Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XII to Chapter VI Concerning the Review of Rent Increases, and Adding Section 2-23 to Article II Concerning the Creation of a Rent Review Advisory Committee; and Recommendation to Provide Direction to the City Manager Regarding a Study to Analyze the Impacts of Rising Rents on Alameda Residents. (Community Development 481005)
B, only tenants whose rent increase is at the threshold or higher would receive a notice regarding the rent dispute resolution process. If a property fit. If a property owner fails to notify the tenant of the rent review process, the proposed rent increase is null and void until the property owner properly notifies the tenant of the process. If a tenant requests a hearing before the rec, both the tenant and property owner are obligated to participate in the process. If the property owner fails to participate in the rec process, the rent increase is null and void and the rent cannot be increased for 12 months. Both ordinances specify that retaliation is prohibited if a tenant exercises his or her rights under the ordinance, and that any rent increase that's imposed in violation of the ordinance is a complete defense and an unlawful detainer action. Lastly, rent increases would go into effect if Iraq hearing is held after the effective date of the increase. If the amount of the increase is reduced through the hiring process, the property owner and tenant would work out a credit to any and any agreed upon overpayment of rent, which is how rent increases are handled right now. That's the current situation now. All of these concepts are addressed in both ordinances. Ordinance does not have a threshold rent increase amount that must be triggered to access the rack process. This approach is current, is consistent with the current rack process and with racks recommendation that no threshold be established under the new ordinance. Ordinance B provides for a threshold in an undetermined amount. You'll notice that we set it up with X as the threshold increase, and that's because there was no no consensus. The tenants were proposing 5%. Some property owners were proposing 10%. Some property owners were proposing 15%. So if the council wants to go with with a minimum threshold increase, staff would look to council to set that percentage amount for the rent increase because there wasn't consensus. If the council approves the ordinance, B would need to establish the threshold. It should be noted that as drafted, there's also an informal conciliation process, the process that was just described as part of the CDBG hearing. The tenants and landlords. I think we're both supportive of the idea that if there was a threshold increase that had to be triggered before you went to the rec, there should be an informal conciliation process for rent increases that are less than the trigger triggered amount. But they also felt like the tenants in particular felt that if you didn't reach a resolution through the informal conciliation, you would still then be able to access the rec process. So it it is set up so that audience be so that there is a minimum threshold that triggers the rent increase. There's also informal conciliation. If informal conciliation doesn't work, you still get to go to the rack regardless of your threshold increase. While staff provides referrals to echo housing and encourages parties to work out an agreement. Informal conciliation is not part of the current process. Staff has identified one time funding through the CDBG program for one year to fund informal conciliation, but council would have to identify funding after the first 12 months of the ordinance to fund the informal conciliation on an ongoing basis. The other thing is that with with with the intent to step up the program and make it a little bit more robust than what we have now. The Housing Authority staff will be tracking their hours over the next 12 months to see what the workload is and how that workload increases. And when we report back to council in one year, we'll be able to be have more precise data about what it costs to run the program. And it may be that we, the city, would have to increase its support of the housing authority to fund the more robust program. But for one year, the Housing Authority has agreed to track its hours and work under the current Staffing Services Agreement and the current funding levels. Lastly, the council asked us to draft an ordinance in addition to the enhancing the rent review process, to also look at formalizing the RAC itself and to come up with language that would look at things like, you know, the membership of the rack terms, appointment memo officers duties of the rack. So all of those have also been captured in both versions of the ordinance. So that was Council's request on that. And then lastly, there was some discussion on the 20th of January about whether or not the council wanted to move forward with a study that would analyze the ongoing impacts of rising rents on Alameda residents. So staff has prepared in the staff report an outline of what such a study would consist of and has identified $35,000 to fund such a study. If the council wants to move forward with that study, and we estimate it would take about six months to complete. So at this time, we're requesting that the Council provide direction on the study and introduce an ordinance to create rent review procedures in the city. Thank you for taking questions, Brody. I have a question on the retaliation. I will. Two questions. When I see it in the in the text of the notice. Maybe I didn't. I couldn't find it in the. And so it's Section six, dash 56.12. My page starts with 57 different ones. On the draft ordinances. We're looking at the start it section six dash 57 1.1. Oh, I'm sorry. They changed the. Success. 57.12. Okay. So I don't see anything in there that says. That if you attempt to evict a tenant six months after requesting a hearing, that's considered retaliatory. Uh. And then my my question on that is, I don't know if we can we can blanket say that it's deemed retaliatory. I if I recall correctly, from my practice in this area that, you know, it's a presumption that is retaliatory. But the the landlord would be allowed to present evidence to rebut that presumption. So I would defer to our city attorney on this. Well. To be very honest, our intention on this is not to have the city really doing a lot of enforcement. The idea is to provide a process to try to work out amicably rental disputes, if you will, on the amounts, and then to really have the tenant have an opportunity to get pursuant to this this ordinance, be able to have some some justification for not having to pay increased rent. And then if a landlord took two steps to do unlawful detainer or what have you, this would be a defense. So we're really falling back on state law because the city is just not in a position to be enforcing various complaints or what have you under this. Yeah, I understand that. But we're basically saying we're deeming that any effort to evict tenants six months after a hearing is deemed a retaliatory eviction. And, you know, a court would look at that statute and say. I mean, at least what I would think in my opinion is that a court would look at that statute and and say, any time you do this, regardless of of whether or not it's true or whether it's a presumption or it can be rebutted, you know, a tenant is going to have a cause for retaliatory eviction or they're going to have a defense for retaliatory eviction. And there could be valid reasons why a tenant or months after filing a complaint is evicted, may be nonpayment of rent, maybe nuisance, whatever, you know, owner move in, whatever the the different grounds are. But I'm just worried that we're you know, we're we're being so precise. And firm in defining that as a retaliatory eviction. When I believe the the law is that it's a a presumption of retaliatory eviction that can be overcome. That's a lot to be rebutted by a landlord. So is the suggestion to substitute the word presumed for deemed. I don't have the civil code in front of me, but housing. Yeah, I would agree with that. Presumed to be a presumed to be a retaliatory eviction, which I believe there's a civil code section that that. Yes, that 1940 2.5. And also one more thing. I mean, that's in the notice, but I didn't see that in any of the of the actual ordinance that that we're assuming that this is a presumption that can be rebutted. I think the intention was to rely on the civil code. And so if we have misstated it, I I'll try to look it up right now. I don't have Westlaw access anymore, so I can't read it. That was that was my clarifying question. Member Ashcroft. Thank you. And I'd like to hear the answers to that, too. But I also bookmarked a paragraph on page three of the staff report. It's right there in