AN ORDINANCE relating to tenant protections; amending Ordinance 383, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.60.050, adding a new chapter to K.C.C. Title 12 and repealing Ordinance 16223, Section 3, and K.C.C. 12.47.010, Ordinance 16223, Section 4, and K.C.C. 12.47.020, Ordinance 16223, Section 5, and K.C.C. 12.47.030 and Ordinance 16223, Section 6, and K.C.C. 12.47.040.
Item five on today's agenda is Ordinance 2021, 131 that would provide additional tenant protections for renters in unincorporated King County. After being introduced in March 16th and marked on June 9th, 2021, the Community Health and Housing Services Committee voted to forward the legislation to the full council without recommendation on June 15th. The full council was briefed on the legislation and striking Amendment One. Though it is striking the amendment at the time and the Council chose to refer the legislation to the committee of the whole for discussion and work. That action is what we are taking up today. And with that, I will turn to our central staffer, April Sanders, who is staffing this legislation in it from our central policy staff to provide a briefing on the underlying legislation as introduced. And I've asked it to then also proceed into briefing the current striking amendment as to the sponsors. Councilmembers Caldwell's and Xilai have brought to this meeting today. With that, Ms.. Sanders, I invite you to brief on the underlying ordinance, in fact, an amendment as to. April, are you present? April, your sound's not coming through. I see you, but I don't hear you, April. I'll give you a good shout out when I can hear you. I suspect she who has exited and is rejoining. To restart audio. Not prepared for me to have to do her speaking at some point in. Welcome back to the Sanders. You, you're still muted. Okay. You can hear me now. We can. Perfect. All right. It's bound to happen every once in a while. All right. Good afternoon. For the record. April Sanders council policy staff must warn as 2020 10131 would establish just cause provisions and additional protections for residential tenants in unincorporated King County. The materials for this item begin on page six of your packet, and an additional materials packet was distributed by Marca this morning. Councilmembers requested a crosswalk between the proposed ordinance striking amendment to state law and other jurisdictions. This crosswalk can be found on page 34 of your packet. This council is or this item was last presented to full council last Tuesday. The ordinance would establish just causes that a landlord must satisfy in order to terminate a month to month tenancy failed to renew a fixed term lease or begin eviction proceedings. The just causes are listed on page nine and ten of the packet, but include causes like a landlord wanting to occupy or sell the unit, a tenant failing to comply with the pay rent or vacant notice, and a tenant or their guest engaging in criminal activity on the premises. In addition to Jessica's policies, legislation would establish additional tenant protections. First, it would cap movement fees and security deposits at one month's rent, with the option to pay movement fees and security deposits incrementally. It would also cap late fees or costs that can be charged to a tenant due to nonpayment of rent at 1% of the monthly rent. The legislation would also amend King County Code Chapter 2.60. That section of code deals with the duties and scope of the Department of Public Defense and would be amended to allow the department to represent tenants whose leases have been terminated or are subject to unlawful detainer actions in violation of any King County ordinance when funds are available. Currently, there is not funding in the biennial budget dedicated to funding public defense access for tenants. Legislation would also repeal King County Code 1247, which currently requires landlords to prevent criminal activity and evict based on criminal violations of the tenant or tenants guests. 447 also requires landlords to report suspicion of criminal activity to the King County Sheriff's Office. If a landlord does not report suspicion of criminal conduct or prevent criminal conduct. They can be charged with civil infractions. With the repeal of 1247, a landlord would no longer be required to report or prevent criminal activity, but would still be able to evict a tenant under the just cause dealing with criminal activity. In addition to the provisions I have already listed, the legislation includes several additional protections and I'll go through a bit more quickly. It would require a landlord to give between 120 and 180 days notice for rent increases greater than 3%. It would prohibit landlords from engaging in unfair or abusive practices and deceptive acts of practices. It would state that acceptance of rent by landlord waives any right to declare forfeiture or seek eviction solely for any prior breaches of the rental agreement. It would prohibit a landlord from increasing the rent if the dwelling unit has defective conditions, making the unit unlivable or unlivable. It would require rental agreements to include a provision allowing tenants to adjust the due date of rent payments. If the tenant has a fixed income source that is incongruent, a fixed income source that the tenant receives on the date of the month incongruent with paying rent on the date otherwise specified in the rental agreement. An example of this is if an individual receives Social Security on the second of the month, they may elect to pay rent on the third, but also prohibit a landlord from refusing to enter into a rental agreement with a prospective tenant who will request such accommodations. It would require landlords to include language on a payment or vacate. Notice that the landlord may allow you to pay rent after the 14 days in lieu of initiating eviction proceedings. And lastly, it would prohibit landlords from requesting a Social Security number for the purposes of screening a prospective tenant. That brings me to the end of the protection, so I'll move on to damages. A landlord found in violation of any of the provisions in the proposed ordinance would be liable to a tenant in a private right of action or double damages, or four and a half times the monthly rent, whichever is greater in court costs and attorney's fees. The exception is the use of a tenant Social Security number for tenant screening. If a landlord is found in violation of this provision, they will be held liable up to double damages or one month's rent, whichever is greater in court costs. Attorney's fees. The Superior Court would act as the enforcement mechanism for the provisions included in the legislation. If a tenant believes a landlord has wrongfully initiated eviction proceedings or wrongfully refuses to renew a fixed term lease, the tenant may bring the landlord in court. Lastly, the legislation includes a series of directives to the executive. The executive would be required to develop the central phone number within DC address for tenants who believe their tenancy was terminated or their fixed term lease was not renewed. Wrongfully, the executive would be required to transmit a Tenant Protections Access plan with accompanying legislation to codify recommendations in the Landlord Outreach Plan by August 2021. The Tenant Protection's Access Plan would include recommendations on providing information about tenant protections in King County and access to those protections to residents with limited English proficiency recommendations on providing tenant protections to undocumented residents who may have a fear of accessing the court system and know your Rights Campaign with the objective of spreading awareness of the new provisions in the ordinance. Utilizing partnerships with community organizations and the King County Immigrant Refugee Commission, and recommendations on ways to provide free legal representation, advice, and other legal assistance to tenants facing eviction, harassment, disrepair, and other housing related issues, including an analysis of the right to counsel law through the New York City's Legal Representation program. The landlord outreach plan would have the goal of expanding knowledge of tenant protections in a King County code to landlords. The legislation, if adopted, would take effect 90 days after the effective date of the ordinance. And now that brings me to the end of the underlying ordinance. I'll move on to study amendment