really.
Good afternoon everyone and thank you for coming to our extra special Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.
This is September 24th.
It's 4 p.m.
Thank You Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilmember O'Brien for joining us.
I'm very pleased that we can move forward and we only have one item on this agenda today which is our review and reconsideration of of the RV legislation that came down several weeks ago now, and we had our first conversation last week.
So if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, the agenda of the one item is adopted.
I was going to suggest we move it forward in the agenda, but I'll just leave it where it is.
Thank you very much.
Normally at this time we would have public comment, and I see that media is really outranking all potential public commenters today, since we have none.
We're going to proceed right on.
I guess we can just have Allison, if you will read this in, and then I'm going to invite Jeff Sims.
Thank you so much from Council Central staff for all this stuff that you've done.
My goodness, it seems like for the last number of weeks, you've probably lived a year.
But we are going to have a number of amendments brought forward, and then my hope is to vote this out of the committee today, and we can discuss what's next.
Great.
Item number one, Council Bill 119625, an ordinance relating to the use of extensively damaged motor vehicles, prohibiting persons from allowing the occupation of extensively damaged motor vehicles, and adding a new chapter, 11.75 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
Very good.
Thank you.
Mr. Sims, please proceed.
Sure, so I'm going to actually walk through, this has been all compiled together as a substitution draft, but I will walk us through each place and what each amendment would be or what the change would accomplish.
Counterintuitively, I'd like to start on page 7 and then we'll move back to the front.
Before you dive into that, maybe you could just talk about briefly where we are from last week, and then dive into 7. You don't have to go line by line, but just for the viewing audience, which is undoubtedly extensive, tell the world where we are.
Absolutely.
Last week, when we had a committee meeting, there was a variety, another substitution draft that was introduced, and it made a variety of additional protections, such as bolstering the relocation assistance, creating a victim's assistance fund, also clarifications in some other places.
And after walking through all of those amendments, that version was adopted, so it has now become the base legislation that we're considering.
And what each of you have in front of you today, it was not made publicly available yet, but it will be posted online shortly.
It was just deadlines.
Didn't work out very well.
Is red lines to what was adopted last committee meeting as the current version.
Great.
Thank you.
So going to page seven then.
One of the One of the amendments that was requested for us to consider at this time was to put in implementation dates for the rulemaking, which was one of the things adopted at our last committee meeting, and making sure that rulemaking would get completed before we would start having personnel out enforcing this ordinance.
In order to effectuate that, we needed to pull out section 11.75.020 and put it in its own section so we could have a different effective and enforcement date.
That's why you see that at the end here and why there's a new section 3 that explains that this will not take effect in force until March 1st of next year.
That would be confusing otherwise because there's going to be some references to this section.
I just want to make sure that was clear right from the get-go.
Just just go ahead your chair so Jeff just to be clear this amendment on page 7 between lines 11 and 16 is is Being responsive to the need for the department to do some rulemaking correct, okay?
Yes
Yeah, so it outlines time.
There's in a separate place in here you'll see that time is allotted for HSD to complete a rulemaking process and then approximately 30 days after it was anticipated that would be completed is when the force of the rest of the ordinance would take effect.
Thank you.
So I'll turn back to the front now.
We can go back to the logical place to start.
You'll see several red line places where motor was struck or recreational was inserted.
And that all relates to a change in the definition of predatory vehicle landlord.
So if you move forward to page three on line 11, you'll see where that is struck.
Previously, as was noted, the transmitted ordinance, transmitted bill, would have applied to all vehicles, not just recreational vehicles.
And this amendment will narrow that definition, or narrow the vehicles that are subject to being predatory vehicle, to vehicles that can have a predatory vehicle landlord, down just to recreational vehicles.
So can I ask you a question about that?
This is an area where I think we still need a little bit of work.
For example, I'm interested in making sure that camper vans are included in this and I think you told me or someone for the law department told me that Camper vans are different from recreational vehicles So I'd like to just make sure that if not today that we can bring that forward for further discussion
I'll double check that for the next time we can meet, but I believe that's actually incorrect, that camper vans would be included.
The definition here in section 22-904-010 is rather expansive in clarifying what is a recreational vehicle.
So if you had something that was a pull-along trailer or a pop-up, things like that, they do not have to have their own mode of power to be a recreational vehicle, as well as some other broader definitions.
Okay, well that's helpful because it's different than what I had heard earlier, not from you.
But I would like to make sure, because some of the camper vans are some of the worst offenders.
They, you know, look like garbage.
They don't have toilets in them, but that shouldn't be the issue.
