Speaker 0: Okay. So those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i, i, those opposed vote no. The ayes have it. The motion carries and resolutions adopted and chair Cheryl, sign it. Next agenda item, please.
Speaker 1: Agenda item two accountable 118 755 relating to the open housing ordinance, adding anti-discrimination protections based on a renter's use of a subsidy or verifiable alternative source of income. Adding a first in time policy prohibiting preferred employer programs. Adding Section 14.8, Windsor 52 and amending sections 14.0 8.2 or 15.0 20.0 40.0. 45.0 60.0 79.1 90 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So this is sort of going to be an exercise and procedure as well. So we'll lead off with Councilmember Herbold to introduce the base legislation. And thank you for all your work on this this ordinance.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So the bill expands the legally protected classes to include alternative sources of income like we've heard today, such as the pension, Social Security, unemployment, child support, disability, or any other governmental or nonprofit subsidy. We discussed the bill on May 24th, June 14th, and again on July 22nd. Throughout those discussions, the legislation was amended to add three primary further protections. The first is the new policy referred to as first come, first serve screening practice. Sometimes first in time is what we call it. It prevents housing providers from giving applicants with alternative sources of income or other participation in a protected class a lower priority. It requires landlords to review applications one at a time on a first come, first serve basis and offer the unit to the first qualified qualified tenant. A big part of this practice really relies on property owners notifying tenants on what it will require to qualify for a unit. So we've heard some people. QUESTION Well, will I have will I be forced to to rent to somebody who has a bad a bad tenant screening background or has done damage to two units in the past? That would not be the case. So you still have to qualify the tenant as eligible for for a unit. A second provision included in this new bill is a new eviction prevention. And now that's very distinct from what we've been hearing about an alternative source of income at the start of a tenancy. This deals with a new protection for tenants who have fallen behind in their rent and have received a three day pay or vacate. Under current law, a landlord is not required to accept a housing assistance or a rental assistance voucher during that three day pay or vacate time. At this point, with this new protection, housing providers will be required to accept that that voucher, as long as that voucher turns into cash within five days. You know, one of the things that we've. We've heard a little bit of concern about is whether or not that's going to result in greater numbers of people in the future being evicted either because this is a short term rental assistance, either on the front end or short term rental assistance during an eviction situation. And what we've found of the city's programs, we fund about ten programs through the housing lobby. And we found that of the households who have received eviction prevention funding or or move in assistance, 83% were stable in housing six months after the assistance ended. The third item that the bill includes is a preferred employer program prohibition. This encourages landlords to offer nondiscriminatory moving incentives and discourages or outlaws discriminatory move in incentives. In 2015, we heard from community members reporting discounts on deposits and other move in fees for rental applicants working for preferred employers. In this bill, with this provision would end that practice.
Speaker 3: So those are the highlights of the bill.
Speaker 5: And I know we also have some amendments to walk through. So I, I think the first one is a rather a substitute version.
Speaker 0: I have in my notes, Councilmember Herbold, that you would have a First Amendment which would basically substitute version five for version four.
Speaker 5: Correct. So I move to amend Council Bill 11 8755 by substituting version five for version for.
Speaker 4: Which.
Speaker 0: Second is their second, which just by way of context was the bill that we've been working from. So all those in favor of amending Council Bill 11875 by submitting version five for version four, vote I, I was opposed. Know you guys have it. And at this point, I think we can take Councilmember Burgess's amendment, too.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This amendment adds a requirement that the first in time measure in this legislation be evaluated by the city auditor after 18 months of full implementation. The purpose of this audit is to determine whether or not it has had any unintended consequences on low income persons or persons with limited English proficiency to obtain housing. It directs that the city auditor complete this evaluation, but at their discretion, they may use an independent outside party to conduct the evaluation and to report back to the City Council by the end of 2008. So I would move amendment number two.
Speaker 0: The second city councilmember words. Did you have a comment you'd like to make on the first in time issue?
Speaker 3: I do. So just so I'm clear, this is Councilmember Burgess and Johnson's new section D first in time. Correct?