as to. In your digital materials packet, you'll find an amendment matrix. Striking Amendment S-2 begins immediately thereafter on page four of the packet. It would require landlords to provide at least 30 days written notice to a tenant when evicting, terminating, refusing to or using to renew a tendency for a just cause unless a longer notice period is required by state law. It would add a just cause for tenants who knowingly allow a vicious animal, as declared by the director of the Regional Animal Services Section without written consent from the landlord, or if an animal is declared vicious during the terms of the rental agreement. It would exempt subsidized tenancies from the one month cap on security deposits and move in fees. It would amend the cap on the fees from 1% to 1.5% of the monthly rent. It would require at least 120 days notice for rent increases over 3% instead of between 120 and 180 days and would amend notice requirements for subsidized tenancies to 30 days notice. It would amend damages to three times monthly rent or double damages plus cost of attorney's fees instead of double damages and or four and a half times the monthly rent. It would clarify that the provision regarding acceptance of rent does not waive a landlord's remedy for nonpayment of rent if additional rent is outstanding. It would amend language that a landlord may request, but now require a Social Security number from a prospective tenant. It also adds that a landlord shall not refuse to enter into a rental agreement with a prospective tenant because the prospective tenant does not agree to provide a Social Security number. It would amend the requirement for the executive to develop a central phone number within the DHS and instead make it an item the executive to report on the Tenant Protections Access Plan and require the executive to develop a standard notice in ten languages for landlords utilizing a just cause, an eviction information, tenancy or failure to renew a fixed term lease. It would clarify that if the executive is already conducting the work required in the access plan, the Executive should shall describe the work being done in the funding mechanism to accomplish the work, and how it addresses the goals of the plan would amend the due dates for both the Tenant Protection's Access Plan and the Landlord Outreach Plan to June 30th of 2022. Instead of August of this year. It would eliminate the effective date provision making the legislation effective in the normal course. It would add a severability clause. And lastly, it makes technical corrections to correct terminology, customizer edits, fixed class references and align language and provisions more closely with state law. There are additional line amendments I'd be happy to brief, unless there are any questions on the underlying or the striking amendment. I do suggest we pause here to take questions on the underlying ordinance and strike amendment that Ms.. Sanders has briefed. Assuming they are some. Councilmember Belushi. I asked out one more time because I think you said this, but it it all went by very, very quickly. And there's plenty. Of time. For context. Some of us were not on the committee that this legislation was sitting in. And this, for us at least, is the very first time we're ever going through the substance of what this ordinance contains. So it went by super fast. My top goal for myself with this meeting was to really educate myself about what's in the ordinance. And I can't say that I've achieved that yet because it was just too quick. But so could you once again state the key components of this ordinance? If you like it, it creates a just cause requirement. What constitutes just cause? It puts it just. Is there a short list somewhere? I'm trying to look through the chart. The chart is very long. It's just. Can you help me take it all on board somehow in a simple, enumerated way? Yeah, absolutely. So on page 11 of the packet, I will pull it up now as well. It is enumerated in a slightly easier manner and for the just cause provisions. But let's hold for just a minute, make sure that we're all people who are looking forward to finding the right page 11, because there's the regular packet and then there's the supplemental packet. Yes. And this is page 11 of the regular packet. Thank. I'm there. Okay, perfect. So everybody everybody else who wanted wants to catch up there. Yes. Okay. Games proceed. So all of the Jessica's provisions are listed between pages 11 and 12. And these are you know, I gave a few examples, but they include a tenant failing to comply with a parent or vacate notice, an owner electing to sell an owner seeking to do substantial rehabilitation in the building. So if any of these just causes or satisfied, a landlord will be able to either evict terminated tenancy or failed to renew a fixed term term lease. So any question specifically on just cause provisions that I can clarify? Come in follow up, Mr. Chair. One of the things that we heard in public comment was if an owner of a building is renting it out in anticipation that they will at some point rented to an adult child or to an a senior relative would. I would now like to rank this to my family member. B Just cause. Yes, being able to rent to a family member is, is just cause. I think that would be that would create the ability for the landlord to fail during the tendency to terminate and C to rent to that individual. Thank you so much. All right. And moving on to additional. Restrictions. Chair. S member, Dan Belsky. Thank you. I would like to also respectfully request that April, if at all possible, for just a slow learner like me, slow down just a little bit. It's very complicated. And I've been trained in real estate and practice real estate law, and I really work and understand it, particularly with the new state provisions. I have two questions. One, a specific one that heard from a constituent under the just cause provisions here, where we basically, as the government would say, when you would have to renew or wouldn't have to renew a lease. So I'd just about evictions. Understand it. Could somebody who owned the place next door to an aging parent and wanted to have a caregiver at move in residence? Would that be allowed either under this proposal or the state law? I'm so sorry. Sorry. Let me interrupt. I'm not aware of that being a just cause, other than if it were if that aging parents lived on the property. So if it were that individual's personal property, then then a landlord could utilize the just cause and remove the previous tenant to allow for a caregiver to live on their property if it was their primary residence. But not an adjacent residence. If it were a different parcel. No. No, just clauses in our proposed ordinance for that. I see. And then the other question is, it looks to me that many of these proposed just clauses mirrored the new state legislation that was adopted. That applies in some but not all cases, but not all tenancies. And I'd like to understand what kind of get going this would be and whether there is a difference in the enumerated just causes with the state legislation. And I suppose if we know the Seattle legislation, one thing that I am interested in, I want to share this with colleagues because I served on the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force co-chaired by Councilmember about Dutchie and Mayor Baker of Kenmore. If you if you look at our recommendations, we did suggest that there was a need for tenant protection legislation. And this is on page 27 of the 60 page report. I'm not sure which number it is, but it's one of the things we wanted to do was have some consistency and we started at the state and then had, you know, regional stuff. And I want to share a concern. I'm not saying that there's no room for for regulating in this space, but we have 39 cities in King County and unincorporated would make a 40th jurisdiction with police power. And I am applying a bit of a lens here to make sure that the regulation that we would be adopting really brings value such that when compared to the risk of and I do think it's a risk of providing dozens and dozens of different sets of rules around the county that folks have to figure out. And the reason that's a concern to me is because I do believe a regulatory structure like that does increase costs because you've got to figure out how to comply and increase costs. And providing housing is a problem. Right. That leads to higher rent. So