very bad track records like Carl Hagelin, who really exploit low-income renters.

So that is why I will be opposing the amendment.

But I do want to give Council Member Peterson, who is the sponsor of this amendment, the last word on this before we go for a vote.

Thank you, Chair Sawant.

I appreciate everybody's comments on this amendment.

I did want to clarify one thing is that I'm not proposing the same amendment for the next bill, which is for the large rent increases, because I agree that the smaller landlords tend to not do that.

I did want to clarify also with this bill extending it to six months.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

I just, thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that.

And so all the more reason to support this amendment, I hope for some of you, so that small landlords are exempted and they're not disincentivized from keeping their housing in the rental housing market, because we do want this additional supply.

But thank you Chair Sawant for giving me the space to pitch my amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I've not seen any other amendments come for this bill.

So if I don't hear any comments, I will move, I will call the question.

I don't see any comments so far.

So I will call, I will ask the clerk to call the roll on council bill 119585. The bill has already been moved and seconded.

I'm sorry.

I'm so sorry.

I'm losing track.

This is the vote on the amendment.

So, Ted, please call the roll on the amendment.

Councilmember Sawant?

No.

Councilmember Morales?

No.

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Councilmember Juarez?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis?

No.

Two in favor, three against.

that the amendment does not pass.

Thank you, Ted, for that.

And I apologize for the confusion.

Now I should say what I was saying earlier, which is I haven't seen any other amendments.

Asha, am I right about that?

Okay, having seen no other amendments and I don't have any points really to add to the discussion because we've discussed this many times.

I don't see council members raising their Zoom hand or their actual hand to speak up.

So, sorry, I didn't mean to be funny.

So I will now ask Ted to please call the roll on Council Bill 119585. Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Council Member Juarez.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Four in favor, one abstaining, which is not a divided report because it is abstaining.

Thank you for reminding us of that, Ted, and thank you, Council Members, for the discussion and the vote.

So this bill moves to the city council for a city council vote.

Am I right on this coming Monday, the 27th?

Can you clarify?

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is The economic displacement relocation assistance ordinance to mitigate the harm done by economic evictions.

I will first read the bill into the record.

Council Bill 120173, an ordinance relating to relocation assistance for economically displaced tenants requiring the payment of economic displacement relocation assistance to households.

that are vacating a housing unit after receiving notice of a rent increase of 10% or more, or of less than 10%, where the cumulative effect is an annual increase of 10% or more, and adding a new chapter, 22.212, to the Seattle Municipal Code.

My office started to prepare this legislation several years ago actually, because the rental crisis has been many years in the making now.

It has only gotten worse.

And the bill has been discussed in this committee for the past several months.

The City of Seattle's Renters Commission also voted to endorse this bill, and many organizations, community organizations, and also labor union members have spoken in this committee in support of this.

City Council Central staff and the city attorney's office have also revised it.

And we have incorporated the suggestions from the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection, who are also excited to administer it.

Asha Venkatraman, who's been here in our committee today from City Council Central Staff, has provided a detailed memo which has been attached to this agenda.

And she will walk through a presentation giving a detailed description of the policy.

After Asha presents, committee members will have an opportunity to discuss and vote on the legislation.

So Asha, I don't know if you introduced yourself for the record, but either way, go ahead and begin, please.

Asha Venkatraman, Council Central staff.

Give me just a moment.

I'll share my screen so you can see the presentation.

Okay.

So we are discussing, as Council Member Solon mentioned, Council Bill 120173 about economic displacement relocation assistance.

The intent of the bill is to provide relocation assistance when there is a rent increase of 10% or more and the tenant decides to relocate to find another unit.

So I'll take us through some of the details of the bill and then move through some of the process and then the fiscal and the staffing impacts.

In terms of tenants who are eligible, are looking at households who have received their 60 day or now it will be 180 day notice of rent increase.

And that rent increase is 10% or more.

And they've either vacated the property or provided notice to the landlord that they plan to vacate the property.

Upon application, the household has to meet all of the deadlines that are included in this bill in order to remain eligible for the relocation assistance program.

I'll get into those as we continue.

Households are required to designate a household member as their household representative.

So that's the person that's going to be representing the entire household when applying for assistance, and assuming that the application is approved by the Seattle Department of Constructions and Inspections, also the person that will be given the entitlement, the assistance itself.

The household representative can only represent one household at a time, and households can only have one household representative.

The reason for designating the household representative is because for households with multiple members, it can get confusing in terms of who is doing the application.

And the city doesn't necessarily want to be in the role of deciding which household members get how much of the relocation assistance.

So the household representative will be the one to the extent that there's a need for dividing up the relocation assistance payment within a household doing that work.

We had to provide a variety of definitions in the bill because of the complex nature of administering the program.

And so there's a definition of households that consists of both family households as well as non-family households.

And a combination of those types of households can encompass one overall household.