But some of them that are so badly damaged and have what we're concerned about, unhealthy conditions for individuals.
So if you're telling me that that's included, that's a good thing.
Mike.
Excuse me, Council Member O'Brien.
I just want to reiterate my understanding, at least, is this is really about predatory landlords.
And so while there are lots of vehicles out there that look like they're in pretty poor condition, this only applies if there's a predatory relationship with the landlord.
And those vehicles, even after this passes, there are a lot of vehicles out there that we would probably much rather see people not in them and in housing, but this won't impact them at all, whether it's a camper van, an RV, because they may own them or not be in the type of relationship we're talking about.
Yeah, thank you.
And why don't we just spend a moment talking about that, because I've had many people ask, first of all, why are you doing this?
I've been coming back to the issue is that we're looking to care for people who are victims of predatory landlords.
We're not trying to take people completely out of RVs that are at least semi better than, as we've said many times before, better than sleeping underneath the viaduct in a cardboard box.
But that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about just the vehicles that are being leased and just we consider them to be unhealthy conditions going after the predatory landlord and trying to minimize to the extent possible those conditions.
Can I ask a question?
Yes, please do.
Jeff, can you explain, I guess, what would not be included in a recreational vehicle?
Broadly, you would think of not having a compact car, a pickup truck, a conversion van, a minivan.
Those would not be recreational vehicles.
But theoretically, someone could be renting out a minivan right now.
That is possible, yes.
So one of the...
The reasons I'm interested in the distinction, the predatory relationship could happen in a whole host of things.
I mean, it could be happening in tents.
It could be happening, you know, there may be people that stake out a certain section of the freeway and are saying, this is my area and you can only stay here under certain conditions.
So I am interested, to the extent that that is happening, you know, I want to prevent that from happening.
The specifics around here, I'm specifically concerned when it talks about two of the five criteria, and one of the criteria being inadequate sanitation, which I read is vehicles, well I guess it says vehicles designed to have a wastewater system.
So if it's a camper that doesn't have a wastewater system, then the lack of it wouldn't be a disqualifying factor.
Okay, that's great, I appreciate that.
Did you have another question?
No, I'm just concerned about creating protections for populations of people who are renting in a certain situation versus people who aren't.
I just want to flag that as a kind of continued.
If someone is in a minivan and is in a predatory situation that is unhealthy and we want to give them access to the victim's fund or anything else, I'm worried about them not being included while someone in RV would be included.
So I think I appreciate the point you're raising, and I think that's something that I would really like to provide some additional time to consider and what that would look like.
And I really appreciate that too, Allison.
With any new piece of legislation, I'm trying to envision how this is implemented.
And when I'm feeling pessimistic, I'm concerned that we're giving some tools that may be abused to go out and essentially confiscate vehicles and properties broadly in a sense that some people are ending up without housing.
When I think of it from the other way, if it's narrowly tailored and it's only being used when there actually is this predatory relationship, I don't want that restricted to even vehicles, frankly.
There should be applied everywhere.
So I think, for me, how much flexibility I'm willing to give, narrowly defining which vehicles qualify, probably depend on the rest of the legislation and the other pieces if we feel like we've got the protections in place so this can only be used in those predatory relationships, then I would actually likely be comfortable saying any vehicle, as long as we have really good protections, that it's only a predatory relationship.
When it's a gray area on, well, we think it's predatory, but the vehicle looks awful, And so we just want to get rid of it, then I want to be really strict.
Correct, and I think that we've done a pretty good job about that.
Alison, why don't you introduce yourself for the record since you're going to be here helping us negotiate this.
Alison McLean, Councillor Begsha's office.
I was just going to say maybe it would make sense to go through the rest of the legislation and end on this conversation if that's something that makes you more comfortable and then at the end we might.
May I?
Thank you, Chair.
I think from a policymaker perspective, there's two sides to the coin, right?
We can either start broad and then figure out what the unintended consequences are in the moment in real time.
Or we can decide to do this almost like a pilot through a pilot project lens and have a very narrow targeted approach in the initial policy to be able to make sure that we don't end up having the unintended consequence of necessarily weaponizing this as something that will result in unnecessary evictions of people from a place that is better than sleeping under the viaduct in a cardboard box, to use the chair's example.
And so perhaps one of the ways to strike a balance between those two extremes is to require, as part of follow-up work, an opportunity to evaluate what it would look like to potentially include vehicles that aren't just recreational vehicles based on an assessment of how this particular tool has been utilized in a way that is true to the underlying intent of the ordinance.
