Speaker 1: This idea was placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Did you want me? So this is an issue that has arisen in regards to the way these bills were sent out. Some of the comments we've received and we all have received them. So this was on. In fact, we do have some choose to public speakers. But this was really a result and I appreciate member the vice mayor joining me on this. Of. To determine the title. I'll just read this briefly to determine whether council can enact an audience to pass through a portion of the housing program rent free to tenants. Clarify the city's collection efforts for landlords who do not pay the fee by December 31st, 2017. Three. Clarify that the fee may be passed through as part of a rent increase. All right. And the two speakers we have, Eric Strimling and then Catherine Pauling.
Speaker 4: It's here.
Speaker 0: Oh, it's Mr. Strimling in the. All right. All right. Catherine calling them. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Just very quick issues. One thing we want to know.
Speaker 4: For.
Speaker 8: Actually, the first thing is.
Speaker 4: That we.
Speaker 8: Believe as far as stakeholders.
Speaker 4: That we actually.
Speaker 0: Be.
Speaker 8: Involved with staff on this.
Speaker 0: Issue.
Speaker 8: We're very interested in what the fees specifically may cover and.
Speaker 0: Also about enforcement and that there be maybe some sort of form of I like the term graduated enforcement or penalty.
Speaker 8: Be considered.
Speaker 0: And so basically, those are our three requests. All right. The just vice mayor.
Speaker 8: So part of this was, at least on my end in line with the fact that these notices went out right before the holidays. I think there was a lot of confusion, understandably. There was a lot of staff time put into structuring this and figuring out how it was going to work. And I know that in the interim, since we submitted this referral, there were there was new information that got posted on the website. And there was also a streamline clarification that came out from our city attorney's office in terms of. The interpretation of things. You know, part of this is to to actually direct staff to do a couple of things, at least from my perspective. One is to review what we've collected and see, you know, are there people that we haven't heard from? Are there people that are refusing to pay? You know, do we do we know what those numbers are? And and do we have a plan for enforcement? And if so, what is that plan and what are the grounds for any sort of enforcement? The other thing that, you know, I wanted clarification on is, you know, we had passed this separate from 3180, but in 3180, we had also referenced it. So is there, you know, to also direct staff to look into a separate ordinance relative to the fee and what would be included in it in and what the scope of it is? Because I think there was some confusion, at least, you know, from my end, and I'd heard from several constituents that, um, well, what about 31803180 was repealed. So, you know, how does that impact it? And a lot of our discussion was kind of combined, even though we did the separate motions. So really directing staff to look into the feasibility of crafting a separate ordinance relative to this. And in light of everything that happened with 3180 and then what the scope of that could be. And finally, I think we've heard, you know, from different community groups. I certainly think much like with transit and everything else, if we have active community groups who we know are working with our constituents to the extent that we can include them in conversations as we're, you know, a staff is researching this, that there's a clear understanding. And, you know, involvement and buy in. Think that that's important. We've heard that arc wants to be involved. I certainly think that involving them earlier rather than later would be helpful in terms of making sure that whatever we do, draft is going to be supported by our community. And I think the other question that's come up is this question of what the fees are going towards. And we've had part of that discussion before in terms of the operation of the rack and the other services that we're providing. I think some of the questions that I've heard is what's the specific breakdown of it? How much have we collected to date? How much do we anticipate? You know, how does that compare to what our anticipated collection is? What's the actual cost of of the programs that we're running and how much time is being spent on different issues? Going back to comments I'd make made earlier in this meeting, one of the things that's come up is, is there a way we can maybe be preventative? Are there, you know, do we would there be value in having a drop in clinics that people knew what their rights were ahead of time with that reduce the amount of staff time that we're spending on this later on. Certainly in other cities where I've spoken with people, they feel that that has, you know, certainly streamlined or expedited the process and really filtered through what staff ends up dealing with or their their rec groups end up seeing. You know, and then the other part of this is, you know. Kind of looking at everything that's been happening again in the state and everything else, you know, are there lessons learned that we can look out from other cities in terms of how they're structuring their fees and what they're spending it on? And I think there's other cities nearby that are using a portion of the fee to pay for these sorts of preventative kind of drop in clinics and that sort of thing.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate those comments. I actually don't think they're part of the referral. So when I look at the referral, there were three things that we spoke to. And as much as I may support that, I'm not sure that that was in here. Did you speak to my.