So as you'll see, the definition of family household includes a definition of family unit, which includes a variety of related persons.

So parents, spouses, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, children, and all of the same relationships for individuals that are in a city or state registered domestic partnership.

And then a non-family household covers anyone that is not a member of a family household or someone that's just living alone.

We also included a few definitions about what we are discussing when we say the term required rent increase notice, because this bill covers both a rent increase notice above 10% when it comes in one month.

one large increase as well as the rent increase notices that accumulate to get us to a 10% increase.

That last rent increase notices that might put the 10% over the edge just is termed a little bit differently.

So it's very clear how the first large increase and then that last increase that is putting you over 10% are designated.

And so those definitions are described in the bill as well.

So for the notices, for the notice increases, excuse me, for the rent increase notices that are for less than 10%, when in combination with all of the other rent increases that are happening within either the 12 months prior to the rent increase, or the term of the tenancy, whichever one is shorter, where that results in a cumulative rent increase of 10% or more.

So when the household representative is applying for relocation assistance, they are required to provide.

a few things so that SDCI has all the information they need.

So they are required to submit an affidavit that identifies their date of vacation or a copy of the notice of vacation if they have not yet vacated, a copy of the current rental agreement or their housing costs for either the past 12 months or the term of their tenancy, again, whichever is shorter, documentation of the rent increase.

And so if they have the notice of the rent increase, they can submit that.

That's the type of proof that would work.

as well as the number of family and non-family households that are in the housing unit and everyone that's living in the unit.

In terms of the amount of relocation assistance, the SCCI will be making the determination of how much relocation assistance is owed to the household representative and thus how much the owner is required to pay.

But the calculation that they'll be using is detailed in the legislation.

So they will look at the average monthly housing costs for the 12 months previous or the period of the tenancy, and then take the number of households living in the unit and divide those average monthly costs by that number of households.

And that would result in the average monthly costs per household.

At that point, they'd multiply that number by three, and that is the amount owed to each household.

And so as an example, if we're looking at a rental unit that's paying $3,600 a month with two households, that the average monthly housing costs for each household is $1,800.

1,800 times three is 5,400.

And assuming that both households have applied for and are eligible for relocation assistance, each household would get $5,400, which is a total of $10,600 that the landlord would have to pay to that unit.

slide basically takes us through the process that the tenant and landlord go through when applying for assistance, what STCI does, and then the payment itself.

So you'll see in the upper left-hand corner in the initiating actions third of the slide, the tenant gets the notice of the rent increase.

And then the tenant at that point decides if they're going to move or if they're going to stay.

And if they're going to move, then they notify the landlord that they are intending to vacate, or they actually leave the unit itself before the rent increase takes effect.

At that point, sometime during that period of time, they submit the application for relocation assistance.

You'll see below that step number three, that they are also able to apply for an extension if it turns out that they need more than the allotted amount of time.

And I'll get into the timing piece on the next slide.

So they can apply for an extension as long as they have good cause for applying and they've applied during the original application period.

SDCI will grant the extension and then they would submit their application before the end of that extended time.

SECI will then take a look at the application.

If there's no need for additional information and the household representative doesn't require an extension, then we move on to step number five.

Either way, really, you move on to step number five.

The SECI is required to notify the landlord that there's been an application.

If it turns out that the SDCI doesn't have all the information that they need and they request more information from the household representative, if the household representative doesn't require additional time, then they would just provide the additional information within 30 days.

If they do require more information, then in the same way that they would request an extension of the original application, they would request an extension to submit that additional information within that original 30-day period.

And as long as SDCI found good cause, they would grant that extension.

And so at that point, the household representative would submit the additional information, and then SDCI would have a complete application to review.

Looking at step number six, once SDCI has reviewed the application, they will notify the household representative and the landlord of the decision.

And assuming that decision is that the household representative is entitled to relocation assistance, they would notify the household representative and the landlord about how much relocation assistance is required.

At that point, the SDCI would pay the household representative that amount of relocation assistance, and the landlord would pay SDCI the amount required in the notice.

I'll just note here the legislation is intentionally drafted to require SDCI to pay the household representative even if the landlord doesn't pay on time, doesn't pay at all, decides to appeal.

The requirement is for SDCI to make that payment.

getting the payment from the landlord would take a separate parallel track.

But regardless, the household representative would be paid in the appropriate timeline, which I will get into now.

So you'll see each step of the process on the event column and the numbers are the same as what is in the flowchart above or in the previous slide.

And what this slide shows is the legal timeframes required for each of the steps here.

I won't go through each of them, but they are they are described in the slide and in this next slide.

What I've done is created a sort of example timeline for how long the process could take and so in.

this in this table you'll see the shorter timeline so if for example a landlord notified tenant of the rent increase and the tenant decides that day that they are going to vacate and gives the landlord a notice of vacation and they decide the same day that they're going to apply for relocation assistance that all happens the first day and then based on the timelines in the bill, and assuming that the household representative is actually entitled to relocation assistance, they could get payment within two weeks.