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. So from our discussion this morning and then some some more material that I looked at over the break, I wanted to just make a few comments there. Often times when we think is when we think what we think is most fair does not truly benefit those most in need. First come, first serve is one of those policies. Many programs that are meant to be economically diverse are programs that attempt to be more accessible to a wider range of populations. We use a lottery system to increase access rather than the first come first serve. Many nonprofit housing providers are also using a lottery system to place new residents in housing or on a waitlist for housing. People with the greatest level of access are often the first to be served because they have the means to apply first. I believe the intent of this provision is to limit a landlord's personal bias to cherry pick which residents they deem, quote unquote worthy and to instead into as well level the playing field for those looking for housing. Although I agree with that intent, I am concerned this provision may unintentionally solidify into law a practice that favors those who are who already have the privilege of access. In any event, I support the amendment and to require an honest report of this provision after eight weeks, after 18 months, to evaluate its effectiveness. So thank you, Councilmember Burgess and Johnson.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Worse. We have an amendment, an amendment that's been moved in second. And any further comments regarding the amendment? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Yeah, thank you. Council President. I just want to echo what councilmember was that. I think my intention in joining with Councilmember Burgess on the amendment today is. To ensure that what we're doing here is not creating an unintended circumstance where people of higher incomes with access to Internet and a private vehicle can quickly get out to somewhere where an apartment is available and beat other folks to the punch. I know, as Councilmember Herbold and I have talked, that this is happening already. This is an issue that is coming before us because it is happening already. And that this is an important first in time, is an important best practice and not only the local level but at the national level from our Housing and Urban Development Department as well as several others. But I just want to make sure that as we get into this legislation, that we really have a good understanding about who is benefiting from this and can have the authority in a couple of years to really say all is working. So thanks for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 0: Very good. Councilmember Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 5: And I just wanted to clarify that there is a section in the bill that states that landlords who agree to voluntarily set aside available units to serve special vulnerable populations, including but not limited to homeless people, survivors of domestic violence, persons with low income and persons referred to the owner by nonprofit organizations or social service agencies or other protected classes. The first in time policy does not have to be observed if a landlord wishes to rent to one of those types of people.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So I'm going to call on a vote on the amendment. Councilmember Burgess proposed an amendment to Council Bill 118755 Section five by adding a new Section D. All those in favor say I. I opposed say no. The ayes have it. I believe Councilmember Burgess has another amendment.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This next amendment number three in our packet is very similar and asks for the city auditor to conduct an evaluation of the use of short term vouchers to determine if that program should be maintained and whether or not there are any adverse impacts on individuals being able to remain in housing with the use of these short term vouchers. And again, we ask for this evaluation to be completed by the end of 2008. I move amendment number three.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? Any comments on Councilmember Burgess's amendment number three?
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 0: Councilmember, once.
Speaker 3: Again, I just wanna make sure this is a new section. What I want to add about when I was looking at this and I want to thank the low income housing alliance folks for coming in and providing information in a briefing. Much of the funding for our rapid rehousing programs and other short term subsidies to help people experiencing homelessness find stability. Finding stability comes from the document recording fees. This is a state level policy. When this program was up for review two sessions ago in Olympia. The private market lobbied to require that 45% of these dollars for short term subsidies be spent in the private market. Now we have the private market saying that they should not be required to accept these dollars. One of the issues, of course, is they believe that it would lead to more evictions. So to me, these two things don't add up. I agree that we want to ensure that people are not being set up for evictions. The auditor's report in 18 months does show that the short term rental subsidies in the private market are not supporting renters. I would expect the private market to help us change the provision at the state level to remove the 45% requirement. I know that we are going to work hard, at least our office, some other people here, my colleagues, during next year's legislative session to continue to monitor the situation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Whereas Councilmembers Burgess Third Amendment has been moved in second. It is there. Are there any further comments?
Speaker 4: I would just comment that Councilmember Johnson is joining in, sponsoring both of these. Don't want to leave him out.
Speaker 7: So he can do it.
Speaker 0: On his.
Speaker 7: Is he's.
Speaker 0: Got a press release ready to push the button so this passes. So all those in favor of Councilmember Burgess and Johnson's amendment number three, which basically adds a new section, j say i. I oppose say nay. The ayes have it. Now, my notes, Councilman Herbold, would suggest that you would like to look at Section two dealing with meaningful access.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'd like to take this amendment in two parts. Amendment four, I moved to amend Council Bill 11 8755, Section two, by adding a new definition entitled Ensuring Meaningful Access, meaning the ability of a person with limited English proficiency to use or obtain language assistance, services or resources to understand and communicate effectively, including but not limited to translation or interpretation services. Okay.