the middle of the page, the paragraph that starts under state law. Housing providers must provide 60 days written notice to tenants if rents are going to be increased by 10% or more must provide 30 days notice, rents are going to be raised by less than 10%. But the further into the paragraph it says that as part of the are a CS review of the original draft ordinance, the chair observed that recently some housing providers, rather than providing a notice of rent increase, are instead electing to provide the 60 day notice to vacate. By providing that notice, the current tenant is required to vacate and the housing provider may then impose on the new tenant whatever rent the market will bear. So I have two questions. This is troubling to hear of this, although I also and this is where my fervent desire for a data collection and a concern to study that comes in, because if we're going to make good, informed decisions as a council, we want to be relying on good data. And I'm not questioning what anybody has heard. But but, you know, it could be anecdotal, it could be just happening once. But do you have any idea what kinds of numbers we're talking about of this example that I just read? And within what time frame is it just starting to happen now? Have we seen it for a year or so and do we have documentation? But more to the point, is there anything the city can legally do to prevent this practice of issuing a 60 day notice to vacate without even getting to a rent increase? Question or so the information. So without it, I mean, this and this is an issue that Councilmember Odie brought up in January about the issue of just cause eviction without a just cause eviction ordinance in the city. There is there isn't anything the city can do. The state law allows on a 60 day notice for somebody who's lived in a unit for more than 12 months, they have to be given a 60 day notice. But they can be evicted without, you know, without cause. So there are some jurisdictions in the state of California that have just cause eviction ordinances, that require that there has to be cause loud music disturbance, you know, nonpayment, you know, a whole variety of of reasons that you would be able to evict. But. But not to get around notifying tenants of a rent increase. If that then becomes the requirement here that you have to notify people of the rent review process. That kind of thing. So that's that's the answer to the question, I think, about what the city can do regarding whether or not we're seeing more evictions that are just 60 day notices without a rent increase. That is a relatively new phenomenon, and I think it's probably the profile of that issue has been raised as we've heard about more and more rent increases and the discussion about, you know, putting more teeth, I guess, into our rent review process. And if people are less interested in in dealing with the process and that kind of thing, this could be a strategy that they would pursue. It's possible. Well, I might suggest that they're not mutually exclusive propositions. I think the rack, obviously, is the rental rate. So it's talking about rent increases. But I think we probably should consider, if again, to my point, I would like to know, you say that this is happening more frequently. Well, I know I said we're hearing about it more recently. We've only heard, you know, anecdotal, a handful of instances in which this has happened that we've heard about our staff. So I, I would like some attempt to quantify and see if that is a problem, you know, that our tenants in Alameda are facing. And perhaps that's something that if we were to decide to do, a consultant study could be on the within the deliverables. At this point, if we could try to do clarifying questions, we have at least seven or eight speakers. Right. And I was clarifying for me from the the staff report. Let's see here. I think that's all for now. For de sa. Is to clarify in question the way that the system now works is that when a tenant has concerns about rent increases, they fill out their form, they participate in the process and the involvement of the property owner. She or he can get involved or not. And whether or not right now in the current whether or not they get involved when the rent review advisory board makes a determination. For the most part, it's oftentimes a letter saying that if you can, you know, become something other than that, then what the tenant is concerned about. And oftentimes and sometimes that letter is brought up to city council for the mayor to sign. So it's basically a letter. And I raise that because. What's different now is that and I'm going to read from the staff report that explained that if a housing provider failed to appear without good cause, or if a representative of the housing provider did appear but did not have the authority to act, the rent review advisory committee would make a finding to that effect. A tenant then would be able to cite to the ordinance that the rent increase was void as the defense in an unlawful detainer action that a housing provider might file against the tenant. And all of that that that the ability for the tenant to a site that is because of the ordinance. So here's the question. Now within the context of what we just said, within the staff report. The property owner could still attend the meeting. And choose to not agree with the rent review advisory committees. The key thing is it's just that we're we have a mechanism to get the property owner there. That is correct. The mediation process itself is strictly a voluntary process. But what we're doing under the proposed ordinance is mandating the participation. But any any outcome, any final mediated solution is voluntary. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Right. I'm going to call the speakers now. Thank you. Great stuff. Councilmember Odie, I did find the site in the civil code. And what what the law says is in an action brought by or against the lessee pursuant to the subdivision, the lessee shall bear the burden of producing evidence that the lessors conduct was in fact retaliatory. So based on that, I would suggest that we just change that language in the notice that says housing providers efforts to evict a tenant within six months of a tenant's requesting a hearing may be used as evidence of retaliatory conviction. Eviction, that conviction, will that work? I depend on you, but I think that would work out. Thank you. Angela. How about then Ken Peterson and then. And 11. Good evening, Mayor and vice mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Angela Hawk about I'm the founder of the Alameda Renters Coalition. And I was a part of the housing discussions that led up to these ordinances that are before you today. And I want to say how excited we are at the prospect of having a little more strength added to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. And we think that these new ordinances are going to give renters more tools to fight rent increases as they come into their mailboxes, especially excited that they're going to be noticed of the existence of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. And I want to take a moment and really encourage renters to use these tools because they're going to be available to them. And now we have a renters coalition and a group of landlords who want to make sure that the Alameda renters get to stay in our awesome city. However, we are now faced with greater challenges, as I mentioned earlier. We have now, at least to my knowledge, in the last three months, at least five probably more notices of 60 day notice to vacate properties. And this is disrupting families lives. It's taking kids out of schools. And we think that it's an ethical for landlords to do such a thing without providing the full return of a security deposit, support for moving expenses and cleaning good referrals to new housing. And I really urge the City Council, after dealing with these rent review increases, to find ways to address also these 60 day increases. I'm hopeful that the community of Alameda can come together in the way that we did with these rent increases to find new solutions. And I really look forward to looking to working with our great landlords here because we have been able to to find new homes for people. And I think that that's the Alameda spirit. So I want to thank you guys and thank city staff for all of the hard work that they've put in to make these ordinances. And I hope that you will see fit to vote for the ordinance without the threshold for the rec. And I thank you very much for your time. Good evening. If. Mr. Peterson. Thanks. I actually intended to talk on the question of the AMP contract and so that's been continued. I understand. So relinquish my time. Thank you. Thank you very much, guys. This late. Then. And only. So hard. You. Thank you. Good evening again. Once again, I'm Andy Balaban, the immediate past president of the Alameda Association Realtors. And here, on the request of our current president, Mr. Tony Berg, to speak on behalf of our members, the Alameda Association of Realtors would like to go on record as being in support of the proposed ordinance for the Rent Review Advisory Committees, Rules and regulations with no threshold as outlined in staff presentation. A We believe that renters and landlords should have the option to have the committee mediate whenever a tenant may feel that a rent increases undue or excessive. We urge the City Council to adopt the the ordinances as outlined in Option A, including all five agreed upon points brought forward by the community. And once again, where there is no threshold for a requirement for a complaint to be filed in regards to rent increase. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is UTC. It has these three letters here and then Barbara Duncan and then Garfield can cross. Good evening. I'm Amanda, and I've lived in Alameda for about 51 years, and in September 2014, I received an increase of $600 more a month. After living. There for 27. Years. Of course, they asked me if I could stay if I hadn't paid that amount, but I could not stay. So recently I moved into another unit. And at least will be up in August of this year. And I know the rent will increase again. So I'm asked, can the city council and the mayor please do something about these landlords that raise these to rent outrageously and Bigfoot with no court? Because they want somebody else or they want to protect a unit for relative safety because seniors and people with fixed income really need. Need your. Help. Thank you. You. Hello. My name is Barnaby Duncan, and I've. Lived here. About 45. Years. Okay, I understand that you didn't know what what it. Looked. Like. I just got one Saturday. Okay. In housing. Housing made a recommendation, and my landlord signed it. Two months ago. Saturday, I get this that I have to pay $170 more now. Would anybody like to see this? Because this is what you're going to see when when you ask the people, let me see what. Kind of. Paper you got. That's kicking. You out, because this this. Tells you right now either pay it or leave. It gives you no options. And I thought I had the. Best landlord because. You haven't done it. But it came. Last Saturday, so. I guess they're all doing it. There's four units in where I live. All four of them got it. The same letter. And on a Saturday. And if that's. Okay. Thank you. But did you tell us how much what was the dollar increase? It was 170 for me. The man in black is 200. And the guy on the side, I don't know, he wouldn't give them. Amount, so. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker, Garfield came across and then John Spangler. And then John Sullivan. Good evening, city council members and mayor. Staff members and. People in the audience. I'd like to thank all the. Support that I've received. Through. The city. Last year I applied to the RAC with about 30 other tenants and we received a. A recommendation that that. Lowered the rent from a 25% increase down to a 10%. Increase. Of course, most of us had the. Had the eye on the horizon that this would occur again, which it has, and we received yet another rent increase. But there were people in in the units this year that had to. Leave because. They got to rent increases and they did not apply. To the rack. So that is. Sort of a problem is like I. Have to go to the rack to to maybe get a recommendation that will try to quell the. A desire by these landlords or by my. Landlord or a land management company, you know, to. Raise it more. You know, again, you know, it's like, you know. To get away with. More because I guess the state allows that. But anyway. I, I'm going to get more to the point of me standing here and I support the Ordinance A. And support the Alameda Renters Coalition position on that proposal. For an ordinance. Thank you very much. Thank you. John Spangler, John Sullivan and then Karen Bass. Thank you, Mayor Spencer. Members of the council and staff. First, I want to say how much I appreciated hearing Debbie Potter give a staff report. I have missed that. She is very good at what she does and it's always a pleasure to hear the thorough reports that she offers to this body. Second, I as a member of the Steering Committee of Al Mehta Riders Coalition, I want to reiterate, we are not opposed to all rent increases. We understand that landlords are trying to make some amount of money that's on a positive balance. And we commend the people who are providing housing, especially the local landlords who are. Providing housing to a great number of people. I think. They and we oppose. The egregious increases that we've seen of 30% in successive. Years. That sort of thing, which is not just apocryphal, it's not a rumor. So that's why we have supported this ordinance. We support. And I personally support ordinance A. With no threshold because there is. No other place for renters to go. And most renters are. Facing declining incomes or stable incomes, not rising incomes. As Councilmember Desai presented in January to this body, the census data that he's able to find shows an increasing disparity in incomes between the two groups. Ordinance A maintains the status quo. There is no current threshold. There has been no flood of applicants to to. The RAC, as has been feared and stated by some landlords. We don't anticipate any change in that. I want to also say that I appreciate Councilmember Ashcroft's points. And I believe Councilor Odey also. Mentioned earlier the 60 day eviction notice issue. I hope that the RAC will be able to address that through. Further research in this by this body and by. The city staff so an ordinance can be crafted to add to the the tax authority. So that it does have the chance to deal with that. In addition to issues of the physical condition of rental. Units that are substandard and other issues that renters are dealing with in Alameda. But we like what we see tonight. We appreciate your support for Ordinance A with no threshold. Thank you very much. Thank you. Dan Sullivan and then Karen B. But evening Mr. Spencer. Members of the council and staff. I'm John Sullivan and. Appreciate you. Take a look at the take a look at the hand out it. It's fairly brief. And essentially, I would be leaning towards, you know, Proposition B, I guess it is Ordinance B or whatever, what to a few, you know, minor changes and number one, I guess would be the trigger and that the trigger to be at the 10%. And understand that there are many years when there is no possibility of an increase. And you've we've we've demonstrated that in a lot of literature that has been handed out to you. One other item if a tenant avails the tenant can, of course we recognize that they can avail of the conciliation service. And if they do that, if a tenant does that and decides not to go along with the recommendations of the conciliator. I did say there should be no right of appeal in that case because the tenant that's been given one chance should be no right of appeal up to the board. An excellent section 6.56. That was talk of a. Somewhere in the audience there. It's specified that the the landlord should call the tenant. There should be something in there that would reverse also that the tenant should contact the landlord before moving forward. And now number six, 56.10. Amid the one year penalty and this kind of barters on rent control, really, there could be some liability, I think, for the city. And remember remember that if. That the landlord has to wait through the 30 or 60 days anyhow before he can really notice. So he is he is being penalized in that respect. No. The last one, I think is a no brainer mandating the city of residency that a landlord cannot be a member of the review board unless he lives in the city. I think that's a. I say that's absurd. Really, I believe. And, you know, he pays taxes, real estate taxes. He provides good housing in the city. He employs managers and so forth, who must live in the city that pays payroll taxes and whatever. And. And yet he's denied a voice. You might say. I think that doesn't you know, that doesn't really add up. One thing. My kind of a pet. The duration of mine. Is that last one there, the excessive 15% or more rent increases. And there's an attachment which you've all seen already. But please go through it again, if you would. I really feel that where we are. Not helping a lot of the tenants by. By turning away from this and not taking action. I and there's the question that, well, I'm asking you for extra notice to be give like hundred and 22 notice or longer to help the tenants. And maybe that's against state law which states 60 days notice but at least maybe in the interim. Get it in? Yes. In documented in the ordinance that it be part of the recommendations from the city council to the rent review board that they consider and. Asking suggesting that the if the rent increase so be, you know, be at least to rent increase in order to be at least a double of the time of six . It is 120 days notice. I really feel that somebody somebody somewhere has to, you know, step out of the box and address that issue. It is very serious. Thank you. Karen Bay. I'm sorry. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the City Council staff. I'd first like to thank Geoffrey Canada and all of the members of the community that came together, the tenants and landlords that came together to create this compromise. And that's what this is. It's a compromise. Everybody's giving up something. And that said, I'm here to support Ordinance B, I think there should be a threshold. With all of the increases that landlords have faced over the last years with parcel taxes and school taxes and fees that are going up. I think that it's a given that our expenses are going up and that those some of those expenses need to be passed on. Also, the survey that was done, if I recall, I renewed hope most of the increases that have been given or that were within the 5 to 10% range so that very few people have given 30%, 20% increases. So we're talking about a small group of people. And I just. Don't feel comfortable. Punishing a small. Punishing all landlords for actions and behaviors of a small group. The Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act exempts any form of rent control on single family homes, condos and new construction. So most of the landlords that will be affected by this ordinance are small mom and pop owners, many of which purchased their properties to. Purchased their properties as retirement income as they move into their later later years. And I fit in that category. So with this ordinance, we will not solve the regional housing crisis, but this is a great, good faith effort to address some of the concerns. And I believe that while I believe that the shift needs to be to focus on really getting to the core of the problem and solving the problem, we're not Wal-Mart. We're not a corporation. We're we're our neighbor. We're neighbors, we're friends with small business owners. And the idea that with that, that a small group of people are being asked to carry the burden, the full burden of this regional housing crisis, I think is unfair. So, again, I'd like us to shift hopefully this ordinance passes tonight. I'd like and again, I'd like us to shift our attention on addressing the core problems, the lack of supply. A lot of the cities, Bay Area cities, have come up with some really creative ways to address the problem. And I hope we I look forward to having that conversation with you tonight. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker, Katherine Pawlenty. Aaron Council Counsel I wasn't going to speak, but there are a couple of issues that haven't been addressed that I feel are related to this issue, and that is the fact. That. I keep hearing how people are still finding housing and staying in Alameda and the very sort of poignant picture of the mother with her bed in a garage and her daughter. They're stuck with me. And since my landlord, who has been very fair up until recently like bunnies but is talking about it, that she can get $1,000 more for the three bedroom that I rented. From her four and a half. Years ago. And she wanted a long term tenant. I wanted a long term rental to get my grandchildren through school, to stabilize them, because I've talked with property realtors. They're doing a very strict one third rent two ratio in terms of income. So those of us I retired this past year, those of us on a fixed income, it is a serious downsizing. Me and the two teenage children, 13 and 15, boy and a girl. We would only qualify for a one bedroom at current rents. And I'm I'm sorry I hear about the landlords talking about their expenses going up and all of this, but rents, I follow it closely. Rents have gone up 50% in only two years. And by Mr. Lindsey's and some of the property I attended one of the property owners meetings and they've done the statistical data. They have a 20% turnover each year. They don't have to penalize the current tenants to this degree to be able to make their living, to make their profits. And everyone has had of the property owners have had tremendous increases in their property values. New people buying in at those property values know what the current rents are. Have are are buying in at that rate with full knowledge of the current values. So I feel like there is an informed group and there is a great deal of greed going on. And what really distresses me is when the city this is a great mechanism to at least bring people together to talk to lower it. But what I'm hearing from the people that have gotten it and got their landlord to come down to 10%. Then they're getting another 10% and 13 months. So they're back up to it. I at the end of the year, within the 13th month. They've got that extra 10% on top of the 10%, another others. So it's going up over 20% in 13 months. And that's a pretty sad solution. But that's where we are currently. This rock, the the rock is doing good work. I understand that it's. Mediation, but all the. Power is with the property owners. And I understand all the limits that are encompassed with rent control of all the small groups that are kept out. So the mom and pop operations that need that income. But I really go back to my landlord and. I, before I moved in, agreed it would. Be a long term rental. I want to keep the children in the school district. I'll do that if we have to move into a studio just to keep the community and Alameda. But don't. Please don't say that we've. Kept you know, that we're keeping people in housing. It's such a serious downsizing and it is a crisis and people are afraid. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Council comments. Member Audie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for letting me go first, because I'm interested in hearing my colleagues on this. Usually we come to these meetings 99%, our mind's made up. So I'm still amenable to hearing what my colleagues have to say. I just want to make a couple of quick points. One, we're not doing rent control. I mean, this is not an ordinance that implements rent control. What we are simply doing is enhancing a program that we have in place now with, you know, we're just tweaking it. You know, we're we're giving notice of it to tenants and we're requiring landlords to show up. And then we're having some repercussions if they don't show up or, you know, if no, their rent increases denied. So I some of the words that, you know, I've seen on Twitter and, you know, in the blogs and even tonight, you know, are a little disturbing. And when there's no punishing of landlords with this process, you know, what we are considering today is not punitive in any way, shape or form. And. When. And on the flip side. As a tenant, I can feel the pain of everyone. But when a landlord is giving a rent increase, they're not penalizing a tenant. Now, if they are penalizing you, that's retaliatory eviction. You take on the law or take them to court and sue them. And then if they really are penalizing you, then they'll be found. They'll be found to be retaliated against you. So I think that. It's important to know that this is a mediation process. And thank thank you, Jeff, for all the hard work on that. We should try to find ways where we could work together and collaborate and not use the loaded words like penalize and loaded words like like like punish. So those are things I wanted to say, first of all. Second of all, I said this when we first talked about this, and there it is in the first whereas clause in the ordinance. Whereas there was a strong demand for rental housing in the city of Alameda, which which demand may result. It's a little bit awkward, but, you know, which may result in a shortage of rental housing. And that's. Now that's the situation we have. We have a supply issue of housing here in Alameda. And my personal feeling it's not going to be fixed by rent control. It's not going to be fixed by, you know, having an enhanced and better rack process. It's going to be fixed by addressing the supply issue. And I encourage all of you that are here today, you know, that are suffering from this this shortage. You know, to come out when we have when we consider other projects like Side A and other projects that will help alleviate that supply. So. I was supportive of this process, supportive of the results that came through. You know, right now, my concern about putting in a threshold is that we're taking one. We're taking away rights that tenants already have today. There is no threshold. You have a 5%, 2%, 