Speaker 8: Original proposal had been and I think is part of this is clarification about the impact of you know, the fee relative to 3180. And if we're going to do something, you know, can we have a standalone ordinance for some of these clarifications? Is that prohibited by what we did? I think it's absolutely part of this.
Speaker 0: Okay. So when I see it says there may be limited exceptions, however, to that general rule number one, direct staff to determine whether the city council could adopt a new ordinance without waiting for a year that would allow landlords to pass through a portion of the housing program fee to tenants in 12 equal installments, and if so , to bring such an ordinance to the Council for its consideration. Also review whether the pass through could be retroactive. If not, have Council determine whether or not to change the landlords to charge the landlords the fee due December 31st. And is that a I'm sorry, maybe I didn't hear.
Speaker 8: I mean, I'm asking you that. I'm asking for clarification. I think there was a lot of language in 3180 that specifically address some of these points that is now no longer there. And I'm asking, one, do we even have the ability to to craft an ordinance? I think we need to direct staff to look into that. Two, if we do, what is the scope of the ability to craft something? Does it can address the points that are listed here? Are there other limitations? Is there a year limitation? If we're going to address the pass through, which is something that was, you know, has been clarified relative in the FAA. QS what is the structure of that? How does that look? I think, you know, we could we could direct I mean, I think what I'm saying captures what you're saying. But really, we need to start with directing staff to even look into what our ability is to craft anything.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Answer So I can't support this for a couple of reasons. I think we're piling a lot on staff and I think we were just a little bit patient down at the bottom of page two of the staff report. We note that city staff intends to bring forth, in the spring of 2018, just months away people a proposed program housing fee for fiscal year 2018 2019. This fee, if adopted by the Council, would be billed in the May-June timeframe and would be due by the end of July 18, in the same manner as the city's process for its business license tax. What waiting until the spring does. And by the way, by the time this referral got into the queue and was prioritized with everything else, we're. Directing staff to do. It probably would be around this spring when we hear back, but it would also give us the ability to have that much more data , that many more fees or attempted collection of fees. And I you know, I understand that 3180 got rescinded, but that doesn't mean that the fee doesn't exist, that the fee was approved in 31, 48. It was just the pass through. And yet there's there's other ways landlords can, you know, increase the rent and use that toward the fee that they have to pay. But I, I just don't see the urgency of this when with a little more passage of time, I think we'll have more complete data to make informed decisions rather than trying to accelerate something.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just make a few quick comments. You know, I think when it comes to this issue, you know, the first question you ask is what is the value statement? You know, what is our priorities and what is our value? And to me, that should be keeping people in their homes. So when I hear a story and we've heard this before, although not recently, that housing authority is telling people how to fix their notices, then what you're doing is really helping people evict people from their homes. And yet we're not providing the same type of service or even, you know, any type of of assistance to tenants to fight what might be a defective notice which could defeat an entire eviction and maybe let them stay in their home. So, you know, if we're going to have a discussion on what things from 3180 and I thought the discussion was pretty clear when we rescinded it, we pretty much couldn't do anything that we did in 31, 80 or 12 months. So included in 3180 was the ability to pass through that fee. So we gave the landlords the opportunity to share that with the renters and the tenants. 5050 And that was there and they chose to referenda it because there were a lot of parts they didn't like. So I mean, you can't pick and choose which things in an ordinance you're going to rescind or you're going to referenda that you want to keep and then which ones you want to get rid of. So the whole thing went out. So, you know, to use the old expression, they threw the baby out with the bathwater. So in my thought, a number one, I don't see how we could authorize any pass through because we gave that pass through and then that, that, that right was rescinded. So I still think, though, like the vice mayor said, and we touched on this a little earlier, if we're going to take a look at, you know, rents again, you know, we do have to find a way, I think, to provide some type of legal services and legal support. And we're seeing these huge apartment complexes, the larger apartment buildings in the city getting sold, which to me is windfall onetime transfer tax. And in my opinion, there's no reason we can't, as we go forward, whether we do this in March or in the budget process, set