If you take a slightly longer timeline, so looking at something that's probably a little more typical, a little more average, the landlord would notify the tenant on the first day of the rent increase.

The tenant would then notify the landlord, let's say within the next month, so in the next 30 days of their intent to vacate or actually vacate, and then they would submit the application within 60 days instead of taking the full 180 days.

And so building in a little more time for SDCI to review the application.

If it turns out that SDCI needs more information and the household representative decides to submit it without an extension, that builds out the timeline so that you're looking at something closer to three and a half months by the time the household representative is able to collect that relocation assistance.

And then as you move into the need for extensions and an even longer timeline, that increases the amount of time that it would take to get relocation assistance.

But I will note that a lot of the built-in increase in time is because of the amount of time that a household representative has to apply for relocation assistance.

So I'll go back to the previous slide.

So if you take a look at step number three, the household representative is able to submit an application 180 days after receiving a rent notice, a rent increase notice, or 60 days after the rent increase takes effect.

And so the time between when the rent increase notice is issued and when the application happens is a lot of that built-in time, because it could be anywhere from three to five months.

for the household representative to be able to apply.

But once the application takes place, that next subsequent period of time is a little bit shorter because those timelines are all a little bit shorter.

So the example timelines that are provided on this slide, you'll see on that last row where step eight is, the amount of time it takes just tends to be longer because the amount of time for the household representative applies.

for the household representative to apply can take a longer time.

But I know that's sort of complicated, so I can pause here if anybody has questions, timeline-related questions.

Madam Chair.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Asha.

I apologize, I was trying to keep up with you.

You're going pretty fast there.

I know that we all know that the state law allows for municipalities to require payment of relocation assistance.

And so I'm wondering when you took us to that slide, all the boxes of how things got paid, And then this one, yeah, how it ended up where SDI, SDCI pays the renter and then the landlord reimburses SDCI.

And then just the procedural timeline you put together.

How does that, did you track that with, and if you didn't, that's okay.

I'm just trying to understand the framework with how the state does that when we do relocation, like we have relocation money for displacement from people in mobile home parks.

Right, and I'm not to tell you truth.

I really don't know how how the money gets exchanged to get reimbursed for relocation.

So I'm wondering if we patterned the city municipality process after the state one, or if or how we came about this process.

So we didn't pattern it exactly the same as the existing relocation assistance program, and a lot of that is because trail itself is a much longer process, and so it takes much more time for the for the.

tenant to get that relocation assistance because the application takes it so you have to apply the landlord has to get a relocation license before they're allowed to do anything they have to give tenants a whole packet of information and then the tenant has to apply provide their income requirements so the process itself is quite a bit longer So some of the intent in this bill was to try to not make it quite so long, was to try and make the requirements simpler and move a little bit faster so that the tenant would be able to get relocation assistance more quickly.

And so the timelines are a little bit different.

And the other thing that's different about TRAO is that the payments are split.

So 50% of the TRAO payments come from the landlord, but 50% comes from the city.

And so some of the procedural pieces when it comes to appeal and administration are the same as TRAO, but this timeline is intended to be quite a bit shorter.

pays a renter because of relocation, and then the landlord has to reimburse SCCI, what is the remedy on our part if the landlord refuses?

Does that go to an administrative law judge or municipal court?

Or your examiner?

Yeah, so first there's the citation and notice of violation provisions that are in this bill.

And so through, so failure to pay what the landlord is required to pay results then in a citation or notice of violation.

And so depending on SDCI's discretion, they can pursue those remedies to get reimbursed for what the landlord actually, Yeah, excuse me, for what the landlord actually owes.

If it goes through a notice of violation, then the city attorney's office then has to file in municipal court to be able to pursue that kind of reimbursement.

Obviously, if the landlord gets the citation or the notice of violation and just decides to pay, then no problem.

But if they don't, then it'll have to go into muni court for the city to be reimbursed.

So am I getting ahead of myself or is there more to your PowerPoint?

for the information that SDCI sent us that it would take them about nine months to set this up and about 1.2 million to actually put it into the cost.

Yes.

Okay, so are we going to get to that?

Okay, I just one quick question if you can and I'll just tell you now then when you get there you can answer it so I don't have to keep interrupting you.

In the 1.2 and I was looking at the spreadsheets, does that include or is there a margin there where the SDCI may just eat some costs where landlords aren't going to pay?

So some of that, sorry go ahead.

No you go ahead, I'm sorry.

So the 1.25 is just for the IT setup.

One of the things that I will get to, but at the moment, assuming that the landlord doesn't pay, and because we're at the beginning of this process, there's no penalties that have been assessed yet, there's no citation amounts that have been assessed yet.

One of the things we'll have to consider during the budget process is how much seed money, how much general fund is going to go into this account to allow SDCI to pay out household representatives when the landlord has not yet paid.