10%, whatever it is. You can go and avail yourself of the process. I'm concerned that if we add a threshold, then you are depriving certain people, certain tenants. You know, I don't know if it's due process, equal protection. We'll leave that up to the city attorney to decide. But I'm worried if you're basically denying access to a process that we have in place to help mediate rent disputes and rent increases to certain people just because the number is not at a certain threshold. So that's what I'm concerned about. I'm interested to hear my colleagues thoughts on this as well. And I do believe and this is what we've been asking for since I before I was even here in October, was the data to see the extent of the issue. And if if the issue is, you know, more than anecdotal, I understand, you know, it's pain for people and it's real when you're the one on the receiving end of the notice. But, you know, I'd rather make a decision based on a study than, you know, what I what I see on Twitter. So I've been in favor of moving forward with with gathering the data. Remember Daisuke. Thank you very much. Just a quick comments for right now. I'll have more to say. I think from the outset I've always said that. I want to have our official bodies that we have empowered to deal with housing related issues, in particular the Rent Review Advisory Board to weigh in on the subject matter. And. And to their credit, they have. And particular issue that they've certainly made comments on have to do with the threshold. You know, I've heard that from what property owners have to say, I heard about their concerns. I've also heard about concerns raised by by the tenants and the and in organizations. But I was what I was reading. And those are all important input. But what I have always been looking forward to hearing is what the Rent Review Advisory Board has said, and they're the people who we entrust to deal with this matter. And and I'm impressed with the time and thoroughness that they that they gave to this project. And one of their advice is, you know, no threshold. You know, and I know that pains the the property owners to hear that. But. But it is an advice, too, from coming from people who I ask for their advice. So on that score, my ruling is I can live with Ordinance A in that if it has no other because it comes from the review advisory boards recommendation. Amber Ashcraft. Thank you. Mary Spencer. First of all, thank you to everybody for informing us with your comments. And also, I was gratified to see Victoria Johnson from our Housing Authority meet up with them. What is the tenants we heard from about her? Notice that's how Alameda responds to our residents in need immediately. Thank you, staff. You do a great job. And I want to also disclosed that I have met with representatives of the landlords groups, representatives from the Alameda Renters Coalition and Mr. Camber, who did a great job in bringing these different groups together. I also favor the ordinance, say, as the RAC has weighed in and suggested we follow, because I like to keep things simple when you can. We have plenty of complications that we deal with all the time. So why added if we have if we don't have to? There is no threshold now and the process seems to be working quite well. I think the biggest issue was lack of awareness and I think that will be cured by requiring that a notice of rental increase include the language of the availability of the the process and to the by the way, I would go one step further and actually require that information about the availability of RAC services be included with every lease that is executed in Alameda. So that's something to consider as far as there was some worry and correspondence I think from some landlords about frivolous claims being brought. The one of the things in its document that the RAC does is to take into consideration take financial hardship into consideration, which is another reason not to set a threshold, because what someone's financial hardship might be, you know, might might rise even before a 10% threshold is met. At the same time, I think it's important to understand that you might bring your case before the RAC and still not get the resolution you have hoped for. But what we're trying to do is bring all the parties to the table. And I think we accomplish this with the with the penalties that would ensue if if either the landlord I know I'm not supposed to say landlord, the housing provider or the tenant does not come to the proceedings. But once we find that, once you get people face to face in the same room, by the way, I don't favor telephone conferences, but actual face to face meetings, you have a greater likelihood of resolving the situation, but not at all times. And I agree with my colleagues. I think Mr. Odey stated that it is a matter of supply and demand and I'll touch on that too. I But I do think that the lack of threshold has worked so far, and I think that our RAC and you know, we are going to bring some new faces, some fresh perspective in although the other has been doing a great job. But I just think it's, you know, should operate the way any board and commission does in the city. I think they're more they take their charge seriously and I think they're more than equal to the task. One question I do have and this goes to my, again, fervent desire for a consultant and to gather objective data for us is I really would like to know, first of all, how many rental units in Alameda would be covered by this ordinance because there are certain criteria. How many of these units are owned by Alameda residents? How many are owned by out of town, out of state owners? And the reason I ask that is that I've heard it both ways. I've heard that the majority of our rental property owners are Alameda residents. I've heard that the majority are out of town residents. And if we're relying on the presumption that somehow this informal, you know, local landlords putting pressure on local landlords not to make an excessive rent increase is to have wait. Then if more than half or at least half of our landlords are out of town representatives, shouldn't they have a seat at the table too? We've got two landlord seats. One of them could be held by an out-of-town landlord and that's something I think a consultant could look into. What is the currency vacancy, current vacancy rate for rental properties? And again, I'd like to see that broken down by size of unit type of unit. How many renters have faced rent increases above a certain percentage in 2013 and 2014 who were forced out of Alameda and then to quickly jump. Two other things we need to do, because as with just about any serious problem this body, the city council faces, there is no one magic solution. Trust me. If there was, we'd be, you know, we'd be going after it. So I think it's going to take a combination of ideas. Of course, we need to simply add more housing stock, but we don't do that overnight. But we have some some good potential in the pipeline. I think we also need to explore ways to increase the number of affordable units, even from some of our existing housing stock . And some of you may have heard, I want to say last week on KQED FM, there was a great forum moderated by Michael Cat. Michael Krasny the it talked about Oakland and people being displaced by gentrification and rising rents. One of the panel members was Libby Schaaf and some of her staff, and there was a reference to section 236 tax exemptions, housing authority people. I'm looking at you because I haven't had a chance to do research, but this has to do with this is the state tax code and landowner landlord being able to get a property tax exemption for committing that for 35 years. That property would be used for low income rentals exclusively in low income as defined in state code. And there was a landlord who was quoted in in this forum that had voluntarily come forward to the mayor and said, I'm doing this with my building and here's how it's done. I've also heard some creative ideas floated in the community. I've bounced them around off of city staff. In the real estate community, no unanimity. But one possibility would be the city could consider waiving the transfer tax on a purchase of a new rental property for a number of years. In exchange for that property owners agreement to to hold rent increases at a certain level and perhaps for certain criteria of renters, seniors, disabled, low income. But then someone else is city official in another city suggested I mean, we're all very possessive. I mean, if that's okay. Oh, I'm saying. Do you need to do that? Okay. Okay. You want to figure out my sentence? Okay. So instead of because we are concerned with our revenue to our general fund and that's where transfer tax goes. This particular city official suggested the council could decide to set aside a portion of