aside some of that money so we can provide some legal assistance to tenants. I do remember getting to the third point of the referral. I mean, this is not rent. This is a fee. So, I mean, I disagree with the comment that there's not some urgency because if somebody puts this fee into somebody's rent and it's really not and I think Greg McConnell, who basically wrote Costa Hawkins and, you know, agree with him or disagree with them, I think he knows the subject matter better than anyone else. I think when we we put the thing in, he basically stood up here and said, you can't treat it as rent. And I think if you look at other cities, they don't treat it as rent. So the problem is if you treat it as rent and you allow it to be included in the rent increase, not only does that, what is it exponentially, you know, allow you to increase that over time, you can basically use it as your new base and go up 5% and so on. You know, you can evict somebody for not paying their $12 a month and. That was not the intention of that fee for us to evict somebody if they didn't pay, you know, I'm sorry, $6 if the tenant didn't pay their share of the pass on fee. I do think I think the mayor was starting to touch on this during agenda item eight, you know, the some type of moratorium and looking at these different evictions and application of the state of emergency that we have because, you know, we've seen these upticks in some of these large rent increases. You know, there was one rent increase or was it 90%? And then all of the sudden they pulled it back. And then I heard hearsay. That threat was okay. We only were allowed to do 5%. So we're just going to own my own move. And everybody.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry to interrupt. So I believe that that goes out beyond the scope.
Speaker 5: I think we're talking generally about rent. So I'm going to just I'll wrap up, really. Thank you. So I just think we need to take a look at those things. And if we're going to come back and at the end of March, we should talk.
Speaker 0: Further. Sorry. I appreciate it. I was going to give you the opportunity to wrap up.
Speaker 5: So I think a. You know, the landlords rescinded. So they pretty much have to live with their rescission. And in November, we can take a look at this again. And then the collections, I mean, I guess it would be interesting to see what we're doing if we're collecting, if we're not collecting. And third, I don't think this is that this fee is not considered rent. So I don't agree with any idea that would make this go into the base rent. Or you can calculate increases on.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm a member matters.
Speaker 3: I'd like to make a motion to not direct staff to. The three points that are listed here. I think these things are going to happen in due time. And as pointed out by Councilmember Ashcraft, I think we all know that as as explained when the referendum was approved, that it basically froze things for a year. And I think there's bigger discussions, as alluded to. Hey Councilmember Odie, that we have to have that I'd rather have than deal with this.
Speaker 0: So there's a motion and. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: I'll second.
Speaker 0: And I want to give Vice Mayor an opportunity.
Speaker 8: So I want to ask the city attorney, what's the current advice that's out there right now? Because it's contradictory to what Mr. O.D. just stated in terms of the pass through.
Speaker 4: Can I just clarify? Because I think it might have been my comment that you misconstrued. Mr. Witty I was just I wasn't saying that a landlord could pass the fee on as part.
Speaker 0: Of a member as part of Point of Order. I'm sorry. That amounts to honestly.
Speaker 4: But when.
Speaker 0: You could hold your comment and let the vice mayor ask a question.
Speaker 8: So I'm asking the city attorney what's currently on the queue on the city website?
Speaker 7: Well, I hope I'm understanding your question. The idea is that landlords are able to do a 5% rent increase every year. They do not have to break down what the components of that 5% are. They don't have to use the whole 5%, but they can go up to 5%. So right now, the fact that they have to pay $120 a year per unit, that arguably could be covered in whatever rent increase they give a tenant, what 3180 would have allowed was for the landlord to pass along half of that to $60 a year and not have that count toward that 5%. But the landlord was always having to pay the full amount.
Speaker 8: Okay. My second question is when this comes back and if not when this comes back, but when staff comes back with their report on the fees, is that going to include any sort of direction or clarification relative to any of the instructions that were given with 3180 in terms of the splitting?
Speaker 7: The answer would be yes. I think I'm hearing that it's a couple of things. One, we have to come back with an audit on the fees. The fees are only appropriate under Prop 26 that there there's a Nexus study. There was a Nexus study done. So the people who are questioning what the fees are for and if they're appropriate to the cost of the program and all of that, we will we are monitoring that. We have.
Speaker 8: To. Right. But but we're not monitoring whether or not there was this. So but not included in that is whether or not there's a pass through or whether or not that pass through is shared or anything like that.
