Housing, Arts, and Civil Rights Committee

All right. Good afternoon. The July 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Housing, Arts and Civil Rights Committee. will come to order. It is 2.04 p.m. I'm Dionne Foster, chair of the Housing Arts and Civil Rights Committee. Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council President Hollingsworth? Here. Council Member Rink? Present. Vice Chair Lynn? Here. Chair Foster? Here. Chair, there are four members present. Thank you so much,

and let the record reflect that Council Member Juarez has been excused from today's meeting. If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted. Hearing no objection. The agenda is adopted. We will now open the hybrid public comment period. Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or within the

purview of this committee. Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently we have 20 in-person speakers and there are 13 or 12 online remote

speakers. Okay, thank you. With more than 30 speakers, each speaker will have one minute. We will start the in-person speakers first. Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions.

Each speaker will have one minute. We will start with in-person speakers first. Oh, I ran that. There we go. The public comment period is up to 60 minutes. Speakers will be called in the order in which they are registered. We will begin with in-person speakers first and then move to remote speakers. Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left with their time. Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not and their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker. The public comment period is now open. We will begin with the first speaker on the list. This will be Patrick Foley, followed by Emily Thompson, and then Kyle Kite.

Hi, thanks. I want to speak about the service fees. My partners and I have a building at 23rd and Union called Midtown Square. I just want to use it as an example. I'd like to urge you to consider how we look at service fees. So specifically pet rent, I know that's really a hot issue for a lot of people. We have 432 units in the building. About 150 of our residents have pets, mainly dogs. And the pet rent is, I don't know, somewhere between $35 and $50 per pet. And what that goes for is mainly not for the unit. It's for the common areas. The pets do a lot of damage to the corridors, the carpets for replacement, the elevators. And we also have a pet like a cleanup area like us almost like a spa I guess you'd call it For just for the pets and then but the big thing actually is the landscaping on the outside of the building A lot of people use those pet those areas to to give their pets relief and that's where the majority Goes so I just would ask that you consider that when you're when you're thinking about this issue

Thank you our next speakers Emily Thompson followed by Kyle kite and then It's Dan Erson.

Hi, my name is Emily Thompson, and my company Develop Owns and Operates publicly funded affordable housing in Seattle. I support the goals of this legislation to increase transparency for renters and establish stronger guardrails against bad actors who pass long and reasonable costs. However, I cannot support this legislation as currently proposed. I participated in three stakeholder meetings with the mayor's office on this legislation, but it was not true stakeholder engagement process. No meaningful data was provided and many questions went unanswered. At the final meeting, staff opened by stating that the legislation was already fully developed and they had no intention of making any further changes. We need more than political optics. We need effective policy that protects renters without creating additional costs that those renters will ultimately bear, and without unfairly villainizing the broader landlord community in the process. As proposed, the elimination of pet rental fees will result in modest rent increases for all residents based on the choices of fuel. Affordable housing providers operate on extremely thin and often non-existent margins. As drafted, this legislation will increase overall operating costs, which inevitably must be absorbed by renters. Thank you. Thank you. And if you don't finish your comments, you can place them in the bucket. That's right there. But, yeah.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kyle Kite, followed by, I believe it's Dave Erson, and then Jake Mason. Either one.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Council members, my name is Kyle. I have the fortune that we run a family-owned company, my wife and I in Seattle, that supply housing to about 1,500 residents in the region here. Here, specifically speaking on pet rents, we charge between $25 to $50 a month in rent for pet rent.

That is not an income generator for our properties. It's more to provide the cleanliness and peaceful enjoyment for the rest of the residents. I'm fully supporting transparency in the total cost and fees of renting. We've been doing that for years within our portfolio.

Ironically, if this proposition gets passed, my belief is that it does not actually provide transparency to the rest of the tenants in the building as well, especially those that do not have pets. 40 to 50 percent of tenants have pets and the others do not.