I'm sorry I have drifted there and a little bit of thinking out loud, but I want to share that. That is a lens of looking at. So if you can help me understand a broader are just this proposed legislation just cause enumerated items versus the new state law and maybe Seattle? Sure. Absolutely. So not to make you jump around in your packet, but on page 34 of your packet, there is a crosswalk between the underlying ordinance, the striking amendment and the state law. With the House Bill 1236 Incorporated and Federal Way in Seattle are included as well as a comparison. So in the proposed ordinance just causes seven, eight and ten C are those that are not specified in state law. No, the exact verbiage varies because we draft legislation where we are drafting techniques are slightly different than the state, but the remaining just clauses in our ordinance model those out of the state law as far as applicability for the just causes. In the ordinance. The proposed ordinance would apply to months of maintenance tenancies, fixed term lease lease renewals and evictions. In the Washington Residential Landlord Tenant Act is a little bit more complex, so I'll go through the three scenarios. The first are fixed term leases that include a clause converting the lease to a month to month at the end of the initial lease term. If that clause is included in the fixed term lease, no cause is needed at the state level for a landlord to enter the tenancy at the end of the lease term. If there is a fixed term lease without that clause, converting it to a month month initiated the end of the initial lease term. The landlord may terminate without cause, but only if the lease term is for 12 months or more and the parties have entered into a successive rental agreement of six months or more after that initial lease term. And the tenancy has never been a month to month basis since inception of the tenancy. In that case, no cause would be needed. All other tenancies at a state level, including month on month, you may not terminate tenancy without one of those enumerated just clauses. So everything else would be would require. That just follows. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Lambert, do you mind if I just follow up there? Yeah. And then I'm sorry Joe asked me to chair as opposed to go ahead. And run right here on the right track. I did not understand what she just said, so that's why I interrupted. Okay. No, no. No problem. I've read a dozen times and I think I'm starting to get there. But April, maybe could you help us understand if we know the policy basis behind the state choosing the different kinds of tenancies in which they would apply that just cause I understand, I think this legislation would get fill, if you will, to cover kind of all tendencies. Correct. I don't know the policy intent behind why those fixed term term leases were exempted from requiring cause. And it was done fairly late in the session. And I, I didn't review those those meetings. To. Sort of get a gauge for the conversation. And instead, if my explanation of the state law was unclear, I'm happy to review again. You know, I. Think it was clear it's just complicated. And if you couldn't, then I'll stop on this line of questioning. You indicated that this proposed either in the striking amendment or the underlying legislation would add additional cause, just causes seven, eight and ten. See, and I didn't see those in the crosswalk, but maybe I. Could you tell us what those are? Yes. Let me go back to. I'm scrolling through an amendment packet here. Okay. And then the additional one would be the vicious animal, just cause that is in that a striking amendment. So in eight. So there's the discontinuation or discontinued use of a dwelling unit after receipt of a notice and order from the Department of Local Services . That is is not in state law. There is. Oh, it looks like I was. Oh, I was looking at the underlying ordinance. The numbers have changed, of course. Just a second. Okay. Reducing the number of occupants to fit with King County Code is also not one that is in in the state law. So reducing occupants do not exceed the legal limit. And then the last ten see the owner seeks to evict a tenant if they're in a single family dwelling unit and the owner resides in an accessory dwelling unit on the same lot. So I guess the primary residence concern that I spoke about previously. Okay. Thank you for that orientation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I do have some familiarity with this ordinance, but it was me. The. 12 months. I get that a fixed amount and then you must. Do a one month to month lease. But you can't break the one month lease unless you do a six month lease, which then has to be followed. By a one month lease. Why? Could you explain. That to me a little bit more how that works? Sure. So we're talking now about the state law and the applicability of the just cause provisions on a state level. So the first is a fixed term lease that includes a clause where it automatically goes to a month, a month pendency at the end of the initial lease term. So make sure you got that. So you have a year. And then you can go to a month. The month after that it was written in the contract originally. So if you then had it and you said, okay, well I only want you in this unit for another two months, so. We're going to have two events. And then at the end of the second month, you know, you're done. Right. And a landlord could hypothetically, at a state level, evict or terminate tenancy after that after that second month. For any reason. No reason for no cause. Okay. Okay. So go ahead. And I got that. So then what happens? And it doesn't have to be. You mentioned 12 month lease is just state's fixed term lease. So do not would not have to be that full year, but it would have to have that that provision that creates a month to month after the second is a fixed term lease without that clause. So the clause that would convert it to a month, a month at the end of the initial lease term and the landlord could terminate without cause if the initial lease term is for more than. 12 months and. 12 months or more, rather, and the parties have entered into a successive rental agreement of six months or more. So at minimum 18 months of lease. So that first 12 months lease or more and then six months or more of a lease renewal. And if that is the case and there's never been a month to month tenancy, then they would be able the landlord could terminate for no cause. Let me make sure I understand what you just said. So if you have a fixed place and maybe it was even two years, at the end of two years, you say, okay, now we have to go to a month to month. So you go to a month a month. If it was more than six months. Then you could just say no cause it was less than six months because. So we're not talking month to month tenancies in this provision. It is a fixed term lease that is 12 months or more, and they enter into a successive agreement for six months or more after that. So it wouldn't be a month, a month for six months, it would be a six month extension or more. And if a landlord wanted to terminate tenancy after that point, under the state law, they could without. Cause. Mr. Chair, may I ask a clarifying question? Council Member Cole Wells Thank you. And I'm sorry to interrupt that, April, and I'm getting confused now with the explanation that you just two council member Lambert applies to state law or the striking. Amendment before it is state law. So this does not apply. You are striking amend or the striking amendment. Thank you. I thought that was the case, but I wasn't sure everybody understood that. That's a good distinction, councilmember Caldwell's. The conversation was about state law and not the ordinance before us this afternoon. But so how does that play with our state, with our county governments? How did they do. In the proposed ordinance? It would not have that distinction between types of fixed term leases. It would apply equally to all and month to month tenancies. Fixed term lease renewals and evictions. Thank you. Okay. Do I have any more questions on just cause specifically? So. Hello, council members. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much, April, for helping us navigate through this complex legislation. Really appreciate you. I'm just taking notes of concerns from colleagues just so I can work through them as one of the prime sponsors. One of the things I heard from Councilmember Dombroski is the issue of jurisdictional differences and having dozens of different rules everywhere. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, may you just elaborate a little bit about that? I'm actually just taking notes. Yeah. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Comes from Rizal in our original affordable housing task force. One of our strategies was to, quote, preserve access to affordable homes for renters by supporting tenant protections, which is what this is about to increase housing stability and reduce the risk of homelessness. Strategy A says propose and support legislation and statewide policies related to tenant protection to ease implementation and provide consistency for landlords and then, you know, enumerate them. So what we were doing there as the Affordable Housing Taskforce was saying that frankly the state of our tenant protection laws under the Residential Landlord Tenant Act was pretty weak and we didn't have a just cause statute statewide, unlike the city of Seattle did. And we were also acknowledging, though, that there is this concern about a whole bunch of different rules and regulations that could be adopted. Jurisdiction by jurisdiction. I thought, you know, my sense was and we're trying to balance those to strengthen or have consistency so they can be implemented relatively easily. And so that's kind of my interest here. At least one of the lenses in which I'm looking at this. I really think the state did make great strides in this last legislative session by adding this protection. And I want to make sure that this proposal, to the extent it goes beyond that or as is, is different in some of those same areas, really is going to deliver. Needed and necessary protections such that if it ran, if we ran its course, when we start to have a variety of these around the county, you could have 40 different versions that that, you know, that gets pretty cumbersome to comply with. And for practitioners in the space to understand, on both sides representing tenants, representing landlords, you know what rules apply developing the forms. Right. That that are used oftentimes. So that's my interest there. We did a lot of work, a lot of great work in the region, affordable housing task force. I really believe we're possible we should when we set those plans, try and be consistent with them because we convene folks from across the spectrum there and brought folks to the table and worked for many months to come up with that. And that is one of the recommendations. So it's not necessarily binding. There's some wiggle room in there, but I'm trying to look back at what we did and and honor it. Thank you. Yeah, I was looking for clarification on the point about if it ran its course and there were 40 different rules. I just want to make sure everybody listening in the audience knows this only applies to unincorporated Kane County, so it would not affect the 39 other cities. There would not be, based on this ordinance, 39 rules. This only applies to unemployed. Now, whether or not other municipalities are also creating their own just cause ordinances, that, of course, can end up having many different rules for people to apply in their jurisdiction. But this ordinance would not be the cause of multiple different rules outside of this one additional impact in unincorporated Kane County. I just want to make sure that all the valid things you said don't. End up with confusion and audience members thinking that we're proliferating many different rules here. No, no. In fact, of our structure of government, we're different. We can have that consistency. We can have it can be, you know, uniformly King County. Right. Thank you for that clarification comes from Brazil. I appreciate the opportunity to dialog that. Mr. Chair. Council Member Caldwell's Thank. You, Mr. Chair. The question of the floor. I just to make sure and correct. It's been mentioned by several opponents or those who have concerns about the legislation that for landlords that they if they say a one year lease or month to month tenancy, then there's one year. Is that, for example, that they would have no right to terminate? They would have to go along with the continuation or renewal of the lease. My understanding is that the owner can or a landlord can provide a new rental agreement or lease with different terms, different length of the term and different amount of rent. Is that correct? Yeah. There's nothing in the legislation that would preclude a landlord from amending or providing a different lease when that fixed term lease renewal option option comes up. And for the raise or the rent increase, it would have to be more than 120 days notice for that rent increase and for the legislation. But there's no obligation for any landlord to continue with the same one year lease as had been the case. No. Thank you. Just to remind everybody where we are in our conversation, Mr. Sanders is walking through a briefing us on the ordinance and striking amendment that is before us and has just highlighted the just caused eviction provisions within it and would anticipate moving on to other parts of the ordinance as well. Are there any more questions about just cause in particular? I'd invite you to proceed misandry. Great. So I'm going back to the committee packets, not the additional materials, but the committee packet to get back to your concern about this question about what else is in the ordinance other than just cause since I frequently went through, you know, about 20 things that are included in the ordinance. I think the easiest way to go through the the additional items is in that matrix that compares the striking amendment and the underlying with the residential landlord tenant act because that goes to sort of a summary version of a lot of these items. So this is on page 34 that this begins and we already spoke about just cause and the applicability. And enforcement, of course, is the court system. I mentioned that. So I'll go to fees for moving peace and security deposits. They'd be capped at one month's rent and a tent may elect a pay move in fees and security deposits incrementally. And in the striking amendment, it would exempt subsidized housing units where rent is based on income from that one month cap. For late fees. It would cap late fees at 1% monthly rent in the underlying ordinance. And then you get to the striking amendment where that is capped at 1.5% monthly rent. A notice of rent increase. So in the underlying ordinance, it would require a landlord to give between 120 and 180 days notice for rent increases, a present and then a striking amendment. It would require landlords to give at least 120 days notice for rent increases above 3%, and it would require landlords of subsidized tenancies to give 30 days notice of rent increases greater than 3%. So it changes that that requirement for subsidized tenancies specifically. And this is moving on to page 35. QUESTION Mr. Chair. Councilmember Balducci, thank you. The range is is my question. So if you are required to give 120. To 180. Days notice, you're basically required to give 120 days notice unless there's some. What does that mean? A range doesn't make sense to me. If there's a minimum number, then that's the that's the minimum. Sure. And you'll notice in the striking amendment that's changed to at least 120 days, there's not that range. They can cause some problem. And that makes sense. Thank you. Ms.. Sanders, if I can ask if. Would there be anything to preclude an immediate rent increase of, say, 3%, which doesn't require 120 days or more notice and and been implemented at the same time as a subsequent notice for an additional 1% rent increase? No, nothing would preclude that. We didn't hear it today. But in other testimony, we heard about the if if costs had gone up, landlords wouldn't be able to catch up. It'd be delayed by over 120 days on make change in expenses. And in this in my point is that they could implement the 3% immediately and an additional say 1% or an additional amount in excess of 3% later. Sure. And just to phrase it differently, so I know that I understand your question. Let's say your landlord chooses to increase and increase rent 2% immediately and then give notice of that in 120 days, the rent will increase by 4% or 5%. They could hypothetically impose that rent increase and provide the notice. Nothing in the ordinance would preclude that. Thank you. All right, Mr. Chair. Dombroski