And so eventually, once the program gets started, once you get penalties, once you get citations, there's a little more wiggle room for them to be able to pay it out for some landlords that are just not going to pay and to deal with that time difference between when SDCI is required to pay the household representative and when the landlord eventually will reimburse SDCI.

So some of that is gonna be a discussion of how much SDCI thinks, and we think, the council thinks, needs to go in at the beginning to be able to cover those costs to deal with that cost differential until citations, assuming citations and penalties come in, until those things give SDCI a little bit of buffer.

So, okay, obviously, so obviously the main goal of this policy and this legislation, of course, is then, is just to reimburse or mitigate the impacts of displacement due to rent increase.

And make sure that the renter has money in their pocket to be relocated rather than go through this whole red tape process, trying to get the money directly from the landlord.

So the SDCI acts as the buffer to make sure they can pay up, okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Some of the reason it is structured this way is intentionally because of that power differential between the landlord and the tenant.

So SUCI is intentionally in the middle of the process to ameliorate that.

OK.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Borges for your questions and Asha for the clarifications.

You should go ahead with your presentation soon, but just want to make a quick comment, and I saw Council Member Morales' hand up.

Just wanted to add to everything that Asha said, just to stress that the city already has a lot of infrastructure to collect monies that are owed to the city, and it's not like we're trying to reinvent that whole thing.

to go into effect.

There is some specific process and administering that is involved in enabling this ordinance to go into effect.

I just wanted to add to that.

Go ahead councilmember Morales.

given the way the program is operating now, if there is, if we know how much landlords are, I don't know if arrears is the right way to frame it, but if there is already some idea of how much they are not participating in this program as we have expected.

I don't know that off the top of my head, but I will follow with SDCI to see what current compliance is like for TRAEO.

So that takes us to refunds.

So assuming everything goes smoothly with the payments, everybody moves out like they're supposed to, refunds is not an issue.

But if it turns out that for whatever reason, the household does not vacate the unit when they're supposed to, decides to change their mind and ends up rescinding their notice of vacation, or for whatever reason withdraws their application for assistance, but they've already been paid, then they are required to refund that assistance within 10 days.

In the same way, SCCI is required to refund the landlord the amount of paid within 10 days after SCCI receives the notice that the household did not move out as they were supposed to.

They rescinded the notice of vacation or withdrawal of the application.

And so similar to what we were just discussing in terms of landlords paying, the routes to getting money refunded are the same.

So it's the same processes around citation and notice of violation for SDCI to get refunds back from either the landlord or the household representative.

So in terms of appeals, if either the landlord or the household representative appeals a approval or denial of the application, so if the household representative gets the decision from SDCI that they are entitled but the owner disagrees, or the other way around, if they get denied and the household thinks they should have received relocation assistance, they can appeal that decision to the hearing examiner.

And so that dispute must be filed within 10 days of the decision.

And they can, either the landlord or the household representative can also appeal based on the amount that SDCI calculated.

So for whatever reason, they disagree about the amount, either too much or too little, or there's just an error in the calculation, they can make that appeal to the hearing examiner.

In terms of enforcement, as we just discussed, SCCI will be enforcing violations of the ordinance, which include a failure to pay what you're supposed to.

And that, again, is through the citation or the notice of violation process.

They could also use a warning if it happens to be the person's first time it's a violation, but they have the discretion to choose which resolution process they want to use.

based on their what they determined to be appropriate.

And then lastly.

Sorry, Asha, just once again, I see Council Member Lewis's hand up.

Did you want to speak right now, Council Member Lewis?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just real briefly, Asha, do we know if this is going to lead to a request for additional resource from the hearing examiner for the increased caseload?

Has that been part of our analysis?

Yes, I did check in with the hearing examiner.

Right now they anticipate an increase in maybe 10 to 15 cases throughout the year, and they don't require any additional resources based on that estimate.

If it turns out that for whatever reason there's a lot more appeals than they anticipate, that might require additional resources, but my sense is that the council can address that either in a supplemental budget if it does happen, or through a future budget process.

But as for right now, in terms of the beginning to administer any appeals, they don't require more resources.

Great, thank you.

So the last part of administration is the creation of this separate account.

So in the same way that TRAEO sort of has its own account for getting penalties, getting fines, to be able to provide relocation assistance, the bill creates a similar account.

Because otherwise all citations penalties all of those would go just back into the the large pot of general fund which would not necessarily allow SDCI to use the the funds that are coming in to For that cushion of relocation assistance that they need to pay out if the landlord does not pay or doesn't pay in time And so as we were discussing, there are fiscal and staffing impacts to this bill.

So for SCCI to take on administration of the bill includes a variety of things.

Their call volumes increase when tenants, landlords, tenants and landlords call about what their rights are.

They have to get the applications, figure out how much relocation assistance each household representative is eligible for, determine eligibility, so making the decisions themselves.