So that could be a study, for example, an evaluation of whether or not we're hearing from people living in non-recreational vehicles about their landlord-tenant relationship with other types of vehicle leasors, for lack of a better term.
So, I mean, I think that could be sort of an opportunity for us to continue to develop, sort of an opportunity to think a little bit more creatively about how to evaluate almost a phase two approach if the data merits broadening the scope of the applicability to address, I think, the underlying concerns of of not wanting to create the other unintended consequence of serving some people who really need it and then not serving others because we've made a choice as policymakers based on where they're currently living as opposed to what their need might be and what the nature of their actual relationship might be with whomever.
gave them access to the vehicle that they might be living in.
Just food for thought.
Ooh, that was a lot of food.
Sorry.
Buffet.
Yeah, thank you.
It was excellent.
It's delicious.
On page six, and it starts on line eight, where we talk about report.
This was recommended, I believe, by Council Member Mesquita as something that I saluted, that she's asking for quarterly reports to come back to the Finance and Neighborhood Committee or its successor.
And then that's actually for three years.
And include information about the number.
of predatory vehicle landlords that have been issued civil infractions or misdemeanors, and then the number of extensively damaged RVs that were made available for occupation by predatory vehicle landlords.
If that's an area that you would like to explore further, we certainly can.
C is the number of occupants who were displaced And that's the area that I have been really focused on because I do not want somebody moved out into worse conditions.
And we've been saying from the get-go that if we're going to do something like this, there has to be an opportunity for either.
And I think that Council Member Mesquita suggested permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, other permanent housing, or enhanced shelter, which is in my mind 24-7.
And then tiny home villages and basic shelter, which boy I'm I'm at that point where I really I know that as you were saying earlier today a good definition Is that this just makes people safe for tonight, but it doesn't give them any stabilizing opportunity because you're out in your back and you're back out on the street at six in the morning.
So if the reporting is something that you want to focus on, great.
If we want to continue thinking about who's going to be covered by this, and Council Member O'Brien, your point is really well taken, which is we want to get the services to anybody who needs it and to provide them that help, but that means increasing capacity for sure.
I mean, I think what I'm suggesting as a middle point to making a decision now about including only RVs versus making a decision to include everybody is probably perhaps a more moderate approach, somewhere in the middle, where we agreed to begin with recreational vehicles.
We have this mandatory language in the substitute bill that would require the Director of the Human Services Department to issue quarterly reports for us to digest in terms of how this particular program is working.
And so what I'm suggesting is, I like that language, I think we should keep that because it will help us make data-driven decisions in the future, and also make sure that we are fulfilling our oversight responsibilities to make sure that the true intent and purpose of the legislation, which is focused on the landlord-tenant relationship between the landlord and the tenant in the RV transaction to make sure that that is actually the focus and not just this is an ugly vehicle and I don't like it in my neighborhood, but they might own it.
The tenants might own it, the people living in it might own it.
So what I'm suggesting is, is there an opportunity to have an ongoing conversation about adding additional language to the report after we voted out a committee that would incorporate the need to evaluate through more data-driven lens.
what the scope and the breadth of the problem might be as it relates to non-recreational vehicles.
And I know that there's been some discussion about the lack of data or understanding of the full scope of all motor vehicles, but I think it would be important for us to create a pathway to begin to collect that data and approach it with intentionality and require HSD to actually prioritize that body of work.
If I could, it sounds like a, what is G in the section that you were pointing out?
And that's asking for information on challenges to enforcing this, and the practice of acting, and information on the practice of acting as a predatory vehicle landlord.
I could bolster that language by adding, requesting information on this practice with other types of vehicles, something like that.
Perfect.
How does that sound, Council Member O'Brien?
Sounds great to me.
I have another concept that I'd like to float to, and I'm just putting it out there for fodder, which would be a sunset clause.
It's not clear to me.
I mean, I've seen the information from the mayor's office of identifying the five or six individuals that they think are doing this.
One or two of those, it sounds like, are already out of the business.
There's a couple that maybe have more vehicles.
Not really clear.
Not clear to me that these are sophisticated business people running a big program, whether it's exploitive or not.
It may be that they're all getting out of the business while we're sitting here debating anyways.
My concern would be that if it turns out that this law is not actually being used because they're not finding the predators and it's just a minor thing that wasn't happening, my concern would be to leave this law on the books and ten years from now someone comes back and stumbles across it and uses it for something completely unintended.
How many years would you like to give?
Like a year or two or something?
I don't know.