We ran the math on our portfolio and if we eliminate this, we think it's going to be about a 1.5 percent increase on rents overall for everybody in the building, including the those that do not have pets. So strongly encouraging you to please not move forward with this bill. It's really meant to help the overall enjoyment of that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Our next speaker is Dave Erson, followed by Jake Mason, and then Randy Penneker.

Hi there. My name is Dave Enslow, and I own and manage apartments here in Seattle and develop as well. Like many local housing providers, we take pride in maintaining our buildings and creating communities where residents, including many pet owners, want to live. I appreciate the intent of Council Bill 121254. Greater transparency in rental fees is a worthwhile goal and it's super important. I support that effort. I guess my concern, along with some of the folks here, is that prohibitions on things like pet rent really do disproportionately affect the folks that don't have pets and that the impact on the buildings is pretty dramatic from what pets bring. and so if we can maintain that, that would make a lot of sense to me. Our buildings invest in amenities and maintenance that directly benefits pet owners, including dog runs, dog wash stations, additional landscaping, waste stations, more frequent cleaning of common areas. We also experience increased wear and tear on flooring, hallways, elevators, and outdoor spaces. Long story short, I think transparency is awesome, and it's hard to get people to invest in Seattle right now.

Thank you. Buck is there if you want to have any additional comments. Appreciate you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jake Mason, followed by Randy Banneker and then Howard Gale.

Awesome. Good afternoon, committee. My name is Jake Mason. I'm here with the Washington Multifamily Housing Association. Flagging for the committee that there are multiple issues that still remain to be resolved within this ordinance, including just some easy wins that are going to continue to accomplish the goals here, maintain the integrity of the ordinance, but simply just need to be addressed as matters of administration. One sense issue that I'd like to flag for you today is around renter's insurance. Without the ability to impose a mandatory fee for noncompliance, with lease terms of renter's insurance requirements, the avenues available to housing providers include eviction of noncompliant tenants or forced placing entire buildings, one of which leaves tenants homeless and the other of which leaves tenants overpaying and underinsured at the same time. So we strongly believe the tenants ought to have the right to choose their own insurance provider. Force placing an entire building, even if you calibrate for like a median tenant, ends up leaving them underinsured and overpaying in their rent. So the second issue is around optional services. Simply, I think the markup ban here is too wide. If we're going to allow tenants to choose which services they opt into but not allow profit, they just won't be offered.

Please send the rest of your comments either in the bucket or via email. Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Next, we have Randy Benecker followed by Howard Gill and then Alicia Ruiz.

Chair Foster, members of the committee.

We're going to pause for just a second, Randy. I'm going to let you adjust the mic because we're not hearing you very well, and then we'll make sure your time starts. No, you can use the larger one. It was just pointed down away from you, so closer. Yeah.

Like this? Yep. Okay. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Randy Benecker. I'm here on behalf of the Seattle King County Realtors, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the do not solicit legislation. We share the city's goal of stopping, your goal of stopping unwanted calls and predatory home buying practices that target vulnerable homeowners and importantly, critically strip away their hard-earned equity. We're on the other side of that discussion and we support the amendment that's before you today that would require accurate contact info on communications because this, again, creates a bright line between legitimate behavior and predatory behavior. We want to advance legitimate behavior wherever we can, particularly in the discussion of real estate. And so we ask that you not chill legitimate, transparent communication from state-licensed, state-regulated real estate professionals. Please take the time to narrow the definition of solicit and allow reasonable communications that give homeowners information.

Thank you, Randy. And the box is there if you need to add any additional info. Thank you. Thank you.

Next is Howard Gale, followed by Alicia Ruiz and then Aidan Bernard.