And then they will need to receive the payments from landlords, make the payments to the household representatives, and then deal with all the pieces around refunds, all on the timelines that are set out in the bill itself.

That being said, in the summary and fiscal note, you'll see a description of the amount of funding that they think it will require to set up administration.

And there are attachments to that summary and fiscal note that provide more detail.

about what the funding will be used for.

But essentially, in one-time funds, they are going to require $1.25 million to be able to set up the IT infrastructure.

So currently, they already have an Acela system, but to be able to develop it out, to be able to administer the requirements of this legislation on the timelines, they will need that amount of money.

One thing I'll flag in terms of funding, right now the estimate for building out that system is six months to be able to be operational, and then nine months total for it to be complete.

But that six to nine months time, excuse me, so we took that into account when putting the effective date into the bill, because the effective date for most of the bill is 180 days from passage.

So the idea was to build in that six months so that they would have the time to create the infrastructure.

The complicating issue is that the bill, assuming it passes out of committee and council takes final action on it in the next week, means that that six month clock would start at the beginning of November.

That is, the complication is that if we appropriate, if the council appropriates funds during the 2022 budget process, those funds don't become available to SDCITUs until January 1st, which gives us a two-month gap, which would mean that they would need an additional two months after the effective date, six months, to be able to administer the program.

There's one alternative.

Well, there are two two potential options.

One is to adjust the effective date, but the other is that the executive is authorized with two to provide inter fund loans for 90 days.

And so theoretically, if the council adopted a budget that provided SDCI with funds on January 1st, the budget office could also appropriate an inter-fund loan to give SDCI the resources it needs at the beginning of November, and then SDCI could pay those funds back with the appropriations that come in on January 1st.

And so those are just a couple options to be able to deal with that gap between the need for appropriations, when those appropriations will become available, and the actual bill's effective date.

That's the piece about the IT infrastructure.

As I mentioned previously, there is some amount of seed funding that's going to be necessary to pay out assistance before any fines or penalties are assessed because of the requirement that SDCI pay out the assistance to household representatives, regardless of whether the landlord has complied.

So there will need to be some discussion around how much that should be to start.

If it turns out it isn't enough, the council always has the opportunity to add funds in a supplemental budget.

So we may just start with some estimated amount of funds to put in that account and then just monitor it from there, depending on how many asks come in.

and at what the rate of compliance is with this bill.

The next piece of one-time funding is $20,000 for outreach and education so that people are more aware of the rights they have under this bill.

And then the last piece of one-time funds is it will require about 1.5 FTEs for code compliance analysts to be able to administer the program.

And so because this won't be a full year of administration next year, it'll likely cost between $144,000 and $186,000, depending on how many months the code compliance analysts are actually needed.

for, so whether that's six months or nine months.

So there will be a need for a discussion in the 2022 adopted budget process about the one-time funds needed to support those code compliance analysts for next year.

The only ongoing funding that the program will require is for those code compliance analysts starting in 2023. And so because those will be full-time, full-year positions, they will just require ongoing funding to support the program.

And then lastly, as I mentioned, because the current caseload is estimated to be about 10 to 15 cases, there's no current need for funding for the hearing examiner, but the council can reassess that based on what the caseload looks like as the years continue.

And so that is the bulk of the fiscal and staffing impacts.

I know that was a lot of information, so I'm happy to go back and clarify or answer any questions that anyone has.

Thank you so much, Arshad.

That was absolutely thorough.

I really appreciate it, all the work you've done.

And also thanks to Ted Verdone from my office for working on this as well.

Ted, did you have any overall points to add to Arshad's excellent presentation before I open for questions and comments?

Not overall points.

I may be available to answer questions about some of the some of the reasons behind some of that administrative process, which is, which there's a lot of in the bill, but it's all kind of, yeah, nothing at this time.

Okay.

And am I right that I have to move, first move the bill for a vote before we can discuss, I know there is at least one amendment coming up?

You will need to move the bill before amendments could be voted on, but there could be discussion before or after, however you decide.

Yeah, we'll do the discussion first.

So I saw Council Member Peterson's hand up.

Council Member Peterson, feel free to talk about the bill as a whole, any comments or questions, and also your amendment as well.

Thank you very much, Chair Swann.

colleagues.

You might have seen there's some breaking news on renter protections.

The mayor is extending the eviction moratorium to January 15th.

So just wanted to note that it just came in a few minutes ago.

I did have a question about or clarification.

So this bill would be establishing a separate economic displacement relocation payment program.

So if it passes, there will be two programs.

There'll be the regular or existing tenant relocation assistance ordinance, the TRAEO, as we were saying, and then also this economic displacement program.

That's correct, the triggers for those programs are different, but yes, there will be two different relocation assistance programs.

OK, thank you.

And again, I appreciate the intent of this bill and the additional support we're providing to struggling renters.

And as I mentioned with the previous amendment, during the COVID pandemic, we've been doing a lot as a council in a unified way to boost rental assistance for those in need.