Something that says like, you know, we've had like six quarterly reports now, and I would assume the council at that time would say, yeah, this is being, you know, every month we're finding a couple of these people doing this, and this law is really useful, then you'd eliminate the sunset clause and open up.
If it finds out we stopped getting quarterly reports, you know, a year ago because no one's really doing this anymore, then I'm curious to hear what my colleagues think about this, because the idea of having this law in the books that was narrowly designed for something, if it's not being used for it, I'd kind of like to just get it off the books.
Well, Councilmember Muscata proposed three years.
Oh, is that on here?
It's three years.
It's line 11, but that's bringing the reports back for three years beginning on July 1st, 2020. But we could extend that to, at the conclusion of June 30th of 2023, that...
So that's a new...
I was thinking that the law would sunset.
No, I hear you.
She's talking about the reporting period.
Right, I'm just suggesting that...
Attach it to that.
I'm open to it.
I haven't thought this through.
I haven't talked about it.
I'm curious to hear now or later is good idea, bad idea from a public policy perspective.
I would just say that it's not atypical for us to include sort of a different way of thinking of it as opposed to a sunset having an opportunity to re-up or renew the law.
So sort of it's, you know, it's going well.
If it's going well, then whoever is sitting on the City Council at a time will have an opportunity to consider renewing the law and extending it for another period of time, as opposed to a true hard sunset, which is on this date certain, unless action is taken, it dies and goes off the books.
So perhaps that's a, given the reporting that we're expecting and the need to continue to understand, Make sure that this isn't going to continue to bubble up as a practice in the future.
It might make more sense to do a Renewal renewal type of a sunset structure as opposed to a hard and I'm open to all those concepts And I think that's consistent with where councilmember Muscata was going to and if we can piggyback on that and I like your idea of the
It will come back to the committee, and the committee has an opportunity to renew it.
Based on the data that we have available to us on the either success or failures of the program.
Right.
OK.
Can we add that onto your list of many things to do?
Sure.
Great.
And I think we promised central staff we weren't going to keep loading things onto you.
To be clear.
I have actually not made that promise yet.
I'm really guilty about everything I'm doing, but I have not made that promise yet.
It's a future Jeff problem.
There you go.
Let's put it that way.
So just try to start over again.
Where you left off, not start over.
Let's go to page two at the very bottom, lines 20, 21, 22. This is a stipulation, really more of a clarification on what would constitute junk debris or combustible materials that would then lead to a determination that it was a fire, health, or safety hazard.
As was previously raised in an earlier committee meeting, it can often be difficult when people are experiencing homelessness and carrying all of their belongings with them that are exposed to the elements, things like that, to discern what those are.
The navigation team currently has in the departmental rules that govern how they operate, similar language that requires them to look for the apparent utility and their present condition.
So that was added to the materials here that would be evaluated as whether or not they're junk and debris or if they're possessions.
Okay, so help me out with this.
Who decides?
One of the issues that I've heard from our friends who are oftentimes out trying to assist individuals, whether it's a NAVTEA member or organizations that are bringing socks and sandwiches, and they see a sleeping bag or a tent.
And oftentimes I would think, hey, that's somebody's possession.
But the tent itself is the bathroom tent.
I think that somebody might say, look, that's pretty critical for us.
That's what we use.
That's what we are using as our private place to go to the bathroom.
But I wouldn't consider that, from a health and safety standpoint, a good thing to keep around.
So who decides?
That actually relates back to some amendments that were adopted previously, where HSD will have to issue some rulemaking.
And this is one of the areas that we'd look to for that.
So this would allow HSD the opportunity to look at when case managers or outreach workers or system navigators should be present throughout this process, outline that in departmental rule, and also outline whose responsibilities fall into which categories.
And that would be very parallel with how it works with the navigation team currently.
in terms of who is there and who is making that kind of determination and where the flexibility is.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Also, on page 4, section G, which is line 17, there's a discussion that this proposal would only move forward if it was initiated by the resident.
So theoretically, the resident would probably not initiate that process if the materials is causing that unsafe was theirs, right?
So.
True.
That is correct.
I want to make sure that we're clear on how G reads.
I was going to get to it soon.
It's probably better to think of it as an opt out rather than a give consent.
So this requires the individual that's occupying the vehicle who is in the occupy, the vehicle is possessed by a predatory vehicle landlord.
They, the proceedings to identify and investigate that predatory vehicle landlord and begin to take action and issue the citations, things like that.
The occupant has the option of expressly expressing that they do not want to continue with that and stopping that action.
But if they do not choose to express that opposition, then it would move forward.
So it's not required that they consent or are actively requesting it.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions on that?