Speaker 0: So that's a motion. And is there a second?
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbert, can you give a little context of why you would like to make this change?
Speaker 5: This is an amendment to the section of the bill related to the first in time policy. There is a stage within the first in time policy that if somebody needs more time to complete their application to provide information that the landlord has in advance, notified them that they are required to provide as part of a complete application . And that person either needs a reasonable accommodation because of a disability or needs to ensure meaningful access. For instance, in the example of needing translation or interpretation services that they can then get additional time. We did not have a definition for for the types of people who might need meaningful access, and it really could be a very broad definition. And we thought that it would be best for censuses. This is a new policy that we're enacting that we ought to put some brackets around it to create some certainty for for property owners.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Comes from Herbold. It's been moved to add this new definition relative to ensuring meaningful access. Has it been seconded? It has been seconded. All those in favor of amendment number four, say I. I oppose a no. The ayes have it and we have Amendment four passed.
Speaker 5: Council President Harold May. I just wanted to make a couple of quick remarks on that particular statement. Not I'm sure is not going to diminish the vote in any way, but I just wanted to make sure that I know that there's a staff in the audience from the Office for Civil Rights. And I just wanted to make sure that the intent here was not just to capture folks who have limited English proficiency, but also folks who have no English proficiency at all in. And just wanted to confirm that that was your intent. It absolutely is our intent. And then secondly, I'll just say that I was really excited to see this particular narrowing of this definition. One of the things that we're going to hopefully be able to work on through my committee next year is around a language access code in our city ordinance that might lead to some some potential additional refinements of this particular language down the road. And would just wanted to put that on your radar and and the rest of the council's radar that we are looking at in conjunction with the Office of Immigrant Refugee Affairs, standing up a particular ordinance around language access and what that means beyond translation and interpretive services. And this certainly gives us an entree into having a broader discussion around that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Catherine Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: There's a second part of Amendment four.
Speaker 3: I could.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 5: A further move to amend Council Bill 11 8755, Section five, by substituting Seattle Municipal Code Section 14.0 8.050 as presented on Amendment four. There are some underlined language and some strikeouts that primarily do a couple of things the technical amendments, removing sort of duplicative language, and then further some some changes that constrict the timeline that the the first in time policy might result in. We had there was some concern that that with the requirement to. Post notice of what the what information was needed. We needed to make sure that that property owners understood that they could they could do it at the beginning of the process, that we weren't requiring additional an additional period of time to do so.
Speaker 0: So consumer health well before it's second. And I know this is emotion. It was my understanding this is sort of a technical cleanup, but it sounds like you're trying to do more than a technical cleanup because.
Speaker 5: The the it is primarily a technical cleanup, the first in the under section one, which says in addition to and at the same time as providing the information, that might be a little bit more than just a technicality, it just making clear that the information can be provided at the beginning of the process. It's not adding more time on to the process.
Speaker 0: Very good. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: Second?
Speaker 0: It's been moved in second second it to amend counts bill 118755 the section five by substituting shadow ministry code section 1408050 as presented on an amendment for all those in favor of that amendment, say I. I oppose a nay. The nays have no voice, so the ayes have it. That is passed as well. Let's move to amendment number five. Councilmember Baxley, I believe you have an amendment number five you'd like to discuss.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. It's the same that I brought forward this morning. It's really just a definitional correction or making it clear that this will not apply to single family dwellings, including accessory dwelling units where the owner is on site. I was directed to this because there was some confusion about in the individual, lived in her home and wanted to be able to have a specific effort to find a tenant that might have something like nursing skills or others wanted to make sure that under current law that she would be allowed to do so. And indeed, this makes no changes. It just highlights the fact that it is already in law.
Speaker 0: Very good. I will take that as a form of an amendment to the Council bill. Is there a second?
Speaker 3: I need a second here. Second.