We've also adopted several renter's rights bills during the past years, including the winter ban on evictions.

I do have an amendment, which I'll try to move later, It's really getting to helping those most in need.

So within economic displacement, relocation assistance, which would create a new program and not impact the existing program, they'll still be the existing program.

But for this new program, what I'll be suggesting with my amendment is that we we tailor it to low income residents.

And this would be defined, low income would be defined as 80% of area median income, which is 92,000 a year for a family of four or 65,000 for a single person household.

So I'll be making that amendment later.

And as we saw from the The chart showing the process to apply for the assistance, there's a logical point at which the renter household could self-certify that they are under $92,000 for a family of four or under $65,000 for a single person.

So it'll be an amendment to tailor it to those most in need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any comments or questions from other council members?

Did we move this already?

Are we discussing it?

We're discussing it.

We just can't vote on anything until I move it, but we're not prohibited from discussing it.

So yeah, please go ahead if you have points.

Okay.

Sorry, I kind of zoned out for a second there.

So, I want to lay some numbers down for a minute, because while I appreciate what Councilmember Peterson is trying to achieve here, if we're looking at the current rents in this city, which are really You know, an average one-bedroom right now is going for $2,300 a month.

A two-bedroom is $3,674 according to ApartmentList.com.

A single person making 100% of AMI right now is about $81,000 a year.

So that means they have to pay over a third of their income in rent, you know, to find a place that's affordable.

For a family of four it's 115,000 a year.

And even for that family to find a two bedroom apartment, which for four people sounds like it might be too small.

is $36.74 a month.

So, you know, the family's paying 38% of their income in rent.

So, you know, I understand what Councilmember Peterson is trying to achieve, but the point I'm making is that even at 100%, because rents are so high, 100% AMI, rents are so disproportionately high in this city that that doesn't matter.

It's still crazy expensive to try to rent a place in the city.

And so, you know, by the time you get to move in costs, if you have to pay first and last month's rent and a security deposit on that two bedroom apartment, that's $11,000.

for a family that is very likely already having a hard time with their housing burden.

So, you know, I just feel like even at 100% AMI, tenants are barely meeting the threshold that landlords require for new tenants.

Plus they're supposed to have $11,000 on hand saved up tucked away somewhere to cover these costs.

I just think that we are witnessing an extraordinary time right now where people are extremely burdened and are struggling.

struggling to pay the bills.

We have a labor shortage right now because we don't pay enough and people don't want low wage jobs anymore.

So I just, I think that it's really important that we, we consider who we're really trying to support here.

And, and, you know, I just, even at a hundred percent, people are still struggling.

And I, I think that this is not the way to go about providing that support that they need.

Thank you so much, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Juarez, you've been off mute, so go ahead.

Thank you.

So we're talking about the overall bill right now that you haven't moved yet, correct, Madam Chair?

And then we're going to...

You can talk about the amendment also.

Council Member Morales just talked about the amendment.

I will also be talking about the amendment.

But you know what, let's just make it simple for everybody.

Let me just go ahead and move the bill and then the amendment, and then you can go ahead.

I move council bill 120173. Second.

Second.

Thank you.

And Council Member Peterson, did you want to move your amendment?

Yes.

Thank you, Chair Sawant.

Colleagues, I'd like to move my amendment, which was emailed earlier this morning by Asha, which would tailor this bill to 80% of AMI or less.

Second.

Okay, the amendment has been moved and seconded.

We've heard opening comments from Council Member Peterson, and we've also heard from Council Member Morales.

Council Member Juarez, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I'm going to speak to two things.

I do support Council Member Peterson's amendment.

and the definitions that it is 80% AMI for low income.

And I just want to share this.

I don't think we're here to debate.

Everyone knows that rents are high in Seattle.

As Council Member Morales pointed out, one bedroom is $2,300 a month and a two bedroom the last time we checked was around $3,600 a month.

What we're looking at here is a relocation assistance for those that are actually already housed in which a landlord is going to raise the rent by 10%.

And in doing so, would displace them.

Economically, I believe the term everyone was using today was being the economic evictions.

That seems to be the new buzzword.

So my concern is this.

I would be supporting Council Peterson's amendment with 80% AMI.

If that doesn't work, then I would be abstaining on the original overall vote because I have a lot of questions about the whole process.

I don't have a problem with STCI picking up the tab and paying people relocation assistance, those that qualify.

I want to make sure that those truly people that are truly needy get it.

And also I want to have a deterrent in place so that landlords don't raise their rents by 10%.

And I feel like, and you know, we have, and this is, and I apologize to you, Madam Chair, I know we have the summary and fiscal note, I know we have another memo that we received on April 20th, and then we have another memo, and thank you, Asha, for your memo, I think it's like, eight pages, and I did try I try to get through most of it.

And so it actually raises more questions.