dombroski on the run increases. I guess that prior discussion, I assume that all would be on a month to month tenancy because in a lease. Typically the rent is set for the term. Yeah. So but if the if you if the landlord was planning on renewing that lease end of the lease term, they would also be required to provide that notice. Okay. But this notion of costs went up. So I'm going to next month raise give you another 1%, which follows a three. I don't under a longer term fixed term lease. I don't know that that is possible unless the terms of the lease which I think would be unusual, provide for mid. Lease rental adjustments. Yeah. Councilmember Chair McDermott's example does pair best with month to month tenancies, but if a lease term, if you a landlord gave 120 days notice that there is going to be a 5% rent increase once the lease was renewed at the end of the lease hold, the lease could hypothetically state that, you know, three months later it would go up 1% or whatever the lease specified. I see. I guess while we're on the topic of rent increases, is is there anything in this legislation that would prevent upon renewal the setting by the landlord of any sum of rent? So you're at 1500 a month comes up for renewal. You don't have a just cause eviction right or termination of their right to renew their landlord jump at $2,500. And if it were going above 3% of that increase, it would have to have that 120 days notice. Give the notice that raise the rent. Correct. So raising the rent would if it were above 3%, the landlord have to provide that notice. And in 20 days or more in advance. Oh, okay. Thank you. All right. So moving on in that matrix to acceptance of rent. And so the underlying ordinance states that acceptance of rent waives any right to declare forfeiture of or seek eviction solely for any prior breaches of the rental agreement. And the striking amendment clarifies that the provision does not waive a landlords remedy for nonpayment of rent if additional rent is outstanding. Okay. Moving on. I got to talk. To your uncle second. What bank accounts for about the gymnast thing? In my view of default, usually you've got monetary defaults and non-monetary defaults. And if I read the underlying call, it s one, the base proposal and concerns from from some from my own property. They said, well, if you accept rent, there's a reading that all defaults are defaults are waived. I'm not sure if this changes that it doesn't look like it. But could you help me understand this? The answer to this question under either the any version that's before us here S1 as or the base if I'm if there are non-monetary defaults safety issues the you know whatever it might be go to maintain consistent with the release if they accept rent after issuing a notice of default is the lent are those defaults deemed cured or waived and non actionable? I'm correct. Non-monetary would also be included in this provision. Non-monetary items are breaches, and if a landlord accepted rent, they they cannot go back in and utilize those prior breaches for eviction. Or I'll just express my concern with that. And some of the lends here I have, as you know, as some of you call them, home mom and pop landlords, but someone who's got a house with a mortgage on it. And if you've got a series of non-monetary defaults where the tenant may not be complying, if you are if you accept rent and those are gone, that really can be problematic. And there's you've put the person in a bit of a jam if they've got a mortgage payment to make or they're paying our tax bill which, which we want paid on time. And if you can't, if that's waived upon accepting the rent, you lose your right to get a cure there. That's to me, I'm just going to be blunt non workable I don't believe. I think the common law is appropriate when you accept rent that should waive and I'm happy to support legislation that codifies that. If you accept rent, you should not be able to allege that you've got an ongoing default there, that that should be deemed cured and not actionable. But the mixing of accepting rent and waiving non-monetary defaults, I think is a real challenge with this proposal. Okay. So moving on, if there are no other questions on acceptance of rent. I saw some unmute, so I'll give it just a second. Okay. So it comes from members all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we have heard of concerns about this one as well. I just want to give some of the policy intent behind it and also that sharing once I once I share that some of the policy and to the fact that there are some there is some movement to create changes to this one. So the policy intent behind it is the idea that a landlord should not be able to continue accepting rent. And then one day say, hey, one year ago you violated this thing. You know, you brought a vicious dog to the house one year ago. I didn't say anything. I kept collecting rent. But now I'm going to use that as an excuse to evict you. That's a huge problem. That's a huge problem and something that does happen. So but the concern you're bringing up, Councilmember Danowski, is very valid because we also don't want to create a situation where we put landlords in a bind, where they have to choose between, you know, do I not get rent to pay my mortgage or do I continue living with this bad situation that, you know, these violations that are issues for? We don't want to put people in a bind for that. So I do think there are workarounds where we can address both scenarios. And I look forward to working with with with each of you on that. If I might, Mr. Chair, customers all I. That's super helpful. I definitely would be supportive of efforts to get rid of gotcha defaults unnoticed gotcha defaults that you know we're pulling these things out and using them to get at the tenant. And maybe it should be if there's been, you know, a notice of default given and secure ride demand secure that there's a way but I. That's helpful to hear the goal that you're trying to achieve there and I concur with your your objective. In a notice is something that we've discussed. And there was some issue with state law possibly supplanting that so or preempting that. But correct me if I'm wrong, April, but we're currently discussing that. Is that right? Right. We're we're going back to the POW and discussing options with them that we can bring back to you. Thank you so much. Please proceed. So moving on, this is still on page 35 of the packet and two defective conditions and the underlying ordinance and the striking amendment makes no changes to this would prohibit a landlord from increasing the rent if the dwelling unit has defective conditions making the unit unlivable. The only change is in sight. Word choice to uninhabitable in the in the striking amendment to track more closely with with our are the language that we have in the Department of Permitting or before many division. Payment due dates. The underlying ordinance required rental agreements to include a provision allow. I'm sorry, I question and notice the Seattle ordinance on that defective conditions has an office, presumably the office of Housing that is tasked with probably their inspection program, which we don't which we don't have either the office or the inspection program. And so whether the unit is uninhabitable is determined by by that office, under that program, presumably in Seattle, I don't know as much about it, but how would it be determined whether the unit was uninhabitable under our ordinance? Is that just something to be litigated? If somebody attempts and it attempts to collect, render tax intervention and then there would be litigation that would ensue? Correct. It would have to be litigated since there's no comparable enforcement mechanism like the city of Seattle. All right. Thank you, Beck. That's member Lambert. Thank you. Could you explain on that? So the. State law. Requires that you. Keep the premises fit. For human habitation. So. If that's a requirement. I'm sure there must be something in law that does not allow you to raise rent if you weren't even able to have it. Not a human habitation. So how did those two coincide? Sure. So the state law specifically prohibits or requires, rather, the landlord to keep the premises fit for human habitation. But it does not directly state, to my knowledge, that you would not be able to increase rent. And then of the proposed ordinance 0131 would prohibit that rent increase if the dwelling unit has defective conditions. So there's sort of two sides to the the defective conditions. Thank you. All right. So payment due dates. If there are no more questions on the effect of conditions, the underlying ordinance requires rental agreements to include a provision allowing tenants to adjust the due date of rent. If the tenant has a fixed income source. Incongruent with with that duty. And there is a state law that was passed that has a similar provision. So the language was amended to just. Add to. Reflect the provision in state law that allows the tenant to request a new due date and a landlord has to comply if certain certain circumstances are met. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to keep asking. House member Belden. See. Now. My understanding of the intent behind this provision in state law and in this proposal is that like suppose I'm somebody on a fixed income or even somebody with a job and I and I get I get my pay and I live and I live on two months. I'm paying. And the paycheck to paycheck or benefit checks a benefit check and I get my checks on the 15th, but the rent is due on the first. This would allow to move the payment for rent to be do concurrent, you know, so to the 16th or whatever so that I have the money in hand. Does it allow a continual changing of dates or is it meant to be that consistent? Because I know that the state law has got some things in it that talks about regularity, but ours doesn't seem to. Sure. So in the state law, the tenant may propose the date, but it has to be within five days of the original due date. And the landlord is required to agree to a proposal if it is submitted in writing, and the tenant can demonstrate that his or her primary income is a source of governmental assistance that is not received until after that due date. And again, it has to be within five days. So the the proposed ordinance in the striking or the striking amendment specifically is meant to basically affirm that that state law. So this provision under the striker would be exactly the same as the current state law. Word for word. It is not identical just from a drafting perspective, but the the intent should be is meant to be aligned. I can get an exact side by side between the two of that's helpful and likewise later. Yeah I would love to follow up on that prior to final passage. There's just something it's I think they beat it into you in law school. There's something about having something that's just got a slightly different language that just it kind of makes my brain hurt and makes me worry about whether there's unintentional meaning changes there. Thank you. Yeah. Well, try that. Brain hurt is one of the plethora of reasons why Council member Lambert and I did not go to law school. Like an ice pick right here. I mean. SANDERS Or maybe I'm asking one of the proponents of of the legislation, is there a reason why we would articulate what the payment due date flexibility if you received a fixed payment rather than just rely on state law, that I presume would cover the tenancies already. I will prejudice sponsors on that one. The sentences this hour. Our hours apply to more tenancies than the state law. I know it would be okay. I would like, but we do draft legislation differently. So there are some word choice changes that I will send out to the council. Thank you. I'll look out for that. Those word choice differences, April, and go from there. Thank you. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. To the extent state law covers this, I think consistency would be good to just, you know, let that control. On the substance, I'm supportive of it. Big, big companies, they've got cash flow flexibility. And I think most small landlords that have a mortgage now, even the mortgage companies say, when is it good for you to pay on a monthly basis? So I think there's flexibility and this makes a lot of sense to setting up a pattern, whether it works for folks on timing when they can based and reduces the risk of them getting behind by just a few days because the cycle is off. So I really appreciate this proposal on and I'm supportive of it. Ms. SANDERS So moving on to page 36 and continuing in that that crosswalk. Pay rent or vacate notices. So the underlying ordinance and this is not changing the striking amendment would require landlords to include language, unhappy rent or vacant notice to include that the landlord may allow you to pay rent after the 14 days in lieu of initiating eviction proceedings. And then we get to Social Security numbers in the underlying ordinance. It would prohibit landlords from requesting a Social Security number for the purpose of screening a prospective tenant and striking amendment as to it would allow a landlord to request but not require a Social Security number from a perspective, tenant and landlord would not be able to refuse a tenancy if the tenant does not provide a social security number or prospective tenant would not provide that social. All right. Going on stage. There. I got to go. Sorry to jump out. I got a comment on this. Just in the spirit of working, like feel like we have a little bit of a working session here. I had some concerns about this, but I think what the goal here is from a perspective, landlords perspective, is they want to be able to do sometimes two things one, a credit check and two, a background check, which I think has become more common than maybe it used to be. Sometimes those terms are being used interchangeably, but there can be two reports. My goal would be to make sure that the that receiving those reports is obtainable. And I understood while at the same time protecting those that don't have a Social Security number in term in terms of getting access to housing. So this language is getting closer, maybe even does it. I think a landlord should be able to ask for a Social Security number, but they should not be able to exclude anybody from qualifying for tenancy just because they don't have it. I think the test should be whether or not they can obtain the required credit check and or background report. I've done some of my own personal research on this. Well, it's not as easy to do it. I believe that that it can be done with other identifying information. And so I hope that we can get the language to the point where the landlord should be able to get the information they need. And not discriminate against anybody who may not have a Social Security number. That's kind of where I am on that. And I think that's maybe where this is headed. But I want to share that with the sponsors. Thank you, Councilmember Dombrowski. And you're right, we're having sort of a work session as we go through this at the same time as Chair. Let me interject that it is 326 and we have a number of us have another meeting that begins at four. So we have a hard stop. That said, as an individual member of this committee, let me also comment that I have concerns about this section for the very reasons you are articulating that I want a prospective landlord to be able to do a thorough check, including background and credit. But I do not want to set up a system wherein people who do not have a Social Security number cannot secure housing, or at least the wrong intended tendency of housing. And my concern in the language, even in this, too, is that a landlord is able to ask for it. A tenant can decline. A landlord can then not decline to rent to that tenant because they did not provide a Social Security number. And it comes with no assertion that they do not have one, just they chose not to provide it. You raise a good point. Also, that clarity about what kind of reports can be obtained without a Social Security number is fundamental to the questions we're asking right now. Is a Social Security number required for the reports? I don't have I don't have definitive answers on that either. But that's I want to lay out my thinking as well. ZARRELLA Councilman Brazil, hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to point out that undocumented immigrants, for many reasons, don't. Often don't want to be revealed as undocumented immigrants. So requiring people to say that they don't have a Social Security number could be dangerous for them. And so just saying that it's not required, but you can ask is a workaround for that. And I will also add that, as I understand, a lot of people don't want that. We've heard from many landlords and landlord associations about this Social Security number issue, and people are