I think I'm interested in talking more about the consent when we get to that point, because I think that's going to be critical around possessions.
I was thinking the same thing.
I think the one thing I will just say is that housed or unhoused, there are people that accumulate lots of belongings that, to my eye, I would say might be junk.
And to the beholder's eye, they're important belongings.
They may be important because they have a different view of important.
It may be important because of other mental health issues where they're hanging on to everything.
And walking into someone's home and sending them away for the weekend and cleaning up their home can be extremely traumatizing.
And however we deal with these belongings, I think we want to do it with a harm reduction approach as opposed to just a sanitation approach.
And so I think this, as I think through this language that, you know, stuff I think everyone's aware of, but I just want to be cautious that we're not somehow opening the door to types of things that could be more damaging than helpful.
I think it's, once again, you've brought up a good phrase for us to remember, and that is, we're focused on harm reduction.
We're not trying to make things worse for anybody.
So coming back to the rules and looking at how those rules are going to be drafted and applied, I think it's something we're going to want to spend some more time on.
except for the predatory landlords.
We definitely want to make it harder for them.
Yes.
OK.
Thank you.
Let's move to page 3, lines 13 and 14. This is again under the definition of what a predatory vehicle landlord is, and we discussed this actually last week as well, that because of the opt-out clause that we just discussed a moment ago, this was not previously presented as an amendment, but it has been presented at this point, that if an individual is inhabiting the vehicle, And remember, we are defining a predatory vehicle landlord as allowing another person to stay with them.
So if the person who otherwise would be a predatory vehicle landlord is occupying that vehicle as well and is allowing someone to inhabit it with them, they would not be defined as a predatory vehicle landlord.
Did we take out some language?
I think one of the earlier drafts was that there was some consideration required that the predatory vehicle landlord was requiring something, either payment, you know, payment in cash or payment in services.
You're correct that that was considered very early on, but the transmitted legislation, the executive and mayor's office, when they presented this, they shared that they had looked at that.
The challenge that was faced by the executive was that having the documentation necessary to demonstrate that kind of relationship seemed questionable to obtain.
And also, they're aware that other You could have a situation where an action or some kind of illicit activity even are required as a requirement to be present, not actual cash payments like we would think of with rent.
Thank you.
So along those lines, my sense is that A lot of the people that are living in these conditions, as deplorable as they may be to a lot of us, they're still doing it voluntarily as the best choice they have.
And back to the theme that we talked about when this first came up a number of weeks ago, is just what we want to do is not take away their best option, but give them better options.
And so to me, this language is important to again, to make sure this is something that the people living there want to get out of.
My concern is a situation where there is some sort of abusive relationship, where there's someone trafficking someone, or require them to sell drugs, or be in the sex trade, or whatever it is.
My assumption is we have lots of laws on the books that would allow us to pursue that if folks thought that was going on.
And so that's why I'm comfortable with this language.
I mean, sex trafficking is illegal, and if that were happening...
We don't have to wait for anything.
Right, that's my sense.
I mean, I guess I'm open to hearing from the police that it's really hard to prove that, and we want this other law to get at that thing.
I'm uncomfortable with giving these vague laws that can be used discretionarily to get at something else that I care about, and I haven't heard anyone asking that.
So my assumption at this point is that When these exploitive relationships are happening, if someone's being enslaved for some reason, we have laws on the books to do that.
And my expectation is that our teams are going after that and using everything they have.
And I haven't heard them say they can't.
And so that's why I'm comfortable with this amendment that says, hey, if you're both living there together and one technically owns it and one's their guest or whatever, I'm assuming you're in a decent relationship and this predatory situation doesn't apply.
Further down you'll see on lines 14 through 17, sorry 15 through 17, that's just where I highlighted earlier that we moved 020 to a different section at the end.
Lines 19 through 21 where you see some changes, this is probably the most substantial change from what had been adopted as the substitute draft previously.
Through conversations with our law department, we identified some inconsistencies, mostly technical.
For example, if you have a class one civil infraction, you can only have a $250 fee or fine associated with that, and then restitution.
So adding the relocation assistance would not allow us to have it as a civil one infraction.
As we worked through several technicalities along those lines, The ability to include relocation assistance and then also have restitution started to become more problematic.
And after talking with law and with staff, it was decided to go with a fine of $1,000, which is parallel to the amount that a misdemeanor could have as its maximum penalty.
And that would be an increase then over what was originally proposed, but would be more on par with the relocation assistance and the restitution amounts that were envisioned as those were originally included.