Speaker 0: Little slow on trial here. Okay. Any further discussions on Council Member Bag Shaw's amended amendment? And just so I'll stated clearly that Customer Bagshaw moved it and it was seconded by two individuals. They had a new 11th recital, which I believe is second to the last, whereas the first in time policy will not apply to single family dwellings, including accessory dwelling units wherein the owner or person entitled possession maintains a permanent residence as described in 14.08.190.3. And of course, all those in favor of Amendment five, say I. I opposed say no. The ayes have it. We're almost through. We have a a comma. We have to discuss it. Councilmember her while there's a missing comma you would like to address.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I further moved to amend Council Bill 11 8755, Section two of the Seattle Municipal Code 14.0 8.0 to oh Preferred Employer Program Definition Line six of the definition to add a comma between the clauses. Other publicly funded housing comma for the benefit of city, etc.. And so Councilmember Burgess raised this issue in council briefings meetings this morning, and we found that the issue of whether or not a preferred employer program to show preference for city workers, that we want to make sure our living in the city, such as our firefighters and our police officers, that that that that was clearly delineated in the ordinance that that was permitted. It did as it was as it read without the comma, it wasn't clear that it it was covered. But with the comma, I think it's a lot more clear.
Speaker 2: Good catch.
Speaker 0: And before we start debating about this comma, we're going to have to suspend the rule. So I will move to suspend Council Rule three A6 relating to presentation of full council amendments prior to 12:00 noon. There are second.
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor of the suspension of council rules. Three, eight, six. Say I opposed. Say no. The ayes have it. Now I'll just make the motion I move to. I'm sorry. So Councilmember Herbold amendment now can be considered. Councilmember Herbold, will you make that motion again and we can vote on it?
Speaker 5: I'm happy to make it again. I move to amend Council Bill 11 8755, Section two of the Seattle Municipal Code 14.0 8.020. Preferred Employer Program Definition Line six of the definition to add a comma between the clauses. Other publicly funded housing and for the benefit of city.
Speaker 0: There are second seconds after all that. I hope there's a second. I'll describe this as amendment number six. All those in favor of amendment number six. Vote I. I was supposed vote no. The ayes have it. Okay. We have six amendments to the base legislation. Are there any further comments or closing comments before we consider a final adoption of this bill?
Speaker 2: Councilmember O'Brien Yeah, I want to I want to just say that this is a impressive piece of legislation that will have a significant impact on folks lives trying to find housing in the city. And I want to start by thanking Councilmember Herbold for your ongoing advocacy on behalf of tenants in the city and really outstanding work on this piece of legislation in particular. I want to thank folks that are here looking at folks in the background representing various landlord groups from the Rental Housing Association, Washington Multifamily Association. Really appreciate your comments today. I know that you've expressed concerns about some of how this plays out, but I want to say that your engagement in this process has made this legislation stronger. And I look forward to continuing to work with you as we work through this and understand which aspects are working well. And if there's places where we need to make changes, certainly be prepared to do that. Mostly, I want to thank the advocates who have been tirelessly fighting for folks that are struggling to find places to live in the city. This piece of legislation, along with others that you all have worked on, has been really powerful. Do you continue to fight for those that need support the most in this community? And I'm pleased to be supporting voting in support of this legislation because of the great work you all have done. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brian. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: I hope we'll leave the space for you, Councilmember Herbal, to close this out. But I just wanted to make a quick comment that says, you know, as the chair of the Planning Lands and Zoning Committee, I don't know if it was explained to me when I took the committee how much of the hollow recommendation responsibilities were going to come under my purview. But I'm really grateful and encouraged by the number of recommendations that we're continuing to adopt out of the work of that committee, including the work that we did last week on the mandatory housing affordability residential framework. That dovetails really very nicely with the action that we're going to take today, as well as upcoming moving forward legislation. When you combine that with the really impressive results coming out of last Tuesday's housing levy, I think it's a real demonstration that this council in particular is very committed to whatever we can do to make the city inclusive and affordable for everybody, regardless of your income. So I want to say thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for bringing this legislation forward. I'm pleased to be voting yes on it today.
Speaker 0: Further comments, I'll say a comment unless you close to the comments. Comments from Herbold. I want to thank you. You know, we're really deep in the weeds on this legislation, but and I say that sort of tongue in cheek, because that's exactly what you have to do, I think. I think we can recognize that there are a lot of really good landlords out there really trying to do the right thing. And we have organizations out there that, you know, a lot of these folks are not very wealthy folks. They're just trying to rent a home. Some we talk about some discrimination being unintentional. There's intentional discrimination out there, too. I mean, it's just there's no soft way to say that there are some people that are discriminating and they're are victims of this discrimination out there that are struggling with for places to live. So I think when we start going deep in the weeds like this on these kinds of policies, that is exactly what we have to do. And the Councilmember Herbold leadership and the others that have chimed in with six amendments, this is good work and I like the evaluation component because there's not a template or game plan out there that says this is exactly how you do it. So we we look at data out there and then we try to measure it to make sure we're doing the right things. So I appreciate this work, great work. And Councilman Herbold, would you like to close debate?