Good afternoon. The bill banning junk feeds you were considering today lacks in many ways, most notably when it comes to enforcement. It is enforcement and true accountability where we can see if our electeds care more about the aspirational than the actionable, more about the performative than the practical, more about signifying than solutions. We have seen this with police accountability over the last decade, with failed attempts to rein in police violence at demonstrations, and just last week with Council Bill 121248 attempting to redress the failures of the aspirational hope that SBD would prioritize diversion over jail for drug offenses. We have a somewhat successful Office of Labor Standards to protect workers from wage theft precisely because we did not deChinatown-International Districte to place that office in the Office of Economic Development, where there's an obvious conflict of interest. Yet here we are giving SDCI, who serves the interests of developers, the power to protect renters, a job they have consistently failed to do over the decades. At an absolute minimum, you need to keep, if you're going to keep enforcement in SDCI, create an audit and accountability system. I already presented 10 items for you to consider, including the accountability. Howard, please put the rest of your comments in the box. I would like to know why that's not being included in this bill. Thank you, Howard.

All right, our next speaker is Alicia, followed by Aiden, and then Poe.

Good afternoon, Chair Foster and members of the committee. My name is Alicia Ruiz. I'm with Habitat for Humanity, Seattle King and Kittitas Counties, and we're here today in support of Council Bill 121259. Homeowners across the city have described feeling hunted by repeated unwanted solicitations, causing real stress, fear, and pressure. This isn't a minor annoyance. It's harassment that wears down a homeowner's sense of safety in their own home. and it disproportionately targets seniors, people facing financial hardship, and communities of color who are already at greater risk of displacement. While habitat homeowners are not necessarily victimized by these kinds of predatory home buying practices, they often target vulnerable homeowners in their communities, causing harm for the housing continuum as a whole. Homeowners who sell in response, a home should be a sanctuary, not a place where people have learned to brace themselves for the next call. Please support today. Thank you. And box is there

if you want to put the rest of your comments. All right. Our next speaker is Aiden Bernhard,

followed by Poe Lepi, and then Kyle. Hello. My name is Aiden, and I live in District 5 off of Lake City Way. My family rents our townhouse, but I'm also a small-time landlord. I bought a house about five years ago in Linwood, but for many reasons Seattle is now my home. Being a landlord comes with many responsibilities and duties. I have to repaint the walls every couple of years. I have to keep replacing kitchen appliances that I don't get any use out of. It really sucks, but mostly I have a responsibility to be transparent. Transparent about the rent that my tenants pay me every month. It's any reseller's duty to society that they be transparent about their prices. Making up bogus fees is essentially a form of moral fraud. Junk fees are essentially just that, especially pet rent. Pet deposits make sense because pets are dirty and damaged things. I get it. I have two very messy cats. But a monthly fee does nothing but steal money out of the tenant's back pocket when they aren't looking. Raising rent is the only ethical, transparent way to cover costs. We don't allow vendors to defraud their customers at the supermarket. Billing landlords defraud their tenants by nickel and diming them for nonsense. Ban all junk fees, no exceptions. They're fundamentally illiberal. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Poe Lipai, followed by Kyle McBride, and then Caroline Russell.

Hello, I am Poli Appai with the Washington Housing Alliance in strong support of Councilmember Foster's bill to ban junk fees and to ask that you do not weaken it with amendments that will harm renters. Junk fees are a growing problem here in Seattle and across the state. This legislation is critical to protect Seattle's renters from displacement, eviction, and gentrification. Third-party companies like Valley Living are increasingly partnering with landlords to nickel-and-dime renters.

Tenants are paying outrageous sums for services they don't want and can't afford. June matched March's record for the highest number of evictions in a one-month period in state history.

King County and Seattle are driving these numbers, and renters of color are especially being harmed. This is a renter-majority city, and it's time to stand up with real, strong protections to help ensure that people can stay in their homes. Please pass this legislation quickly without amendments to limit who is protected or would otherwise weaken the bill as introduced. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kyle McBride, followed by Caroline Russell and then Hallie Willis.

Can you hear me? Is this good? Hello, my name is Kyle McBride. I am a 17-year-old high school student.

My generation is the first generation in the United States that cannot expect to have a better life than their parents did.

Councilmember Foster's bill to ban all thank you.