Speaker 7: So the staff is hopeful and we kind of have a laundry list because 3180 had a lot of other fixes in it that staff really wanted just to make the program work better. So we have a laundry list and Debbie Potter could probably step up and start giving you her her list, which she probably has tattooed on her arm. I know we don't want to do that, but the point is, we are we yes, we have a list and we hope to come back to council with some suggested changes and certainly a pass through which wouldn't count toward the increase. The 5% increase would be one that could be included and we will come back within the year. Is is one we'll be back, which is coming very quickly.
Speaker 8: But my question so so it sounds like staff has already researched whether or not mean to Councilmember Otis point he said he thinks that that shouldn't be allowed because it was in 3180. And I mean, there seems to be an assumption from what I'm hearing from the city attorney that we're going to get all of this back as part of the fee proposal this spring. And part of my question is, what's the legal basis for that? If we've completely rescinded 31, 80.
Speaker 7: 31, 80 only did not address the establishment of the fee itself. That was done by resolution. And the Council had a Nexus study and you established the $120 per unit that would pay the cost of the process.
Speaker 8: So I understand that. But what you said you said a second point, which is staff is also going to come back with a recommendation that includes some fixes which were included in 3180, including language around the pass through.
Speaker 9: After the year is up.
Speaker 8: Okay. That's that.
Speaker 9: Timing.
Speaker 8: Question. Okay. So what you're saying is there's going to be two presentations from staff. One is going to be this spring relative to an audit.
Speaker 9: It's a Nexus.
Speaker 8: Study, the Nexus study get you.
Speaker 9: In and.
Speaker 8: Okay, but the second portion is all of the clarification that you're talking about wouldn't be heard until 12 months after the date of we rescinded it, which was not this spring. We rescinded it this part in in November.
Speaker 7: Frankly, I don't know what the timing is on all of that, but I mean, I envisioned it all coming back around the same time. But I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not sure on the calendar when those things are coming. And as far as us coming back with amendments that were in 31 A.D., I think the idea really is we've got even more experience with this program now. So our laundry list might be different than the things that were in 3180. What staff would be wanting to tee up for council is just some some ways we can help clarify and make the ordinance better.
Speaker 0: Which I think may also go outside the outside. The scope of this referral.
Speaker 5: You're I mean, I mean, judging is outside the scope of peers. And we talked about dredging. So I mean, we could be a little bit of a little leap.
Speaker 8: I mean, I'm trying.
Speaker 0: Point of what I'm going to say. So we had a motion. Do we have a second? All right. All those in favor, I.
Speaker 5: Sorry. What are we voting on again?
Speaker 0: If you could repeat your motion.
Speaker 3: The motion was not addressed to the three items here. Based on these items are already in progress in one form or another, in due time.
Speaker 0: His emotions, and that was seconded by member ashcroft. And I called the question of all those in favor. I. I. Others opposed.
Speaker 8: I oppose.
Speaker 0: Others abstaining. Did you want to rush to the vote? Remember already? Well.
Speaker 5: I think I'm going to abstain because I don't think we can enact the ordinance. And I would like to give direction not to enact the ordinance. But. Who is out there.
Speaker 4: So we don't have affirmative votes. So.
Speaker 0: So there was the motion. Correct. Okay. And I'd like to make a motion to adopt the proposed referral. There are second. All right. Seeing them right there.
Speaker 8: I would like to second with the caveat that we're really also looking for staff to give clarification about what can and can't be done, because to me, that still hasn't been. Articulated.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, but I don't understand how I'm not answering your question. I'm just not understanding. The point is the the fee can be collected. We are monitoring.
Speaker 8: It. Not my question. My question is there were certain we adopted the fee separately. I understand that. But 3180. Specifically address some clarification points relative to the administration of the. And so that's.
Speaker 7: Correct. And that is not in play. And we would I would arguably we would come back with that if it's past the year.
Speaker 0: Let me ask Vice Mayor, would you like that to be as a friendly amendment to the referral? Yes. Okay. So I'll accept the friendly amendment. So there's a motion and a second clarification.
Speaker 4: Yes. So we craft for the city attorney to come back by next September. This September, is that it, when a year is up from the ordinance? But I mean.