But Madam Chair, the overall idea and policy makes sense to me.

What I am having some concerns with that, that I just there's just some moving parts that I need for me to be a little bit more finessed.

And so that's where I'm at.

And so I'm letting you know that now.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I would of course note that we've been discussing this bill for months in repeated committee meetings, and I've made repeated appeals for any questions or clarifications, but we're still happy to continue to provide any kind of clarification that any of the committee members need.

I do have Council Member Lewis to speak.

I just wanted to quickly speak about the amendment itself.

I'm opposing the amendment from Council Member Peterson for several reasons.

The bill already requires the renter to be displaced in order to get relocation assistance.

And also keep in mind Asha's presentation also included that there is an actual penalty for the renter if the Tenant Act doesn't move after having claimed relocation assistance.

They have to return that in a very short period of time.

So it's not like It's a backdoor for tenants to get some kind of extra money.

The tenant has to be in a difficult situation because the rent went up inordinately in one jump, as Arsha explained.

And be forced to move because of that big jump rent increase.

And then that effectively is a built in means test in most most cases because if you can, if you can afford to not be displaced, you're not going to be displaced so this amendment, even, even.

In the best of intentions, this amendment is not necessary.

Adding in means testing will add a whole additional layer of red tape before renters can get relocation assistance, which is a real burden, even if the means test is as simple as possible.

That red tape often discourages the most vulnerable people from getting the relocation assistance they desperately need.

And this is not my opinion.

This is what overwhelming statistical evidence shows that even the simplest kind of means testing actually ends up preventing the people, the very people for whom that service is intended, from seeking it because of confusion, because of hesitation.

Because of not wanting to go through that process, but they have to say that they are low income.

If there's a myriad reasons why people find this to be an obstacle and that's another reason why we shouldn't put in any means testing trail is means tested.

And that creates other serious problems, because it is based on quote unquote household income.

and the household includes everyone living in the unit.

My office has heard from renters who are very low income but are ineligible for relocation assistance because they have a roommate who is not low income.

And this is not an isolated situation.

We have to come, you know, we have to come to grips with the data.

And the data show that overwhelming number, I mean, I don't know if it's a majority or not, you know, we can check or if Arsha has it at our fingertips, that's fine.

But the point is that increasingly younger generations of adults are, because of lower incomes, because of stagnating or falling living conditions in the workplaces, workplace conditions, and because of skyrocketing rent, are forced to have roommates.

And so this kind of household income type of means testing in the trail creates problems for people in roommate situations.

Young adults, As I said, often live with roommates and the way the area median income is calculated, they are often going to be disadvantaged under the formula to get relocation assistance.

80% of area median income for a household of one in Seattle is $63,350 a year.

80% of area median income for a household of four in Seattle is $90,500 a year.

That makes sense for a four-person family, including kids, but if we're talking about four young adults who are roommates, $90,500 is only $22,625 a year each, far, far less than the minimum wage for a full-time worker.

That means that if this amendment passes, people living with roommates will almost always be excluded, and living with roommates is the primary way to be the primary way that working-class people, especially young working-class people, afford housing in Seattle.

And so this whole issue would make it so that the amendment would create a devastating loophole in the bill.

So I will be opposing it.

Council Member Lewis, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I actually am inclined to vote for this amendment for different reasons than Council Member Juarez articulated.

Though I don't necessarily think my reasons are inherently better, but different reasons.

Mostly because I do have some worries about this legislation withstanding potential legal challenge barring the adoption of this amendment today.

And I say that because I don't necessarily have a problem with the policy, you know, with most things that carve out more space in the property ownership world for people who are renters.

You know, I don't have a problem with policies that use the The power of the government to compel a more equitable and a more just sharing.

Particularly of housing stock and more equity between renters.

And.

building owners.

But I do increasingly as we legislate in this area around tenant landlord relations want to be very cognizant that everything we do ends up getting thrown into the courts and ends up getting incredibly scrutinized.

I lament that we're still in a world where state and federal officials fail to act to level the playing field more in how our property laws are written that overwhelmingly benefit landlords.

And I do think that, unfortunately, and I don't want to say in open session some of my concerns because I don't want to give ammunition to potential plaintiffs.

But I do think that this amendment considerably insulates the policy.

I think the impact will be fairly minimal in terms of turfing people out, although I want to acknowledge and lift up what Councilmember Morales said.

I certainly think there could be some folks on the extreme who are higher than 80% AMI who should benefit from this legislation given the increased rate of housing insecurity in the city and just how deep the coattails of that housing insecurity is.

But because I have concerns about the entire policy potentially being thrown out or being vulnerable to a potential legal challenge, I think that this amendment is in line with similar amendments that we have made on other pro-renter policies with that consideration in mind.

Amendments that Council President Gonzalez has promulgated at full council in the past for other renter protection legislation.