Our next speaker is Caroline Russell followed by Hallie Willis and then Amanda Lynn.

Hi, Council. My name is Caroline Russell. I am a renter in District 3 and a housing justice advocate. I've lived in my last apartment for two years and in those two years I paid thousands of dollars in non-refundable pet fees for a cat who did

no damage to my apartment, fees to pay my own rent online, fees for access to a gym I didn't use for Wi-Fi I didn't use, and untold others. I've also worked directly with unhoused people in my

neighborhood and others for years, and I've helped them go through the challenging and daunting

process of getting into housing for the first time in a very long time. And these fees, especially

pet rent, are often the difference between somebody finding real stability and ending up back on the

street. The majority of Seattleites, as others have said, are renters, and all of them are fed up with being nickel and dimed by landlords. Our eyes are on you. I ask that you support and do not weaken this bill. Thank you.

Next we have Hallie Willis followed by Amanda Lynn and Ethan Steger.

Good afternoon, Councilmembers. My name is Hallie Willis and I'm the policy manager at the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness and a renter and a pet owner in District 5. Here today in strong support of the junk fee legislation sponsored by Councilmember Foster and coming from the Mayor's office.

This is a housing fairness issue. Junk fees like pet rent and made-up administrative fees raise already high housing costs for renters who can't afford it.

You wouldn't charge rent to a baby. Why would you charge rent to a cat or a dog?

We already pay damaged deposits and pet deposits.

Pet rent is excessive and unfair. This legislation is a step forward for housing fairness, and we urge you to pass it at full strength. Thank you. Our next speaker is Amanda Lynn followed by Ethan Steger and then Lam Ho.

Hi, council members. My name is Amanda Lynn. I'm a renter in District 3. I'm also an organizer with How's Our Neighbors. And I wanted to say every time that working people ask for something as basic as fair pricing, we're told that the rental housing industry simply can't afford it and will have to pass on the cost to renters. Personally, I've spent years working in affordable housing and community development. I know insurance, maintenance, and operating costs have gone up. That's real. But that's not the whole story. The rental housing industry tells a very different story to their investors than they do to their renters. Its own market reports show that property income is still growing, and landlords consistently celebrate the fact that new apartment construction has fallen by nearly 60 percent because it means even greater pricing power for existing landlords in the years ahead. That's not an industry that's on the brink. That's an industry that's expecting stronger returns. And that's why these junk fees matter. Every mandatory fee is a dollar transferred from a worker's pocket into a landlord's wealth. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ethan Steger,

followed by Lam Ho, and then Kate Rubin. Hi, good afternoon, Council. My name is Ethan Steger. I'm a renter in District 4 and I currently don't pay any junk fees and I feel incredibly lucky to be in that situation but also in looking for what comes next for me in my housing I'm scared on where I can move where I can live without being priced out by fees that I didn't know were coming and as a community organizer for your city I talked to renters every single day who face the same pressure and it's a barrier to housing where we can live and what's accessible to us as the working class of Seattle please ban junk fees thank you

next is Lam Ho like Kate Robin and then Ashley Greenberg good afternoon council

members thank you for your time my name is Lam Ho I'm the general manager for the transit riders union. As I was commuting here and walking under the terribly hot sun, a thought came to me. I really wish I were inside at home and testifying remotely. But that made me realize that I needed to come in and be here because I have a home. And there are many people who don't have homes as a result of evictions. If you're not aware, in 2025, we had another record year of evictions, 12% higher in King County. And that was from 2024, which was already a record. It's not a COVID crisis. It's now an affordability crisis. And you've heard about profit margins, how slim they are. You've heard about potential costs to the maintenance of the outdoor area or pet areas. You've heard about profit. But think about the consequence that for those who might end up being evicted if tenants don't get relief from junk fees. That's the cost that we should be considering. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next is Kate Rubin followed by Ashley Greenberg and then Carl Nelson.

My name is Kate Rubin. I am the co-executive director of B Seattle, co-chair of the Seattle Renters Commission and a renter living in District 2.