Speaker 0: This is actually this would be certainly before that.
Speaker 8: This is what I'm asking is they're already saying that they're going to propose they're going to make proposals to the fee. What I'm saying is I don't want to be looking at the new fee structure for the next year without knowing what we potentially could or could not be considering relative to the administration of it.
Speaker 4: So you would like to know that by the spring of 2018 comes back.
Speaker 8: And what when what Janet saying is, is that it's going to be. I'm hearing two different things and hearing one thing from Joe, which is that they're going to have to be heard separately and one is going to come a year later.
Speaker 9: Not a year later. So we have.
Speaker 8: A year.
Speaker 9: For.
Speaker 0: This part about the.
Speaker 9: Timing of the study.
Speaker 4: We know you were trying to avoid I.
Speaker 8: If I if I could take a stab at this just to see if I can help to clarify. So prior to July one, we will be doing an update of the phe study. So I'm hearing two things. I'm hearing that there might be an interest in looking at what are the components of the work activity that goes into administering the program, for example, providing legal support for tenants that could be captured as part of the fee study that that's one concept or idea. I also heard earlier this evening that perhaps that's an initiative that's paid for from one time funds in from the general fund, which could be done separately as part of a mid-year mid-cycle budget adjustment. So there are potentially two ways to approach that, but that is something that we could come back. If the council wanted to look at that as part of the fee, we could come back and indicate what that cost would be. We would be doing this in the May-June time period. So that would be a standalone update of the fee study with a resolution that would adopt a new fee effective July one for the upcoming fiscal year. Whether or not. And we. In that resolution, we couldn't have just addressed the issue of pass through. That has to wait. The city attorney is saying for one year from when the ordinance was referenda. So. When the fee goes into effect for July one, there still won't be an opportunity to provide a pass through because.
Speaker 2: The one year you won't have been able to tackle the new ordinance.
Speaker 8: Until September of 2018. So that if that happens, you could possibly have the pass through for July one of 19. The other thing that I think all of us have to be cognizant of is if that ordinance is incorporated in the city charter, our ability to do anything as a council, as staff to amend that ordinance could be determined in November. So whether the council wanted to do a pass through or not, you might be precluded from doing that if if the ordinance becomes part of the charter. That's another piece that kind of overhangs all of this about what kind of tweaks we can ultimately make to the ordinance. And so that you may decide you want to wait until November and see the outcome. That's all in addition to. The exercise we must do to update the study and adopt a new fee schedule for the.
Speaker 2: Upcoming fiscal year.
Speaker 0: So can you clarify, is that the attorneys position and then if the charter? I want to make sure that I'm hearing this correctly from what you just shared, that if the charter amendment passes, that there could not be a subsequent action by council in regards to pass through.
Speaker 7: Actually, yes. Debbie raises a good point that frankly, I'd even forgotten about at this late hour. Yes. If if the charter amendment passes in November, then the only way we can amend that that charter, which is going to be the rent control or rent stabilization audience, would be through a vote of the people.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now, my recollection of it is that it doesn't speak to a pass through. But do you think you think it specifically prohibits pass through? We don't have the authority.
Speaker 2: All we.
Speaker 0: Have is the authority.
Speaker 8: That is provided in the resolution that was adopted by the Council in June, which is the authority to establish a fee based on the fee study and to implement that fee.
Speaker 7: So just to try to be clear, to make sure, because we seem to keep circling about this one. So if the charter provision is adopted. The only way you could get this technical pass through to the tenant, which wouldn't go against the 5% rent increase, which is what's in there now, would be if there was a charter amendment with the vote of the people, if the charter amendment passes. Because right now there's nothing that addresses that ability that is not in the rent stabilization ordinance as it as it stands now.
Speaker 8: Okay. So part of putting forward this referral, which was a couple of months ago, was that none of this you know, this is all I'm hearing this for the first time now, because when I first went and when the mayor first went and we spoke with the city attorney's office, there were kind of kind of conflicting questions or, you know, responses to the questions that we were posing relative to what was going on. And it was, you know, at that point, Michael Roush told me he still needed to look into it relative to the pass through, which was part of why we put the referral forward.