And in keeping with that, and kind of sharing the historic concerns that we've seen from other legal experts around making sure we insulate and secure our renter protection ordinances.

to preserve and protect these regulations in the face of blistering and well-funded legal challenges, I do think that this is a reasonable amendment to do that, even if I might not agree with the policy.

And I think I'm gonna be the first in line, as always, when the legislature convenes in the winter to get more pro-tenant laws passed at the state level.

But while we're sort of working within this area where we're a little limited and need some action from those higher levels of government, I think I have to vote for this amendment today.

Thank you.

or just in response to the points Council Member Lewis brought up, we've had extensive discussions with the city attorney's office on this bill, a lot of back and forth, and we have heard zero legal concerns of the nature that you're talking about.

And yes, renters' rights, victories, laws, almost always get challenged.

challenge in the courts because that's what corporate landlords do.

They have the time and the money to do that and they have the incentive to do that because they are protecting their and less profits, but so many of our renters rights victories have withstood the challenges in court precisely because of just the objective conditions because it's very obvious how difficult it is for renters and the power differential that others have mentioned.

And also because those bills were passed with a lot of thorough research with a lot of a lot of consultation with the city attorney's office.

On past questions about means testing, there was a legal discussion about the gift of public funds being restricted to low-income people, but this is not public funds.

This is paid by the landlord.

So I'm not clear exactly what the legal concerns are on this, and I really believe that Council members who want progressive measures for renters should be voting against this amendment.

I don't see other council members wanting to speak again, but I'll just wait for a second if anybody wants to speak again before I hand it over to Peterson to close out the discussion.

Go ahead, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Swan.

I appreciate this discussion and appreciate the points raised by everybody.

I did want to clarify that as the number of people in the household increases the dollar amount for the AMI amount would increase.

So beyond, you know, if there are more than four people, it would be higher than the $92,000 for 80% AMI.

But I do appreciate the discussion and the comments made by colleagues and I'm ready to vote on this amendment.

Ted, can you call the roll on this amendment?

No.

Council Member Morales?

No.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Yes.

Three in favor, two against, so the amendment passes.

Thank you, Ted.

So we have the bill as amended in front of the committee for a vote.

And I will, before I call on the clerk to read the role for the vote, I will open it up once again for committee members, if you have any final comments on the bill.

I don't see anyone wanting to speak and so I will ask Ted for you to please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Morris.

Abstain.

Four in favor, one abstaining.

So this also is not a divided report.

Thank you, Council Members, and thank you, Ted.

Yes, so because this is not a divided report, this bill also moves to the City Council for a full City Council vote on Monday, September 27th.

I have no further comments for today.

These were the two agenda items for our committee.

We also, we have a second committee meeting on Thursday evening, 5.30 PM.

I really hope committee members will join us.

We've, we've done, we've, as I'm sure, you know, we've taken a lot of effort to make sure we found a time that works for all of them.

committee members, so I really look forward to seeing you all there.

And evening time, of course, helps more of our constituents pay attention to the committee.

So that is, I think, a good thing about it.

So I hope you will.

show up there.

We will have a discussion on rent control and this will be a good time for you to also bring questions.

I know we will have staff as well.

And we also will have a discussion on, since this is a sustainability and renters rights committee, also a discussion on a bill related to the Green New Deal for the city to divest from fossil fuel corporations.

But this is also an exciting bill because it will give a specific role for the Green New Deal Oversight Board, which this committee went through a lot of good work for the appointments of that board, which is an important, actually, it's an important board for furthering the question of the Green New Deal agenda.

For the city and so if there are no further comments on that note.

I will adjourn the meeting.

No, no, no, wait.

Can you see my hand?

You have comments?

Yeah, just quickly.

Go ahead.

I didn't.

I'll be quick if you didn't see my zoom in.

So a council member or Madam Chair on the questions for me, I'm standing today.

I'll just talk to your staff, have my staff talk to your staff and just clear them up there.

So we should be OK.

OK, OK.

Yes.

So is your agenda out for I'm worried about Friday or Is your agenda out for Thursday's special meeting already?

Because the rent control is for discussion.

And are there two presentations, correct, at 530 on Thursday?

Yes.

The rent control bill is not up for a vote, but you can explain quickly.

There's a bill that was introduced.

I don't have the number in front of me.

It was on the introduction and referral calendar yesterday.

that does some clarifying amendments to TRAO, the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, that came from SCCI.

So that one will ideally be voted on tomorrow, I mean not tomorrow, on Thursday, so that it can be passed prior to budget.

The, and the agenda, there was some question about whether the items that were voted on in today's committee meeting, would need to be added to the agenda on Thursday, or whether they would be voted on today.

So now that they've been voted on today, the agenda should be published soon.

OK.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ted.

And yes, Council Member Juarez and also other committee members, please always feel free to reach out to my office for any questions.

And especially between now and Monday, definitely welcome any questions.

And I will hopefully see you all on Thursday at 5.30 p.m.

Thank you.

Meeting adjourned.