I have a few questions on this one too.
In a case of what I'm thinking is truly predatory behavior, I'm very comfortable with this.
I'm also thinking through scenarios in a case where there's someone that owns a second RV and lets someone stay there for a few bucks, and the roof leaks, and the toilet doesn't quite work.
And the person staying there gets approached like, hey, if you want to enforce against your landlord, we can do this.
And they're pissed because of some other part of the relationship that's not working out.
And they say, yes, do it.
And if there's nothing necessarily predatory, it's just it's very subsistence housing.
I'm worried that we take someone who maybe can't afford a $1,000 fine.
and give them a fine, and now we haven't actually fixed the problem, and we're maybe making it worse.
And so is there, I see the last line in there says, which penalties shall not be suspended or deferred.
I'm curious what that language means from a legal term, and is there a way to allow some discretion or flexibility around that in a situation where it's like, hey, I just don't have any money to fix the roof.
I'm happy the people not live there.
You can impound it, but don't fine me $1,000.
I can't afford to pay it.
Yeah, do you know the basis for?
So that language, that is actually the language then that would not allow you to change the fine level.
I would need to confer with the law department on whether or not, so typically with a civil infraction, you would either commit or not commit would be the finding, and then you'd move forward.
And so I would need to verify with them if removing that language would not only allow discretion in what the fine level is, but also an opportunity to adjust that amount based on an individual's actions, like some kind of a probationary period.
I did actually discuss some pieces of that with them previously.
I don't believe that there is anything related to a probationary period when we're talking about a civil infraction, because it's just commit or not commit.
Whereas with misdemeanors, you would have that kind of certain amount of time to take certain action.
And if that has not been done, your penalty would change.
But I can get back to you on that.
OK.
I guess the scenario I'm thinking of is, and again, not being a legal expert, parallel is probably not accurate.
But with a parking fine, you can go before a magistrate plead like, I didn't know this, and like, okay, it's your first time, I'll waive it, or like, come on, dude, this is the 10th time I've done it, you're paying the full thing, and so I don't know how that process lines up, but I'm thinking less about probation and more like, you can go make your case to someone, and they can waive it if they think that you have legitimate concerns.
I don't know either, but based upon what you're just saying, it clearly strikes me that we need more work done on this section, and I'm game.
to give it time so we get this work.
The principle, you know, folks that are doing really awful things to other people, I want lots of tools.
One of the reasons we have this big problem is, frankly, because of our criminal justice system.
And so adding more fines and penalties and sentences to people, again, that are on the business end of this thing, which I really don't picture them as being very profitable businesses.
And so I haven't met any of these individuals, or at least I'm not aware of it.
But I'm concerned that we're actually just going to make our problem worse, not better.
And so I just want to be really sensitive to walking that line.
I'll tell you what.
You've got support with our King County prosecuting attorney.
that he wants to solve the problem and recognizes that we need more strategies.
We need more tools to solve the problem.
Just putting people in jail or charging them money that they can't pay doesn't help.
Now, that said, all of us here agree that if we've got somebody who is predatory and making lives intentionally worse for others, we want to go after those guys and make sure that we've got the tools to do it.
All right, more work to be done, but I think it's clear where we want to go with this.
You're going to see some changes then that were made on line on page 4 lines 6 through 9 That's just where as I just outlined we could not have relocation assistance along with the class 1 sub 1 fraction and some of those changes because the Proposed amendment here was to just have an increased fine amount without either restitution or relocation assistance That this section is struck here because it wouldn't be applicable Line 11 is where you start.
Oh, sure.
Just chime in on that.
I appreciate your good work on this, Jeff, to help me understand how that works.
And I'm disappointed in the policy outcome that we're stuck with there.
And so that's something that I want to think about, too.
In a housing situation, there are plenty of people that live in housing that's not of great quality, but it's the most affordable thing.
And we now have an inspection program where people go out and inspect.
You know, not making sure that everything's perfect, but like, hey, there's no major safety issues here.
And when there are safety issues, it's like, okay, fix it.
tear the house down.
We want to keep the housing unit.
And similarly, again, if there's not a predatory relationship, or what I consider a predatory relationship, but it's just housing in poor condition.
In this case, it happens to be on wheels.
The best positive outcome we might get if we don't have available housing or shelter elsewhere would be to fix it.
And if all we're left with, either ignore it or give a $1,000 fine.
That's something that, I mean, I hear what you're saying is like, you know, this isn't actually tenant landlord law, like, although we're using that parallel a lot, because that is a big body of law that I think doesn't apply to things with wheels on it.
