AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rental properties; amending Sections 7.24.020, 7.24.030, 7.24.040, 7.24.050, 7.24.060, 7.24.070, and 7.24.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); adding new Sections 7.24.035, 7.24.036, 7.24.038, 7.24.110, 7.24.120, 7.24.130, 7.24.140, 7.24.150, 7.24.160, 7.24.170, 7.24.180, 7.24.190, 7.24.200, and 7.24.210 to the SMC; and repealing Section 7.24.090 of the SMC; all to limit the amount of security deposits and non-refundable move-in fees, to allow residential tenants to pay security deposits, non-refundable move-in fees, and last month’s rent in installments, and to establish enforcement provisions for Chapter 7.24.
The Report of the Energy Environment Committee Agenda Item one Constable 118 817 relating to residential rental properties amending section 7.20 4.0 20.0 3.0 40.0 50.0 60.0. 79.0 84. Code Avenue. Section 7.20 4.0. 35.30 6.0. 38.1 10.1. 20.1. 30.1. 40.1. 50.1. 60.1. 70.1 80.1. 90.202. Ten To the Seattle Ms. Code and repealing Section 7.20 4.09 of the CMC, all to limit the amount of security deposits and nonrefundable moving fees to allow residential tenants to be security deposits, nonrefundable moving fees and last month's rent installments and due submission for Senate provisions for Chapter 7.24, the committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The way I'd like to proceed is I'd like to turn to Councilmember Safwat first to describe the base legislation. And then Councilmember Brian would like to say something. Before or after disclosure. Oh, we'll do that after. After I finish this. And then customers want right after. Your base legislation. We have two amendments for consideration. I'll turn to Council Member Johnson and then Councilmember Herbold. And in that order. Okay. And before council members want you to introduce the legislation, reintroduce it. Actually, council member Bryan has a disclosure that he'd like to make. Yeah, I just want to disclose that I am also a landlord and I'll be voting on this. And that is consistent with our ethics rules. And thank you for that disclosure. Councilman Brian, Councilmember Stewart, the floor is yours. Thank you, Brian. How I'm excited to introduce again this ordinance that would limit the exorbitant move and fees. The tenants are expected to pay in this city off skyrocketing rents. The laws of the state overwhelmingly are stacked against renters, particularly the state ban on rent controlled. However, as tenants get more organized locally, we are starting the process of winning individual tenant rights that will add up to a significant tenant bill of rights in this city. This Council bill limits nonrefundable fees to only those explicitly mentioned under state law limits, security deposits and nonrefundable fees to no more than one month's rent, which most landlords do anyway, and most importantly, allows tenants to pay the security deposit and last month's rent on a payment plan. That final aspect of the bill will allow many tenants to overcome a substantial hurdle that they face in finding housing. You've heard today and in previous testimonies, domestic violence survivors telling you about why this will directly be helpful to them. And you've heard a lot of testimony from renters in general. And for those who like decisions to be based on data, as I do. Washington Community Action Network's survey of tenants found the move in fees to be the biggest obstacle to finding housing in the city. Nationwide, part reason studies over 50%, which is half of America, says they have less than $10,000 in their checking and savings accounts. So imagine having to come up with 4000, 5000 or $6,000 for moving in to an apartment. In reality, while extremely important for tenants, this is an extremely mild legislation. Landlords will still get the security deposit and last month's rent just a little later than they have gotten it in the past. And keep in mind, by state law, they should be putting that in an escrow account and not touching it until the tenant moves out anyway. However, however, while this legislation is entirely reasonable, that has not stopped the lobbyist from the ultra conservative Washington Multifamily Housing and Rental Housing Association who have opposed. Years values now. Who have opposed almost every tenant right past, both by the city and by the state. And have put real. Please, a loudspeaker to speak. And have put real resources into trying to derail this bill, as they have with every other tenant. Right. Both at the city and state level. I know that many today of those have said that they are not corporate property owners, they are friendly neighborhood landlords. If that is so, then you should be supporting tenants rights. In reality. In reality, while representing a tiny minority of our city societies, these landlord organizations have money and power. They contribute the maximum contributions to the election campaigns of many of the city council members and the mayor. And they have used that money and power to convince the majority of this council to send this ordinance back to committee when it came to full council a couple of months ago. Council members have promised renters at that meeting that full council, when they send it back to committee, that they would not water it down. And the I urged members of the public to hold the council accountable to that promise. Council members will have to weigh the interests of tenants whose risk is homelessness in the midst of skyrocketing rents and a homeless epidemic against the