their general fund revenues to be used as a forgivable loan for some of these rental income property owners who are facing increased taxes, increased costs when they buy new property, if, again, for a certain period of time, they would agree to holding the grants at a certain certain rate and for certain classes of renters. And again, this is something that should be explored by staff and perhaps a consultant. But just the point I'm trying to make is there are some other creative solutions we're all going to have to look at to help address this very real problem. Sorry, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. So this at 1030, we would need a motion to consider remaining agenda items, which are six F, 66 H, nine and ten A and our clerk. Could you share the importance of six F and six G? Yes, thank you. Six F and six G are required to be adopted tonight if the notice is going to go out with the business license. Otherwise, they would have to individually fill every one as an extra step. That would be quite consuming. I'm willing to go. Back. And I'm. Really consider other items then. And. Then. Would that be to address the balance? The balance, yes. Second, all those in favor. My motion passed unanimously. Thank you. You make sure you finish. Okay. And vice mayor. Yes. I wanted to point out that two things that both of these ordinance do, they put what's in one of the whereas is in a little more concrete and that's fair and reliable process to resolve disputes. And our main at least my main mission is looking for something that ensures fair treatment of the difference. Between what is before and what is in front of us now is also adding the Section 2.23. That's the creation. Of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. I think that's important also to make sure that we we do. And then lastly, on the order of a threshold amount, I'd like to see no threshold amount because. There's any number of reasons why a smaller percentage might be a tipping point or egregious. Just as much as a larger percentage that hadn't been preceded by any any increases might be considered a fair and a fair increase. And the Rent Review Advisory Committee would have the charge of evaluating each case individually without the constraint of a of a threshold. And also tenants will have the same rights that they currently have under the current process. I support Ordinance A. Thank you. But I speak real quick. Okay. I wanted to speak more so with regards to your warehouses. The first paragraph. There is strong demand for rental housing in the city of Alameda, which demand may result. I think we could strike that second demand which may result in the. And I agree with them. If I had trouble reading the third paragraph, the sentence reads Whereas when housing providers have information about a rent increase, when that rent increases have, I think there should be rent increase. Singular has worked a financial hardship. I caught that later and they've got it. Yeah. And, and in regards to this, it is this is something that the tenant has to prove that it is a financial hardship. I'm not sure why this is actually here. When I went in. When that rent increase has worked I financial hardship on the tenant and someone else because that suggests to me that it was a that the tenant must show a financial hardship in order to bring this. And I'm not sure that that's actually currently what happened to that rack. Looks at the individual person's income and expenses to determine of make a finding to that effect. So I would think that that language should be stricken so that we're not in the position of asking our rack to make a finding to that effect. If I may just get some clarification so we can help. So first of all, these are whereas this they're not. So they're just kind of setting the stage for what the reasoning is for putting this ordinance into effect that in following what you're trying to say. Manama I guess my only question would be just any rent increase is not necessarily going to mean that they have to avail a tenant would have to avail themselves of this process. So I think the intention was to try to say if there's a rent increase that the tenant believes is unfair or they have a problem meeting that financial burden, then this is something that they can they can pursue. So I think that's what we were trying to get out. And I would suggest language should be modified to something to that effect as well. And just just along those lines, if you look on to the duties of the committee at the end, it it does include that. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration such factors as the financial hardship to the tenant. So I think that the initial language is consistent and I would at want to hear whatever modifications are before I. Agreed to approve this. I'm sorry, Councilmember. I didn't understand where you were looking. That there's some additional language. Well, I'm just looking at the duties, then, of the rack. I'm sorry. Which are in the last page. Okay. The two dash 23.4. So Manu, Mayor, are you suggesting you don't think financial hardship on the tenants should be considered then, is that. No, I think that is this is a factor that says such factors as in regards to the duties. So tenants do sometimes come and speak to that and share that. I think you're rare as however it says very clear. It says when that rent increase has worked, a financial hardship as opposed to being part of a list. So I think there's a difference between the two and I'd like to be able to continue my comments at this point. I was just trying to understand what you were just in the ultra. Actually the council suggested some language in the alternative. Or she'll come back the. In regards to the as that paragraph continues and speaks to a committee of residents representing housing providers. And I support that language and I appreciate concerns from landlords that live outside of our city. However. Everyone up here. We all are required to live here. A school board. Everyone's required to live here in the city of Alameda. Every commission we do make decisions that impact people outside of our community. All, all of the time. And they are always for every commission that is a requirement to reside here in the city of Alameda. I don't think not. Which commission? The Transportation Commission allows it to be people who have businesses here and then also be a school district representative who's not required to necessarily live in town. They work at the school district. So it's sometimes work here, too, just in a very small case. Right. So I would say that for me personally, I can I actually think it should always be residents. That's that's what I'm used to here at the council level and at the school board level who make the. Really? The decisions. I'm sorry. Are you reading for membership? I'm having trouble. It's a row now, referring to the third. Whereas on here it says a committee of residents. I want to speak to that. And that's something that's come up. That's just my position. I think maybe other people are don't want that included there. They want to remove the committee of. No, I like it as is, but other people have spoken to that. So I just want to just make it clear it's here. It is here. So if we want to have this, I think that whenever you have suggested this be research. Well, I'm suggesting that that it might be something data we'd want to look into with the consultant. It's something to consider. I know, for instance, in the city of San Leandro, they have one landlord member who's a resident owner and one who is not. So I yeah. And again, I'm I'm open to hearing what the council as a body feels about that. But I also feel like I don't have enough information at this point. All right. And that paragraph continues, a neutral form for a tenant to voice a concern about the rent increase. And I'd like to add. And the housing provider to respond. The other. The flip is if that is not provided here and then. My major concern with this is and we had a speaker speak to this Pastor Hawkins, it intent it excludes certain landlords from rent control. And I'm and I would like a legal opinion in regards to can we establish that one of those types of owners, such as someone that someone that rents a family residence, would be excluded under Costa Hawkins. Then can we establish that they must provide this notice? And if in fact they don't appear under 6-5, 7.3, it says, then any rent increase, accomplished violation of this shall be void. I, I would question whether or not we can make an ordinance that would make a rent increase invalid for a landlord that owns a single family house or any other type of housing that is excluded under California state law under Costa Hawkins from rent control. I would ask that that be looked at before we have a mandatory panel. Making anything