I urge you to support the bill to ban rental junk fees and the amendment to ensure that renters can choose optional services individually instead of being required to buy them in a bundle. This will close a potential loophole that would allow landlords to group an essential service with other services to save themselves money without considering that renters cannot afford the added costs. We've already seen this with low-income seniors in shag buildings who have been forced to pay for cable in order to have internet. Buildings with amenities, including allowing pets, already charge higher rents. Pet rent is exploitative double dipping. There is no justification for charging renters $50 to $200 per month or $600 to $2,400 every year for having a pet on top of the damaged deposit, which often exceeds $2,000. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ashley, followed by Carl Nelson and then Erin Tulloch.

Good afternoon. My name is Ashley Greenberg. I'm a Seattle native, a UW law grad, and I'm here today in my capacity as a small landlord.

My husband and I bought a house in 2011 on Capitol Hill with a backyard cottage,

and we used the rent from the cottage to help us pay our mortgage every month.

We're really good landlords, and I pride myself on being a good landlord and on housing my tenants, who have been a restaurant and bar manager, a child care worker, several tech workers.

They're great. But also, we're in competition with big landlords that don't advertise all their fees, and we do.

So we look more expensive, and then we're just not as competitive in the market when it comes up. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak today.

Thank you. Next is Carl Nelson, followed by Aaron Tulloch. Hello, members of Council. My name is Carl Nelson. I'm a 17-year renter in District 4, a board member of the Seattle Social Housing Developer, and a co-chair of the Cedar Crossing Tenants Association. I'm here in my personal capacity today to speak in favor of passing the junk fee legislation

with Councilmember Rink's amendment without delay.

As a renter and tenants organizer, I have seen firsthand the way small and not so small superfluous fees add up to deceive and burden the rental consumer. And as a resident in low-income housing, I've also seen the way that small, unexpected bills have a way of upending the lives of our most vulnerable members of community. This legislation is about transparency, fairness, and consumer protection.

I urge the Council to adopt it without delay with Councilmember Rink's amendment. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Aaron Tulloch, and then our final in-person speaker will be Representative Sean Scott.

Good afternoon, Chair Foster and members of the committee. My name is Aaron Tulloch, FMS Global Strategies on behalf of the We Build Back Better Alliance and 110 businesses and community organizations in strong support of the Do Not Solicit List. You already collected the evidence yourself. Of 66 homeowners who responded to Councilmember Foster's office, 36 percent reported 41 or more solicitations in two years from Central, Northwest, Northeast, Southeast, and Seattle. That is a citywide practice. This ordinance answers it. A homeowner opts into the office, publication becomes legal notice after 30 days, and solicitation after that is citable. Amendment 1 requires solicitors to identify themselves, which is what makes anonymous callers citable at all. But the bill creates a right without appropriating a dollar to enforce it. Please fund the Office of Civil Rights. Pass it. Adopt Amendment 1 and fund the enforcement. Thank you.

All right. Our final in-person speaker is Representative Sean Scott, and then we'll move to remote speakers starting with Lydia.

Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much, and good afternoon, members of the committee. I'm Representative Sean Scott from the 43rd Legislative District. I have to say it is nice to be in a legislative chamber that is overrepresented by people who rent coming from Olympia, where landlords dominate not only the population of our chamber, but often the legislative outcomes that emerge from it. Despite that hurdle, we were able to pass rent stabilization a couple of years ago, my first year in office. But a lot more work remains to be done to make life more affordable for renters at a time when affordability, I think, is a central concern for people not only in our city, but across our state and the country as well. I think this is a legislation that some would categorize as a slam dunk. It's something that would make life a lot easier on people who live in my district representing a district that is three-quarters renter, 75% renter. I know it is something I hear quite a lot about, so I'm hoping we can urge a strong passion and passage of this bill with the Councilmember Ring's amendment as well. Thank you very much.