interests of some landlords whose risk is their investment at a time when there is no indication that that investment is in any danger. I know which side I'm on. I do want to thank specifically those property owners who came today and in other meetings to support the legislation. And I've challenged other landlords to do the same. I also want to thank all the tenants that they have come to know. What is their fifth city council meeting to testify in favor of the legislation and to share your important stories? Your courage is what has made this possible and what will allow us to push ahead to pass more tenants rights in the future. I also want to thank the organizations, both activist and labor organizations, that have signed on to a letter to council asking us to pass this council bill without watering it down, without exemptions. So thank you to the Martin Luther King County Labor Council, Washington Community Action Network, American Federation of Teachers, Seattle Education Association, SEIU Local 6925 and 1199 Northwest one America. Washington Federation of State Employees, Natural Pro-Choice, Gender Justice League. Apollo Nickels will share beside UAW Local 4121 LGBTQ Ally Ship X Transit Riders Union U.S. Puget Sound Sage Views Washington Student Association Socialist Students Socialist Alternative Asian Pacific Islander Coalition Capitol Community Council Housing Justice Project Dennis Union of Washington State. The Church Council of Greater Seattle Unite Here and 43rd District Progressives. It's not just those 300 red shirts that they're talking about. Working hard for their. Rights. Thank you to everyone at the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections who do tremendous hard work and complicated work every day to support tenants and property owners and the city's law department who helped us craft this legislation. And particularly thanks to Ali Banerjee in central staff who tirelessly worked on this legislation even during the busy budget season. But most importantly, thanks to the activists in the Washington Community Action Network, Washington again for making this possible. And especially to Sochi, Michael Vick, who has been a dedicated activist, putting efforts over the last few months, which cannot be overstated. I urge the Council to support this bill without further amendment and are. So once we have some possible amendments that we'll consider. And Councilmember Johnson, would you like to address to any of my colleagues to make some general comments to the base legislation? We could proceed in anyway way. Councilman Johnson, we'd like to start off. I would like to propose. You know, we don't have an official amendment number on this, but I'm just going to call it Amendment Johnson, I guess. One work. Thanks. I'm a one woman. Okay. So speaking of Amendment one, this is an amendment that we discussed when the bill was in committee several months ago. As the chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee, my responsibility is to oversee two different departments. One of those is the Department of Construction and Inspections. Their responsibility is to enforce many of our tenant landlord regulations here in the city, and anybody who spends any time on their website knows how complicated these issues are. It's very difficult for both tenants and landlords to have a good understanding of the individual rights on either side. The earlier legislation that we adopted in August that relates to first in time legislation had carved out an exemption so that that legislation didn't apply to tenants renting housing in a single family residence if the residence is the principal residence of the owner of the residence. So anybody who is renting to sort of what I would call roomy, somebody who enters in the same front door and lives down the hall or anybody who rents an attached accessory dwelling unit was exempted from that legislation. In order to be consistent, as I'm proposing this amendment, Amendment one that would offer similar exemptions, the I'm sorry, not similar the same exemptions to the moving piece legislation both on the security deposits and on the installation payment for last month's rent. So I want to do what I can to make sure that the Department of Construction and Inspections responsibility, when they enforce this legislation so that we can be clearer about who is under which element of which bill and which regulation. The more clarity we have for the department, the more clear it is for tenants and for landlords. So I'd offer Amendment one for consideration by my colleagues. I'll second that. Okay. It's been moved. And second, that Councilmember Johnson's that Councilman Swanson legislation to be amended by Councilmember Johnson that basically exempts the security deposit in the last month's rent from a person who resides within the unit, their principal residences within the unit. Councilmember Herbold, I know I am aware that you have an amendment to the amendment. I do want to I'm going to have to suspend the rules because technically yours was a little late. Not a. Lot. But but I so I want to make sure that we have a clean record. And so I'm going to move to suspend the rules. We have a 12:00 deadline and you just missed by that much for it to be considered. So I'm going to move to suspend the rules to allow Councilmember Herbold amendment to be considered your second. All those in favor say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So now your untimely amendment is timely, and perhaps you could describe what