So, we may not have that flexibility, but that's something I'm struggling with, Council Member Bagshaw, as we think through this, of how do we create some paths for the folks that are willing to fix and want to fix and want to stay there at least until they get, you know, off a list to get better housing and give some more options.
Right.
And, well, your point that you were making in the last conversation on page three at the bottom, which, you know, I'm looking at that line that says, which penalty shall not be suspended or deferred?
I mean, it could very well be somebody said, all right, cough up that $1,000, but we're going to put that $1,000 towards fixing the place where you're living so that you've got something habitable as contrasted to paying into another fund.
But that fund is designed to help fix and improve.
So one way or the other, we can continue thinking about this.
Yeah.
OK.
I'm sorry I've interrupted you.
Not a problem.
That's what the meeting is for.
Line 11 on that same page is where the date for HSD to promulgate rules related to this implementation was added.
February 1st would allow time acknowledging that they are working through contracts currently that would need to be renewed by January 1st, also allowing for a public comment period.
That's how that date was selected.
And has the department Wait on that or is this more central staff knowledge of we think they'll be okay with this?
This is more, well I don't know if, this is central staff knowledge of things that are currently required either going through a departmental rulemaking process and also just other activities that are currently underway.
It'd be great to get some feedback from the department.
I mean, this is their legislation to begin with, so it'd be great to get some commitment that, like, yeah, we can do it.
Or if they're like, there's no way we're going to be able to do this rule until April, then let's just adjust all the dates as opposed to end up having it be enforced before the rulemaking is done.
Right, because we don't want to start off on something and just have it be a disaster.
We need to make sure that the department's in and the navigation team and whoever else is going to help us enforce can agree.
So why don't you circle that February 1st date, and like you said, let's check in with the various departments and see what they can do.
Thank you.
Yeah.
And recognizing that there's a world in which this work is being done in a department that doesn't exist.
It's a joint county-city.
I don't know exactly what body of work this will fall into.
So it might be in the midst of a massive transition of some of our homeless service work, too.
So I want to make sure that that happens.
And I think right now the NAB team is going to stay.
with the city, correct?
The NAV team is staying.
This is largely done by the RV remediation team, which is more of an SPU component.
Yeah, SPD and SPU.
Okay, so that might be SAN too then.
Yeah, as with the navigation team or even with the RV remediation team, you have system navigators from HSD that accompany them or come along with them to provide outreach and case management services to individuals that are either in tents or in RVs.
And not only is this, the majority of the other personnel are either SP or SPD, but also the system navigators that do that work are not proposed to move to the regional entity on homelessness.
And they're the ones that would be doing the rulemaking, or?
HSD would be making, would be doing the rulemaking, and so, well, as you know, it says HSD or its successor agency, so I think that there would need to be clarification on how this duty should be handled.
Okay, we'll get clarity from them.
Line 13 is another amendment clarifying that The rules should not only cover when to provide outreach and assistance services, but it clarifies that it should be when an investigation begins as well as during the course of the investigation.
Let's see, I'll skip to...
The next few are just, you'll see recreational or motor vehicle or struck out.
That's just an amendment I already covered.
So next we would go to page five, and really everything from lines three down to line 20, those are places where we had included something about relocation assistance or restitution that needed to be struck, whether that was follow-up rules on how to impose fines if the restitution hadn't been paid or anything along those lines.
So those are all conforming amendments under the assumption that we would not continue to include relocation assistance.
And then on that same page, line 21, and then on to the next page.
This is, as I highlighted last time, there was still some conversations with our law department about how best to structure this so it was implementable.
This is the section that, as we had highlighted by the mayor's office when they presented, there are individuals that are afraid to leave their RV because of fear that the landlord will move away their vehicle, taking all their possessions.
There's been anecdotes of that being done intentionally, like the moment they leave, or just more broadly.
And so this clarifies that not making sure that the occupant of the vehicle has access to their possessions within three days would also be an infraction, a civil infraction.
It carries a $250 penalty.
That's a level then that allows restitution to still be assigned by a municipal court judge as well.
So if you have someone who's- Intentionally.
Maybe they need oxygen, yeah, something like that.
They can have that replaced if they weren't given the possessions back.
So that was all the way, that entirety of the section.
And then we've already discussed in good detail the next section, 11-75060, which is the report that is now being requested of HSD detailing some of the activities that would take place.
And that covers all of the amendments at this point, okay Colleagues there is obviously a lot more work that needs to be done on this We also are recognizing we're going into budget what I'm going to recommend and with your approval Is that we go ahead and pass this out with the amendments?