mandatory for those owners that are excluded under Costa Hawkins. Member, Desai. Madumere, are you finished right now? Because I have three points that I want to address, but I can wait. Although I just want to make sure. All right. Thank you. Yes. Okay. My three quick points are in terms of out of town representation on the wrap. I concur. Again, I defer to the recommendation put forward by the Rabb regarding making residents. I hear the concerns of of the of the property owners. But from my perspective, two issues. One, property owners have been active on the RAB process. So I think their their views are well, well included. And the second thing is that, you know, it's a recommendation coming from the RAB on whom I've relied quite a bit on this matter. Second issue is on funding this. Earlier we had passed the previous thing that allowed for roughly 60, 60, $77,000, which really isn't much to to help this process. While I'm not going to pursue this tonight. One of the things I do want to report on earlier today is I figured, well, you know, since I do rent out two rooms, I should I should get by, as I indicated or some earlier today. I should get a business license. It turns out that because I it's my owns, it's a single family home because it's a single family home. And even even as I ran out two rooms and even as I, you know, include that in any of my tax returns, you know, business deductions, blah, blah, blah, but I am not required to pay the $20 business license per room. So it's something that we might think about in the future as a possible revenue source. I calculate that if given the number of single family homes that are renting rooms, I calculate roughly, you know, $56,000. I mean, not much, but maybe enough to cover. Okay. The third point is on the issue of Costa Hawkins, not only on the point raised by the mayor tonight, but I thought I heard a possibility of some legal action regarding against the Ordinance A or B, in which case maybe one language that's missing from the ordinance right now. I think that we always use some kind of severability clause, maybe because I don't think I see that in here. So it's something that we need. I think we should contemplate that if some portion or one particular part of the ordinance is subject to the courts and in fact loses, and that doesn't mean everything else is is moot. I mean, so that's I would hope get direction from the council on that. Thank you. Those are my three points. So. In regards to the 35,000 for the consultant the consultants report. I would be interested in knowing. The type, the percentage of how of rentals that are excluded under Costa Hawkins. What percentage of rentals here in Alameda fall under Costa Hawkins in which that would not be eligible for any type of rent control? Because for me, the reason why I've been strongly supporting this is that I see it as a way to best try to address. The highest percentage, if not all, rentals within the community and under Costa Hawkins, we there. I think there's actually a significant percentage of rentals that would be excluded under a mandatory rent control. And and then that goes to my earlier concerns in regards to anything that is mandatory for those units. I think this works because I think this goes to addressing all renters within the city because it is voluntary and that's that . So then that's my concern. And then for me, my focus in regards to in addition to what units would be excluded is the effectiveness of these changes. Once we move forward with this, how effective they are, the type of renter, you know, if we can figure out how many renters are actually receiving the notice, if it's impacting if they feel at that point that it's addressing the concern as successful, almost like an exit from the the rack and exit interview from rack and see if they if, you know, if they think it's working. And also any comments from the landlords. So that I actually think that the result would be to continue to strengthen rec moving forward as a voluntary effort that then addresses the needs of, I think, all renters within the city of Alameda. Yes. Member Ashcroft. May I just ask you for clarification? I was trying to take notes, Madumere when you were talking about trying to address or assess the whether the majority of rentals wouldn't be subject to rent control. You're not proposing rent control. You're just trying to see if we can bring them all under the umbrella of this voluntary. So my concern is that when that or when we're looking at this profile of rental market market conditions. There. It would include an increase in rent across the board. And it may suggest then that we as a council could make changes that would go to addressing all of those concerns. And I think it's so for me, it's important to recognize that Costa Hawkins, by definition, would exclude and I think a major significant number of the rentals. So that I think it's important to strengthen the rec. And I'm not suggesting rent control, which is does not address all the rental industry. I just kept hearing you say it. But so so you're saying you'd like that quantitative data as well? Yes. And I think it's because I think it's very important that the community and we understand at most we so this for me, this is very important that this be voluntary so that we can address all the concerns and any data in regards to. I would like to know what percentage of rentals would always be excluded under rent control. Costa Hawkins. Thank you. And I think that's actually where the benefit to our entire community comes from by doing a voluntary BRAC. Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, just so I understand. So on. In the tasks of the scope of work for the study, you'd like to see a number that says under Costa Hawkins, these number of units and maybe which ones are single-family, which ones are built after? I think after 79 or whatever it is that. I've. Known, and if I. Yes, I can clarify that it's Costa Hawkins basically will apply it and we are not doing rent control, let's make this clear. But it's four units built prior built prior to 1995 and they are duplexes or apartment buildings. They are not single family homes, they are not condominiums. They are not anything that is separate parcels. But it's my understanding apartments built after 95 cannot have. Right control and the rent control under Costa Hawkins applies to duplexes, apartment buildings built prior to 1995. Thank you. Maybe the so is the gist of through the chair or to the chair is the gist of your question. If the council at this council or some other council were to consider rent control, think quantity, quantifying what number of units is the universe that might be subject to it and which ones would be exempt regardless of whatever. Yes. Because at the end, I think we're going to end thinking that rack is. Well, I think that that's information. I would like to know. You know, I mean, I have no problem with that. But I do. You did raise a point earlier that maybe this is a closed session, maybe this is something in public. But, you know, are we going to run afoul of Castro Hawkins with. I don't think we are because this is not rent controlled. But are we going to run afoul of it with this rent ordinance? And maybe given that there's some threats of litigation. Well, there's actually a side. So my concern is that it's not it's a it says that the rent increase would be void if if these measures are not taken. And I don't understand how if we could not apply rent control under Costa Hawkins to a certain rental. How can we say a rent increase is void? And I think we probably are getting into some legal issues that maybe it is best if council wants me to come back, we'll have to not take action on this. You're asking a number of legal questions. We can go back and look and come back with some information for counsel. I guess one thing I would ask, though, listening to you, Madam Mayor, is you're saying you don't want to do these kinds of things, but you want to strengthen the rack. And I guess I'm not sure how we strengthen the rack. That was the intent of this, trying to find ways to strengthen the rack. So my question first to you is that I need to know if this is legal that's being presented to us to approve. And I don't believe that they should. And so I'm asking you to to come back and let us know. I can come back and look at these specific questions, but I can tell you that we didn't bring you something that we thought I missed. Yeah, well, that was my question. Mayor, I think. Vice Mayor, when the Mayor pointed this out, I read it differently because I was reading sections 6.57.3 as providing. The tenant. With a tool. To use as evidence in their case. And that is proceeded though, and you could read it the other way that's preceded that this ordinance would void a rent increase, which is rent