you're amending to Councilmember Johnson's amendment. Thank you. I'd like to move the the Johnson Amendment one with amendment to my amendment that would delete the proposed new Seattle Municipal Code Subsections 7.24.035. H and D and by substituting FMC 7.24.0 35a as provided on the proposed amendment. What my amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment would do is it would recognize that it would recognize the exemption to landlords who live in the principal residence or live on the property and rent out. And a detached accessory dwelling unit would recognize that they are exempt from the part of the law that relates to the size of the cap, but that they are not exempt from the installment plan. And I'm offering this amendment because I believe that if owner occupied landlords are given the ability to charge higher move in fees, their tenants must still be given access to an installment plan. The flexibility that we are granting to these small landlords does not in any way mitigate the need of tenants to be able to afford to move in in the in the first place. Earlier this year, the Federal Reserve announced that 46% of adults and this isn't just low income folks, this is 46% of all adult adults say that they could not cover an emergency expense costing $400 without first having to sell something or borrow money. And so this this legislation is we're trying to we're trying to strike a balance between addressing the needs of landlords and small landlords. But our primary objective. Is to make sure that folks who are struggling in this city have the ability to move in to a rental that they are otherwise eligible to move into. We have 3000 people living unsheltered in the city. We've we've made some changes in the bill to address the needs of small landlords in specific. Specifically, we've we've amended the legislation to allow landlords and tenants to to negotiate a different payment plan than the one otherwise required by the legislation. And we've also amended the legislation that allows landlords to use their holding fees as a deduction from the total amount that would otherwise be subject to an installment plan. So those are some of the things that we've tried to do to address the concerns of of of small landlords. But I would say that in doing so, we can't make this the the the part of this legislation that makes it more possible for renters to access our limited supply of housing. We can't disadvantage them in doing so. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Let me make something clear, because I didn't make it clear there are actually separate amendments. We have Councilmember Johnson's amendment, which basically exempts a segment. We have Councilmember Herbals, which modifies it, but it's a separate one. So what I wanted to get the concepts out there first. I know I'm going to relinquish remarks. To you. On what you were saying. I think Councilmember Horrible's Amendment is an amendment to Councilmember. Direct and procedurally I believe that we have to vote on the amendment to the amendment first. Yes. We can treat it as such, but it's sort of complicated because it's sort of complicated. I just like because it's not it doesn't neatly fit into it. It it pulls us just a section which is half of it is, if you will. But what I. Procedurally, what Herbold is saying is what makes sense. We should. And in the. Interim. In the motion I made was a motion to amend the amendment. Okay. So. Okay. So I'll treat it as an amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment. So. So we're going to specifically vote on that first. Okay. So we're going I'm going to move Councilmember Herbert's. I'm not going to move. If you're going to move or you're going to move. Councilmember, you're going to move. I have his amendment. I have moved it. And is there's a second. Okay. It's been moved in. Second, Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilman Johnson's amendment has been moved in second. All those in favor say, I know you want it. You want to talk. Well, it's a little complicated because the the procedure we are following is we will first vote on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilmember Johnson amendment, and then we will vote on whatever is the result of that vote. And I want to reserve my right to vote yes on Councilmember Herbert's amendment, but vote no on the minority, because I don't want any little, but I support making the loophole less. So I understand that. So so to comment on all of that at once. So. So we're we'll take the matter of this on the hand. We have to we have to vote on Customer Johnson's amendment as well. So we have time to talk about what. But what we vote on will depend on the result of tomorrow's amendment vote. Correct. Correct. Because. So. Okay, so let's keep things very simple. Yeah. So that's why I just want. Let's keep things very simple. Who would like to talk? Who would like to speak on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment? I have a. Question. You have a question. Thank you. So, Councilmember Herbold, thank you for bringing this forward. Could you explain something to me? How would this work? And let us assume that we have an individual and we had someone speaking earlier who it's her home. She's inviting someone into her home to share the rent. How would your amendment impact an individual who is wanting to be a prospective renter and what rights are reserved for the landlord in that situation? The way my amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment would work is that the landlord in that instance could charge whatever size moving fee they wanted to. They would be exempt from the part of the law that addresses the size of the moving fee that limits it. But they would still be subject to the part of the law that requires that larger moving fee to be paid by installments. So Councilmember Johnson, if I can just follow up with that. How does that impact what your intentions were with your amendment? Yeah, I think, again, my objective here is to try to make a clean consideration for the Department of Construction and inspections about which laws apply and which incidents. And so I will be voting no on Councilmember Herb Ward's amendment, because I believe that it's a lot easier for us as a department to go to as a segment of the rental population, landlord population. So these are the laws that you are exempt from. So that's my my my intention here is to have really an ease of understanding. Some have called it sort of an overall focus on bureaucracy. And I take that as a compliment, because I think that our bureaucracy works best when it's simple. Okay. So it clears mud right now. Just 1/2 here. Housekeeping item. I just noticed we've had several vacant seats here, so I want to send a message to our security that I'm comfortable. Very comfortable. I think we're within the fire code limits to let in 20 people who might be downstairs. We can get 20 people up. I believe we have those. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilmember Swann, did you want to say something in response to the questions and answers on this? Yes. And just given the procedure, I think it's better I incorporate all my comments at once. As I said, I will be supporting got herbals are done to amend the amendment that is that has been brought forward by Guttenberg Johnson. But I don't support any loopholes period. So I won't I will be voting against whatever the resulting amendment is. And just to describe my reasoning, this, the amendment that has been brought forward by Councilmember Johnson Waters down the legislation, because if that amendment passes, then tenant protections would be dependent on where the landlord lives. I don't think that is fair to Dennis. The law should apply, John, in general. And I mean, we should be clear that from what we know about the rental market, this this loophole will affect only a small minority of tenants. However, I believe that every tenant deserves their rights to be protected. And so that's why I would be voting no. But some reasons for voting No. One, it's simply not necessary. As I mentioned before, this legislation will have marginal impact on the landlords who are not gouging their tenants at all. Two I disagree with Councilmember Johnson that somehow this amendment will make it easier for the Department of Construction and inspections. Actually, it will make it far more complicated, both for tenants and the department, to know whether or not a given landlord is covered by the law. I mean, the the burden of figuring out laws always falls on the tenants. And why should we make it harder? Why should we make their job harder? Let's make it easier for them. And as far as the Department of Construction and Inspections is concerned, I don't think that this will make it easier for the department. It will actually this amendment will add work to the SDC because they will have to figure out which landlords covered and which landlord is not covered by this law. And finally, as I said, you know, the bottom line is everyone deserves to have their rights protected. Now, there's this whole process I know is labyrinthine. So I just wanted to clarify why I will support the Content Horribles amendment the first place. It's because it will make the Johnson Amendment into a smaller loophole than a larger loophole, which it is now. But ultimately, I will be voting against loopholes in general. Thank you. Thank you. So what will we have on the table is council member Herbert's amendment. I was passed a note to suggest that Councilmember Herbold Redd accidentally sort of lumped the subsections in the same same section, and they're actually listed in two different some C sections. So. So we just want to clarify this before voting on the amendment, but I don't think I clarified it very clearly. So. Did did you follow that customer who. I refer in my in the motion I made, I referred to three different subsections, but perhaps I did not. I see. I did. Okay. I see what I did. I can fix it. I move to amend the amendment by deleting the proposed new Seattle Municipal Code subset sections 7.24.03, five H and D and by substituting as EMC 7.24.0 36a as provided for the on the proposed amendment. Okay, that's clear as our second. Second part. Okay. So okay, we're going to have, I think, other opportunities to talk on the entire legislation. Let's just take that First Amendment first by vote. I'm going to ask just you vote and raise your hands so the clerk can see who. So all those who support Councilmember Herbold amendment vote I and raise your hand by. Opposed? No. And raise your hand. No. So that. So it fails is 4 to 4. So now let's turn to Councilmember Johnson's amendment. Sorry. What was the result of that vote? Four, two, four, four, two, four. So it failed. So now we're going to go to Councilmember Johnson's amendment, which has already been read into the record. And second, I believe. And are there any further comments on Councilmember Johnson's legislation that anyone would like to make councilmember worse? Thank you. I we had