Speaker 7: And I appreciate that. And I apologize to the council and the community that we weren't immediately very, very clear in our advice, but we corrected it as quickly as we could. We've had the facts in the statement out for a long time. All of the attorneys in the city attorney's office are saying the same thing. They're saying the same thing, Debbie and the city manager saying. So I apologize that there was some confusion at the beginning. But we are very clear now. I think the message is out there. The housing authority is clear, and hopefully people understand what we're saying.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that actually, I think answers the first item on the referral. It's now that apparently staff has determined that that's not possible to have a pass through. The second point was direct staff to clarify what the city's collection efforts will be for landlords who do not pay the fee by December 31st. And could you state what that is?
Speaker 9: The collection is the same with any like our business license. If you don't, you know, it's the same across the board is we send a second notice. We could go after them if we want to put a lean go. As far as putting a lane, we can't because that has to come to council. But, you know, first notice. Second notice. It's the same thing that we do for small claims court over it's $60.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then are there additional fees, some sort of interest or something that is accruing for these landlords? Do you know what that. Is there anything like that?
Speaker 8: Resolution that was approved in June does not include provisions for penalties and interest that if there was a desire when the resolution comes before you for the upcoming fiscal year, you could add that to the resolution. It's not going that will not be applicable for this fiscal year fees, but there will be a new resolution that will be drafted when we come back before you in the late spring.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then the third point was direct stab. To clarify that for now, the housing program fee as any other operating expense may or may not be indirectly pass through. And your answer is, in fact that it that they can up to the 5%. Could you speak into the mic, please? Sorry.
Speaker 7: Yes. So again, the landlord does not have to justify up to a 5% increase on an annual basis. So whatever costs they're covering or if they're just taking, you know, if it's just profit or whatever, I'm not being judgmental. They don't have to justify it. So arguably, the $60 a year that we're talking about, which would have been passed through to the tenant, could be covered in that 5%. They don't the landlord does not have to explain that. All the landlord has to do is say that they want to increase their rent by 5% or less. And and that's justifiable under our current ordinance.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. I think that that this is of the three items that were raised, remember.
Speaker 5: I'm. Thank you. One quick question. I guess what I don't want to see in I guess we haven't seen it yet is that somebody says I'm entitled to 5% plus $60 and then they go and try to justify 5% plus $60. And while that they can't, quote unquote pass it through, if we're saying it's justifiable as a rent increase, then we would see an onslaught of 5% plus $60 saying we're justified to pass.
Speaker 8: So just to clarify, staff, neither city staff nor the Housing Authority staff is recommending that landlords. You know, add $120 per unit to any annual rent increases. Nobody's recommending that. I think what the city attorney is saying is that somebody could do that.
Speaker 0: But if you do 5% plus $60.
Speaker 8: You're going to trigger a hearing before RAQ.
Speaker 2: And so I think.
Speaker 5: Keep an eye on that.
Speaker 8: Yeah. So I think that's the point. If if a landlord figures out that they could recoup the cost under 5%, they don't trigger a hearing. They may decide that's a good sort of course of action as the business person starts not putting that forward as a recommended sort of workaround to to to the lack of a pass through option under our ordinance. And if a landlord raises the rent more than 5%, it triggers Iraq hearing, regardless of the reason that you're doing it above 5%.
Speaker 5: So do we need to go back to your. Or because I can reconsider. That one.
Speaker 0: Okay. So this is my referral and the vice mayor's referral. So I just would like to say that from my position, I think this I plan to withdraw the referral. I think it's been addressed, but I think we can move on. So so we're in agreement to withdraw the referral. Thank you. I appreciate the staffs. We took.
Speaker 3: Our time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next item, counsel communications. Do we have any communications from council? I do want to share that I was here for the Martin Dr. Martin Luther King event that took place. Here was the 39th year. There is a good turnout.
Consider Directing Staff to: 1) Determine Whether Council Can Enact an Ordinance to Pass Through a Portion of the Housing Program (Rent) Fee to Tenants; 2) Clarify the City’s Collection Efforts for Landlords who do not Pay the Fee by December 31, 2017; and 3) Clarify that the Fee May be Passed Through as Part of a Rent Increase.  (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella) [Not heard on December 19, 2017 or January 2, 2018]