saying many different things about what you can and cannot do in terms of credit report. I invite anybody on this call to just do any level of Google searching to find out what the answer is here. Experian itself one of the largest credit and credit agencies. They have entire blogs about how it is possible to get a credit report without a Social Security number. I call. The second is like the second search return customers. Of friends union myself. I got the same answer. I called Equifax. I got the same answer. And one of the reasons is that the federal government, through the IRS, recognized that if certain people don't have Social Security numbers, they won't be they won't pay their taxes and they won't do plenty of things that are required. As for somebody who lives in the U.S., so they have something called an ITIN individual taxpayer identification number that's used by foreign nationals as well as undocumented immigrants who don't have a Social Security number. And if you send in that number, that itin in writing to any of these big three credit agencies and many others, you can get a credit report. And so the misinformation that's been going around saying that this ordinance, quote unquote, seeks to ban the use of credit credit screenings is wrong. It's it's wrong, technically speaking. But it's also wrong because when you say we're seeking to ban credit histories, it sounds like it's saying that our intent is to ban credit screenings. Our intent is not to ban credit screenings. Neither is the reality that we're banning credit screenings. Our intent is to protect undocumented people who are at high risk of homelessness. And so hopefully we can pass this legislation and protect this vulnerable group of people. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you. I did one as well, but I know that our staff are non partizan staff. April Sanders also said that she had looked online and found some. Is that correct? Correct. I found similar data to Councilmember Zala in the Barsky indicated. Thank you. All right. If there are no more questions on that one, I can go to Access to representation, which is continuing on page 36. Towards the bottom, the legislation. And this does not get changed in the striking amendment as to allow for the Department of Public Defense to represent tenants when funds are available. Moving on to repeal of King County Code 1247. So King County Code 1247 would currently requires landlords to prevent criminal activity and evict based on criminal violations of the tenants or tenants. Guest Property seven also requires landlords to risk or report suspicion of criminal activity to the sheriff's office. Currently, the landlord does not report suspicion of criminal conduct or prevent criminal conduct. They can be charged with civil infractions. The legislation would repeal 1247. So a landlord would no longer be required to report or prevent criminal activity, but would still be able to evict a tenant under the just cause. Dealing with criminal activity. That is the last item on page 36. Moving onto page 37 damages. And in the underlying legislation, the damages are a double. Damages are four and a half times the monthly rent, whichever is greater court costs and attorney's fees. The exception is that use of a Social Security number and in the striking amendment as to it would be double damages or three times monthly rent, whichever is greater, plus court costs and attorney's fees. And with that lower number four for the Social Security number. Noticing in the striking amendment, it would require landlords to provide at least 30 days notice to a tenant when terminating a tenancy or refusing to renew and a tenancy for just cause to 30 days unless a notice is a longer notice as required by state law. And the last provision on this matrix are executive reports, which you'll notice in the crosswalk obviously does not have a comparable in state law. It would require a tenant protection access plan. With the accompanying legislation and the landlord outreach plan, it is amended in the striking amendment and amend the requirement for the executive to develop a central phone number as instead of being a requirement, it would be an item for further study within the Tenant Protections Access Plan and it would amend to require the executive to develop standard notices for landlords evicting, terminating tenancy or failing to renew a fixed term lease or just cause. It also amends the due dates until June 30th of next year. And that brings me to the end of that matrix. Any further, any questions available regarding the underlying ordinance and striking amendment as to come from a ruling number? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Three quick ones. Earlier on, you talked about the number of people that could be in a unit that was over the limit. So could you go over there real quickly one more time? Sure. So there is a just cause dealing with occupancy limits in code. So if a if in the current ordinance, if a tenant had more individuals on their premises than is allowed in code and a notice of notice and order from permitting is received notifying that they are in excess of the legal limit, then the landlord could utilize that as a just cause for treatment, terminating tenancy or failing to renew a fixed term lease. Okay. And then also the second question is. Suppose you're a landlord. And you have 100 units. Conceivably you could have people saying, I want to pay 30 different dates. Of the month. So, you know, having been a bookkeeper at one point in my life. Having everything at the same. Time is an economy of scale. So we said that. That only applies to. Us like under five units. Is there any limit on that? Because that seems like that could be a nightmare. Or bookkeeping costs. For a corporation. State law sets that the new due date has to be within five days of the original due date in the rental agreement. No, there is no threshold in state law for the number of units that a landlord possesses. So the one that is being proposed is to still comply with within that five days? Correct. Okay. The my last question. And it was brought up today that. About. 10% of landlords. And despite several times today. About 10%. Of the landlords also have needs to. Potentially get help with an attorney. So is there some way that in this code we cannot be. Discriminating against those 10%. And make sure that they, too, can apply for. Any. Legal help that they need if they set a certain threshold. Because some landlords. Are just making. It by retirement. So is there a threshold for that 10%? Are we just going to leave them out? And there is nothing in the legislation that speaks specifically to that 10% you're referencing. Okay. I think that's important. I think everybody should be treated fairly. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. Council member follows. It. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The question of April regarding late fees and the due dates and capped fees and so forth, and I have actually an amendment I've been working on that that is not on our list. That would be to have a gradual phasing in of higher late fees percentages. Depending. On when the rent would be paid. But I understand that there is a state law that essentially landlords cannot charge late fees until after five days. Correct. Okay. Explain that, please. Sure. Under state law, late fees cannot be assessed until five days after the due date in the rental agreement. So any imposition of fees them cap or not cap, would not begin until the sixth day. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. We have gone we have gone through the ordinance as introduced and striking amendment S-2 and briefed carefully and had some conversation and dialog about concerns and attempts as we did that. We also have a matrix of a relatively small number of amendments that might be proposed. Would it be the body's desire to. Have the legislation put before us and brief amendments as they might be presented or to go through all of the amendments now. Mr. Scheer. Council member Belushi. Is speaking as the person who gets to run the special council meeting next week on this. I think it would make sense that we make sure to vote the legislation out of committee without recommendation if necessary, just to keep us on track. And since that special meeting has really this is the only substantive item, there might be a consent item or two that sneaks in. But we can certainly spend the time in that meeting to do amendments there if we need to. Of course, with the forbearance of the public, because we're not going to call a hard start. We can't at a full council call a hard stop to public comments. So we. Will hear everybody. Until we're done. And then from that point on, we have the full meeting to work on whatever amendments are available and hopefully get to a final vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is my it would be my intent if the committee willing to move the legislation out with or without recommendation today, I would entertain a motion now and debate amendments as time allows before we move, before we would take a vote on the legislation. I'm in committee today, so I would entertain a motion. By Mr. Chair on a procedural question first. Please. I understood and I had some questions of a legal nature that there might be an executive session for us to consult with counsel. And I wondered. If that is best occur to occur here or at full, full council. I'm Councilmember Dombrowski. How do you know if Legal Council has the answers to your inquiries or would it be presenting the questions? I think they have some of the inquiries. I don't know if they've had time to. Compare responses. I know they've done, I believe. I don't know. I said they've done some work previously, which I haven't been briefed on. Okay, then let's step into executive session so that we can at least make sure questions are surfaced for legal review and do that thoroughly before a council. Next week we will be in executive session for 10 minutes and the grounds for executive session under are CW 4231 ten. We discussed with legal counsel the legal risks of a proposed action when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal and natural consequence to the county committee. The whole will be in executive session for approximately 10 minutes until about 350. The committee will be off Zoom after the Zoom call for the executive session, together with only those county employees directly necessary for this discussion. With that we are members will leave to join the executive session link. We have separate. Thank you. We are back now from executive session and council member Col Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move proposed ordinance 2020 10131 and I'm not certain if we see a striking amendment now or just that without recommendation. Council member Caldwell's has moved he has moved to rescind ordinance 2021 131 two for council without recommendation and that is the underlying ordinance. Council member calls, if you'd like, if you wish to offer a striking amendment as to today, I would entertain that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, striking amendment to. Ask to is before us on. Discussion on as to. There are line amendments. If we're going to take it up, I think we need to allow the sponsors to give their own amendments. I. I have light. I have a line of them in the green folder. I'm I will choose not to offer in discussed my linemen amendment today given time but know that the issue is is one that would bring to full council next week. I don't know if other members feel the same. From Damascus. Mr. Chair, from my perspective, I'd be prepared to vote yes to advance it to the best underlying ordinance to full council without recommendation. But it seems like there's a fair bit of work to do, and I'm not sure the value of advancing the striking amendment at this time. I think it's got some work to be done on it. So that's up to Councilmember Caldwell's, I suppose. But it seems like we can advance the legislation and work it up next week at council. I it doesn't matter to me. I would just like to get this taken care of before many of our members have to leave in 4 minutes. So perhaps council can advise us after April, but I think we should get this recommendation or whatever form is going to be workable. MAZARS And I will just remind the sponsors of the striker that it is too late to change it through your own amendment. DEADLINE So if you don't vote, striker it me as it is the other way. You clarify what you just said? There is no opportunity under the rules for the amendment deadlines to offer a different striker. Before council it will have to be the same exact sticker. Councilmember Caldwell's I would like to go ahead and move my strike in amendment number two with that recommendation. So at least we have it before it. Gets to us before us. Councilmember Caldwell's. I. I would like to take the vote. I'm not sure what you're asking, but I would like to take up the vote on striking them until it is before us, and then we can take it up in our special council meeting next week and have amendments at that time. Thank you, Councilmember Bellucci. I would just I would I would be willing to vote in favor of the striking amendment on the theory that even though I might not agree with everything it says and it might not be there, this is almost like the sponsors are just shaping up what it is they want to present for us to then amend and vote at the next meeting, and in that spirit to move things along. I would vote yes on the striking amendment so that we have the full intent of the sponsors in front of us for next Tuesday. Further discussion on as to. It was, I'm going to be a no on it just because I've got some concerns about its content. And I know we're we're stuck in a procedural versus substantive issue here, but hopefully we can get the legislation worked up through our process into something that works for a majority. Mr. Chairman. I understand, Councilmember Dombrowski, and like I said, I have concerns as well, but believe that has to is a further step in addressing at least some of those concerns, though not fully. Student Council member Col Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I understand this, we would. Be moving out without. Recommendations, so I'm not sure what a no vote would indicate in such a motion. Would that mean that we want to hold Councilor Hrabowski by to hold it in the committee? No. Madam Chair. Mr. Chair. Councilmember. Cause I'm just by a no vote, signifying concerns with the striking amendment, I will be voting yes on the underlying ordinance as amended, assuming that striking amendments to carry and it goes forward with them, you know, without recommendation. We have struck an amendment as to before us on a underlying motion without recommendation, all those in favor of adopting striking amendment as to please signify by saying I. Am. Opposed. Nay, nay, a name. The ayes have it. And as to is adopted, we have ordinance 2021, 131 as amended before us without recommendation to go to full council at a special meeting scheduled for this coming Tuesday. I see no further discussion. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I call the roll, if I could ask for clarification on the. Striking amendment vote. I have council members Dombrowski and Dunn voting no on the. Same as anybody. Else. It's been voted no. But now, Mr. Steadman, it's my understanding that we took an oral vote and division was not requested. Division? Division has been requested. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll on Striking Amendment S2? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Banducci, I. Councilmember Dombrowski. No. Councilmember Dunn. No. Councilmember Coel's I. Councilmember Lambert. No. Councilmember of the. Grove. Councilmember Bond right there. Nay. Council members online. I. Mr. Chair. All right. Mr. Chair, the vote is 6 hours for council members. Dombroski Irishman Wales ask done land in one write for. Five literature for. Duly noted. The vote is 5 to 4 in favor of Amendment two. We now have Ordinance 2021, 131 as amended before us. Same. No further discussion. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bellucci. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Councilmember Dunn? No. Councilmember Coles. I can't remember a number. No. Council member, the I. Councilmember Bone right there? No. Council members on line item. Mr. Chair. All right. Mr. Chair, the bow to six eyes, three nose council members. Dan Lambert and one rank bar. Thank you. By your vote. We have advanced ordinance 2021 131 to full council without recommendation. It will be expedited and appear on the council the special council meetings agenda for this coming Tuesday. I want to thank everyone for participating. Having no other business in this special meeting. We are adjourned.