Speaker 5: I would. A few other words continue here.
Speaker 2: But can I interrupt for a second?
Speaker 0: Yes, Councilman Brown, you can slaughter the slaughter rules if you'd like, sir.
Speaker 2: I forgot. I need to disclose that I am a landlord and I try to do that. All the meetings we're discussing legislation that affects my landlord, so I want to make sure the world is aware of that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Bryan.
Speaker 2: Sorry. And you still.
Speaker 3: Get a vote?
Speaker 2: I still get it, but.
Speaker 4: GOODLATTE okay.
Speaker 5: So as chair of the council committee with oversight of Civil Rights, I'm acutely aware of the need to balance both the rights of renters with the interests of our housing providers. Our city is a city of renters. Their interests must be protected if we intend to reduce the number of people living homeless and increase affordable housing opportunities . Race and socioeconomic factors must not be used to prevent people from securing safe, healthy and affordable housing. But that's exactly what has been happening. We know that on any given night in our city, over 2800 people are living unsheltered. People of color continue to be disproportionately represented in emergency shelters, especially those who identify as black or African-American. These disparities are really striking when looking at data on families served in our emergency shelters. According to a report on homelessness in Seattle, King County, people of color made up almost 50% of those accessing emergency shelter in 2013. People of color made up 46% of single adults and 72% of families accessing emergency shelters. We have a lot of funds that are available to assist people in and homelessness prevention or eviction prevention. We know the city invests about 1.9 million annually for these purposes. But if tenants are unable to use these funds, our ability to use our city's resources to prevent homelessness is just simply not as effective as it can be. I mentioned earlier this morning some stats that if you bear with me, I think it really speaks to the need for a first in time policy. We can have all the anti-discrimination laws on the books that we want, but we know that discrimination in housing is still happening using HUD approved testing practices. It was revealed by association that prospective tester renters experienced different treatment than did control group renters across all three categories familial status, disability and the use of federal Section eight voucher testers reported disparate treatment in 64% of 42 tests related to race. 67% of 43 tests relate related to national origin. 43% of 30 tests related to sexual orientation. And 67% of tests related to gender identity. For 25 years, we have prohibited discrimination based on Section eight status, and I wholeheartedly commend the Seattle Office of Civil Rights for proactively enforcing our fair housing laws. I think using a an approach like the person time policy can help us with our compliance. There's a reason why our housing providers identified as as a best practice. They use it as a best practice so that they can make sure that they are avoiding fair housing claims. I want to just take a quick minute also to thank all the folks who are involved in developing this this this policy. I thank. They had a workgroup that originally made the recommendation to expand our protected classes to include sources of alternate incomes. I thank the mayor for bringing this legislation forward. I also think my staff staff under Councilor Susie Levy, Asha Venkataraman, Director Polly Lawley, Lauren Olson. Brenda Barro, also associate with Office of Housing Kathryn Jolly as well as the source of income discrimination stakeholders that both worked before the Mayor's proposed legislation and after it as we were deliberating , including the tenants union. Washington Can the Rental Housing Association, the Washington Mall. Multifamily Housing Association. Columbia Legal Services. Wellspring Family Services. Solid Ground Northwest Justice Project. King County Bar. Why She Low Income Housing Alliance and the Seattle Disabilities Commission. And finally, thank you to my colleagues on the council. This was a truly collaborative process, and I do think we have a better bill for it. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. When we stop there and I will move to pass Council Bill 118755 as amended.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 0: Any further comments? Those in favor of the passage of the bill. Actually, I think we'll do a roll call in this script. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. I. Purple. I. Johnson. Juarez. O'Brien. President. Harrell.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Aden. Favorite unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign this.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Report of the planning, land use and Zoning Committee. Please read the report.
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Open Housing Ordinance; adding antidiscrimination protections based on a renters’ use of a subsidy or verifiable alternative source of income; adding a first-in-time policy; prohibiting preferred employer programs; adding Section 14.08.050 to, and amending Sections 14.08.015, 14.08.020, 14.08.040, 14.08.045, 14.08.060, 14.08.070 and 14.08.190 of, the Seattle Municipal Code.