control. So how do you reconcile? That's the question that is there wording that can reconcile it but still provide the tenant with the protection that's intended here. And I think. I'm hearing you and we will have to come back. I can't I've tried to do things sitting here and I can't. Yes, I'm just saying what I. I think the question is, again. You have Mr.. Mayor. The one thing that I might point out is that. If the if the rent increase is not valid because it wasn't properly noticed under our ordinance, if the property owner then notices it properly, they can move forward with the rent increase so that it's it's not a permanent bar. If you properly notice pursuant to the ordinance, then the rent increase can be imposed. However, it is true that the way the ordinance is structured that if there is a failure to participate in the hearing, you are barred from increasing rent for 12 months. But you have the ability to care, that you have an ability to prevent that from happening by participating in the process. And I would say that there are several jurisdictions San Leandro, the county of Alameda, there are other jurisdictions that have these requirements on their books. So that we were really looking to best practices when we did our research on these ordinances. So we're not in a completely unchartered territory. There are jurisdictions. So I wouldn't it's not, you know, if it's being challenged legally by a landlord. It has not. Right, John? There's been no challenges in San Leandro or the county. Because I was sitting on a school board. Right. So so I can tell you my experience of sitting on a school board and having a case go up and be challenged and the school district losing. So I really appreciate this being thoroughly vetted at this point. Thank you. Madam Mayor, of the continued. Scrutiny. I. I do concur with your thoughts echoed by Councilmember Daisuke about the composition of the the board. Maybe I'm a little parochial here, but I think it should be Alameda, INS and Alameda only. But that's my thought is are we able to move this? May I. Sounds like we have a consensus on at least A versus B. Yes, I support move this or do we want to move this. I think because we remember we did the the the we the but we knew that we had a second reading. So we had an opportunity to and not approve the second reading if we didn't. I don't think. I don't support moving forward at this time. Councilmember o.T We can't do that because he's got too many things that are just asking. Yeah, no, I appreciate it. But what we, what we have to do is we have to have pretty solidly what the ordinance is. And to have a tweak, which is all we did in the Wheaton matter, was just one one week. So so maybe the motion that there has to be one tonight should just be picking between A and B and then subject to the concerns raised by the mayor and other council members. And we're Ashcroft. I well, I don't know how far we can go. I think what I would want to see is that we make sure we're giving staff, particularly the city attorney, clear direction on what points we want researched and brought back to us. So given I mean, we could say we just want you to study Ordinance A, because that's the that's the will of this body. But I'm not sure we can do much more than that. It'd be more efficient if we didn't have to rewrite two ordinances. If we knew we were leaning one way that you only rewrite if necessary. So is there. Was there anyone that's on council that supported me? Option B, no. Okay. So then I think your. Direction. That's. That's the direction that. America. Yes. There are two other points of consensus. One is that we were going to give direction and there was a laundry list of data that we want give direction on the other half of this recommendation to go ahead with the study. That's independent of the actual wording here. Yep. And to my way of thinking, nonresidents should not be on the on the rack. So we have a consensus. I go to residence Iraq. So I'd like to see it go forward with resolution of this issue of Costa Hawkins. And does this constitute. What it would affect. Does it have particularly a6-5? 3.5, 7.3? And keep residents an option. And thank you. Member Ashcroft. Just for the benefit of the folks who are listening in who might not have taken real property in law school. Can you just cause to Hawkins tell us briefly what it is to do. That I'm sorry, it's almost 11 another because you have the motion to extend the meeting beyond 11. So moved. That. All those in favor I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. You may. Can you. Just. So we're not talking in code to the public. Costa Hawkins is the name of, I think to legislators who. Yes. I mean. And just generally speaking, it. And it basically is. And please feel free to add what you you want. But but Costa Hawkins is rent. It's the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which is in California's civil code 1954.50 at SEC. So anyone who wants has on their Internet, whatever can look it up. It is a law that was passed by the state legislature which authorizes limited rent control provisions. Thank you. So maybe I will motion. I'd like to do this into one to prove the staff recommendation to do the study on the impacts of rising rents on Alameda residents. With the extra data point that the mayor suggested. I think there are suggestions from. Their Council member. Brother data points. Member. I'm open to friendly amendments and the motion. I mean, they were. They were in the record. Do you want me to read them again or. I take the staff. Me? I think we. I think we have them. Unless you all wanted to vote on them. And is that. Does that need to be a motion? A direction? I think the direction is fine. That's direction. And I guess the question I would have, do you want the study information to come back at the time we come back with the redrafted ordinance? No, I don't. I think staff is saying it'll take about six months and I will. That's why I want to know. But I don't to my personal views. Get the ball rolling on. It. Yeah, my personal opinion is the meaning of the ordinance doesn't doesn't require that we have the data. But I think the council and we need this data moving forward. So and I'm told by staff it'll take about six months to complete the study anyway. And I'm looking for data. I want to clarify moving forward to how successful I want to make sure you heard that not just Garth Hawkins, but how successful when I think how successful RAC has been feedback about RAC. I mean, we don't need to study for that though, right? That no, we'll do that. Internal staff can gather those numbers. So then I'll amend my motion to, you know, authorize the. Direction you just said give any direction. Well, don't we have to approve the study or. No, we're good. Then I'll give direction. Mostly direction. All of us. I don't have. Yes, we're good. Okay then. Thank you very much. I'll stop talking. Okay. So my understanding is we can now move on to the next agenda item. The six f. What can we put a summary for people watching? What do we do with the ordinance? When is it coming back? Yeah, good point. Maybe June ten time is. What are we doing any? We asked the city manager. All right. So would you like to give us that? You have information gross to when you expect us to come back at this point? Well on the study, I think about six months. But the ordinance the ordinance ordinance. When when can we calendar this ordinance again? How much time a city attorney need. When we have extra meetings? No regular meetings. Once I. Met him. You know, and. And we should take a very short recess if. During a during an item deliberating. Yes. When they're deliberating, we'll take a quick recess next. Much. Yeah. Jim is going to try to help us find our. Here she comes. I see. Thank you. All right. We're going to resume. STAFF Did you want to report? Oh. So Council wanted to know when we could come back with the newly revised proposed ordinance along the lines of the ordinance A and we believe we can do it before you break or four August, so we hope to get it to you in July. Wonderful. Thank you. All right. Next agenda item six. A public hearing to consider adoption of resolution confirming the Webster Street Business Improvement Area Report for fiscal year 20 1516 and leaving an annual assessment on the Webster Street. All right. And. One moment. Madumere. I'll have to recuse myself from this. All right. They continue. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and city council members. I'm Eric Von Stein with the Community Development Department. Tonight, the city council is holding a public hearing to levy an assessment for the Webster Street Business Improvement area. We're asking that the city council renew the assessment by adopting a resolution confirming the Webster Street BIA annual report and levying an