actually looked at this issue of Councilmember Johnson's exemption a while back. And I just want to say that I'm supporting this for this reason. When we look at owner occupied landlords and we look at the proximity of individuals living in your home and private property, which is different than somebody owning a much of a bunch of apartment complexes. I also am supporting this because I want to encourage owner occupied landlords to stay and into the rental housing market. Furthermore, I think that we need to be consistent with the renter laws that we now have an effect, including the first in time. I think it's important that we streamline enforcement, education and consistency with landlord tenant laws, and I think we have to be mindful that CCI is the main agency that has to enforce and implement this law. And we have to make sure that this law is fair, just and reasonable. I don't think that. That some of us who looked for exemptions are looking for loopholes or wanting to water down the law. I think that that those of us that are looking at the law, we want common sense. We want to review all aspects of the law, including the enforcement, the education and the legality. And that doesn't mean that some of us, again, aren't watering down the law or in the pocket in the pocket of big business or landlord lobbyists groups. I find that kind of rhetoric not helpful. Not all exemptions. As a lawyer of 30 years, not all exemptions are loopholes. There are reasons for exemptions. Not all laws are applied without a recognition of the facts and the people that it affects of particularly private property and constitutional rights. As many of you know, this was I asked and I want to thank Councilmember Sawant for her leadership. I ask that this be sent back to committee, not because I don't believe that this was a good law. I wanted this to be a law that would be effective and not like some of the other laws that I've seen passed in the city council where they sit on a shelf and can't get implemented because people thought the political flavor of the day was the right thing to do. And then facts change, or the reasoning or the law and the legality would not pass the scrutiny. And that's what I wanted to make sure that we handled. I'm I'm happy with this law because, as you know, I am going to support this legislation today. I'm proud that this legislation went back to the committee. During the committee last month. There were 16 changes, including two amendments that I brought forward. And the amendments would allow for landlords to collect their movement fees upfront without an installment plan. If their fees or their movement fees are 25% of a month's rent or less. And to clarify the enforcement process to ensure clear compliance. In short, I want to make sure that we incentivize landlords to make it easier for people to move in. I did not want this to be a punitive law. I also want to thank everyone who has provided feedback. And of course, Councilmember So-and-so office and Councilmember Herbert's office in working with our office and all the all the groups that made this move forward not just. Thank you groups of can. Thank you for the landlord groups we were contacted by every group imaginable and we spoke to everybody and we looked at the history of the law and how it went. So I just want to say, those of us that worked hard on this weren't trying to water anything down or look for a loophole, were mainly just trying to be mindful, practical and reasonable. Thank you. Thank you, councilman. Where is Councilmember Brian? You know, I'll be brief. I'm going to oppose this amendment. But I just want to comment on one thing, Councilmember wise, that you brought up. The the vast majority of tenant landlord laws apply regardless of whether the owner of or the landlord is a living on site. And so for consistency sake, sorry though the first in time legislation is the one exemption or exception that I'm aware of. So but I believe it to be consistent. What we should do is turn down this amendment because the body of our landlord laws apply to everybody. I saw a customer swap and the customer Herbert. Customer very. Quick point actually got some Brian already touched on it. The very important point that if the customer Johnson had said that the main reason he brought this up was for consistency for the sake of the Department of Construction inspection. Then in that, if that's the case, then then it should not have this loophole because as customer, Frank argues that only the first in time law has an exemption. And there was a very specific reason that's not a loophole and an exemption. And in fact, this is something that Council Member Herbal let on, which is that if you are a landlord or a property owner with a tenant in your unit, then for safety's sake, especially for single women who may own their own property and rent it out, it's important that they have some discretion on who rents on their own in their house. But that logic does not apply to a payment plan in any way. So I don't see any reason for this loophole, for this law. Councilmember Herbold. I too, will be voting against this amendment. I feel very strongly. That. We our primary obligation is to ensure that this legislation assists tenants no matter what kind of rental housing they're moving in to assist them in in being able to access housing by utilizing the payment plan, which I think is the most important part of this legislation. And so exempting all the tenants who rent from a landlord who lives on the property is simply going to result in fewer tenants of me of need being able to to access those units. Likewise, I don't quite understand how this exemption will make it easier for the Department of Construction and inspections to enforce enforce the law, because this this legislation is an exception to the rule rather than B being actually consistent with the rule. And it will actually put them in a position of having to make a determination whether or not the the ordinance is something that they have to enforce or not enforce when a tenant calls to to file a complaint. Thank you. Thank you, Katsuhiro. So we have on the table Councilmember Johnson's amendment. Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. I think I'll say a few words and I won't say anything on the base legislation that I will be supporting. But part of my I'll just speak to the audience that, you know, I will not emulate the behavior that I despise and the behavior that I despise are always castigating people, denigrating people, and not looking for the good in them. There are some awful landlords out there, but there are some very good ones too. And we do. I think we all could recognize we have an affordable housing crisis in this city. And I think as we approach all these problems, we don't poke fun or criticize without factual basis, good people trying to help the solution. I don't know any of these folks out here, but I don't believe they're trying to completely destroy this city in terms of affordability issues. But with Councilmember Johnson's legislation, it's very simple to me that when I first started thinking about this legislation and became excited about it, I realized this is a policy. These are policies we can actually control legally. And it's a good thing to make sure people are not penalized in the front door and that they if they don't have the money to afford a place, that they will be required to finance it. And I quite frankly, I didn't see the the big the big harm to the landlord. But I won't I won't criticize the organizations to represent them, their voices. They have a collective voice. But this is a policy, and I'm willing to revisit it if it doesn't work. But I believe that at the end of the day, it's going to be okay for everybody. I do believe that in my heart. And I must say, with respect to your amendment, that I asked the situation about the the senior I say senior citizen. I'm almost a senior citizen myself, but the senior citizen that is renting out their basement or something like that and they may want to have a little closer look and feel. And that's why I during the first in time legislation, I asked about that situation, not the the the person that owns, you know, multi-family units and the whole bit. I was looking for the smaller situation where there could be safety issues and all that. And I thought that person should rightfully have a little more say so on who they're renting to. I thought about people in my family who ran out of room, things like that. And so I was supporting your legislation. But the base legislation, I just will not talk about loopholes and watering down legislation when at least in my heart, I'm trying to do the right thing for those people that cannot afford to live in the city. And I take offense to that, quite frankly, I take offense to those kinds of terms because they are offensive. But I'll be supporting your legislation, your amendment. And I think it's we're ready to vote if anyone else has anything else to say. So I'm going to ask you to show your hand as you vote affirmatively or negatively. All those in favor of Councilmember Johnson's amendments say, I can vote and raise your hand. I all those opposed vote no and raise your hand. No, I'm just repeating, man. So and what do we have there? Five, three. So Councilmember Johnson's amendment passes and now we're ready for the amended legislation. So we have a bill in front of us introduced by Councilmember Swan. I think we've beat it up pretty good. Did anyone else want to make any closing comments? Councilmember Burgess, I. You're raising your hand. Thank you. I, too, will be supporting this ordinance. Actually separate from whether we have a housing crisis in Seattle, which we do, I view this ordinance as fair to all parties, and I think we're justified in supporting it even if we didn't have a housing crisis today. But I do want to address the false narrative that we are hearing more and more frequently in these chambers, and that is that if we want to do legislation correctly, somehow we are engaged in some sinister scheme to defeat ideas or throw things back. I just don't accept that. I mean, being a legislator is hard work and it's our job to get things right. And in my time on the council, taking a little more time to get things right is really important. And labeling and deriding opponents of our particular position is not consistent with our democratic values at all. And it pains me that we continue to hear that from some in these chambers. And it pains me that we stoop to that level. We're better than that. And all we have to do is look at the national political scene. Is that what we want in our city? And I don't think we do. And we should stop that kind of activity here in council chambers. Thank you. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. Whereas I O'Brien. I. Swear I. Bagshot Burgess, i. Herbold II Johnson President Arrow Rite Aid in favor an unopposed. Pass and sign it. Yeah. He please read the report of the Parks. Seattle Center Libraries and the Waterfront Committee.