Recognizing that there's a lot more to do but it gives the department's time to come back to us with any further clarification I am not going to put a date on this of when we voted at a full council.
So essentially, we pass it out of here.
We will decide when it's ready.
And if we're ready to put it forward to full council, it might be after budget.
But I want to hear whether and how you would feel about doing that.
Yeah, I think there's a lot of things to work on.
There's one more I want to flag, too, before I get to that.
But I think that concept makes a ton of sense.
Recognizing that the work to be done is gonna be by Jeff and other folks on the central staff who may not have a lot of capacity to do that work in the next few weeks when we're in budget.
The one other area I just wanna flag, which I mentioned earlier, or we touched on earlier, was just the, it's on page four, Line 17G, where it just talks about who initiates this, and is it an opt-in or opt-out?
And again, in my vision of the world working really well versus this working not very well at all, this is something that I want to get clarity on.
This language works in a vision where, hey, there's a caseworker coming out who has a relationship with someone in the van.
You know, the police or whoever's enforcing agency is going to be there.
Someone's going to explain their rights.
Like, look, if you don't want any help here, we will walk away.
You don't have to do anything.
You know, you keep your things.
But if you're concerned and your landlord's exploiting you, we want to help you get into a better situation.
You know, this language works really well.
If there's not that type of information and it's maybe a uniformed police officer who's showing up saying, you know, hey, we think this is predatory, we need to move this.
If someone's like, they don't know what their rights are, they don't know that they have the ability to say no, even if they say they have the ability to say no, they're maybe nervous how to enact that.
So I just wanna be thoughtful about how this works.
Again, even if we think, even if I might think this relationship is not a good relationship, but the person living there feels like, I am scared to give this up, because as bad as it is, it's the best thing I have right now.
I don't want us to be forcing them into worse situations.
So I want to make sure that we're really clear to city employees and contractors that they're not going to be forcing people out of that.
And so some of that, I think, can be in the rulemaking process.
But that's a process that's going to play out after us.
And so I want to think about some language to just make it really clear, whether it's, like, we can't proceed unless there's a signed document from a tenant that says, I would like you to proceed, and that they could revoke that at any time or something, just so that if they're in a fight at the moment, they want to come back, they can do that.
So I want to think through what that looks like.
And I'm interested in hearing from our folks on the ground that are out there who've been really clear that there's some really bad relationships and bad situations they want to get out of.
So I'd like to hear from them about how to manage this so it doesn't get abused, but still gives some of the flexibility that they're looking for.
And once again, this comes back to that harm reduction that you've been talking about, focused on the predatory landlords.
We want to stop that.
We want to find better conditions and provide those to individuals so that they do say, I don't want to live here.
If you're going to offer me, and I've heard many times, you're going to offer me a tiny home, a place where I can go, lock my door, may not be perfect, but better than this.
And that's something that they choose to take.
I think that's where we increase the capacity, and we call it a success.
Okay, anything else Council Member Gonzalez?
Nope.
So we have an amended version now in front of us.
Yes.
So I'm going to move that we adopt the amendment number whatever it is.
Amendment number D2A.
I'm sorry, just to clarify, I failed to update 2A.
This would probably be substitute draft number four.
All right, well, I'm going to move that we adopt substitute draft number four.
Second.
All those in favor?
This is just adopting the substitute draft number four.
All those in favor, say aye.
Aye.
None opposed?
No abstentions?
Okay, so now we have a substitute draft in front of us for a substitute as amended an ordinance that we're going to ask for extensive, extensive more conversations between the executive.
and Council Central staff.
And I'll probably abstain from this vote.
OK.
But I'm fully supportive of the concept that you're working on, Council Member Bakeshaw, and want to work with you in this next period.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Then I'm going to move the ordinance as amended.
Second.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Any abstention?
Abstain.
And no nos.
So this will move out.
It's moving out of committee, but not being referred to full council yet.
So we're going to expect a lot more from the executive based upon the comments we've had today.
And we'll just leave it open as to when we bring it back to full council, and if and when we're ready.
And frankly, Council Member Bakeshaw, that's what I see is the path that will help define the timeline is not so much how much time Jeff has to work on it, but essentially the executive who proposed this originally, hopefully they're hearing all of our concerns and can creatively find ways to address those concerns with the other knowledge they have.
That would help, in my mind, get it to a place where it's ready to actually be considered.
Very good.
OK, well, thanks to you both for your good help, your thoughts, your conversation here.
And anything else?
The meeting's adjourned.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Two minutes before 5. Yes.