All right. We will now move to remote speakers. The first speaker is Lydia Felty.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt that you have been unmuted.

Hi, my name is Lydia Felty. I'm a renter in D3 as well as a co-chair of the Seattle Renters Commission.

The Renters Commission supports banning junk fees to reduce hidden and unnecessary housing

costs. As renter advocates and renters ourselves, we are no stranger to the intimate impact of junk fees on housing stability. This legislation is about transparency and predictability, and it's about upholding the

renter protections designed to protect renters from price gouging. As such, we also strongly support Amendment 1, closing a loophole that would allow landlords to skirt this important legislation by bundling optional fees, exploiting tenants by charging for goods and services that

are neither wanted nor used. And as we just heard from a Capitol Hill landlord, my neighborhood, this legislation would not prevent landlords from setting fair market rents or charging for truly opt-in services. Rather, it would help make the market more fair. This comprehensive junkie ban with its enforcement mechanisms and Amendment 1 is a clear need. Please pass this ordinance with

Amendment 1 and without any weakening amendments. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next speaker is

Casey Burton followed by Jesse Wasson.

Good afternoon, and thank you to the council for being here today. I'm asking that you support this bill, including council member Rink's amendment.

I think that it's time that renters have the chance to know what they're getting into when they're up for an apartment. You shouldn't be finding out at least signing what your charges are going to be once you've already paid a holding fee that you probably won't get back. How can we expect renters to make the choices that are best for their budget if they don't know the true cost of an apartment? In particular, I want to address pet rent. First, landlords shouldn't charge you for every single part of your home, every plant, every piece of furniture. It's ridiculous. Second, it's exploitative. Another way to squeeze money out of renters who just want to make sure that they and their companions have a roof over their head. Third, a lot of landlords are complaining about the increased costs and impact on other renters. But oddly enough, we aren't hearing these complaints from other renters who they say would be impacted, just the people who run these rental businesses. Further, the landlord already collects pet deposits and can send any additional amount.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jessie Wasson, followed by Rick Kay.

Good afternoon, Chair Foster and members of the committee. My name is Jessie Wasson, and I'm the Deputy Director for Inspire Washington. We are the state's cultural advocacy organization serving every community by driving public investment and supporting policies that provide more uplifting science, heritage, and arts programs. Today, I'm here to convey our support for the Seattle Arts Commission and their public letter to the mayor addressing their budget priorities.

Inspire Washington is in full support of their three requests, which include, one, dedicating full admission tax to the Office of Arts and Culture,

Two, allocating 10% of the Shield Seattle funding to arts and culture. And three, committing to expanding the collection of admission tax to the Soto Stadium. Inspire Washington and the Seattle Arts Commission recognize this work will require a broader coalition with state lawmakers.

Hello, Representative Scott and regional partners. And we strongly encourage the city to support and participate in the advocacy.

Thank you so much for your time and attention, and we look forward to continuing these conversations. All right. Our next speaker is Rick Kaye followed by Anne Tyson.

definition does not increase density, but does increase displacement and rental costs.

Please advocate for regulation of wholesalers at the state level, which is what is done in at

least a dozen of the states, and just say no to the billionaires in their request for excessive upzoning. Excessive upzoning is a predatory housing practice to eliminate that. Thank you.

All right. Our next speaker is Anne Tyson, followed by Emily Dee.

Good afternoon. I'm a homeowner in Northeast Seattle District 4, and I really agree with the last speaker. I'm also here to strongly support Council Member Foster's Do Not Solicit legislation and the related Amendment No. 1. I've witnessed more than one case of displacement of vulnerable neighbors on fixed incomes, including a couple who had lived in their home for at least 60 years and were having a bit of trouble getting the moss off their roof and decluttering. This couple and other neighbors were harassed and misled by slick salespeople into selling their homes for cash. Often they don't have a good ability to judge these supposed deals, which end up being disasters. The homeowners must then start over without their long-time support networks. If such predatory and unwanted solicitation were not allowed, the homeowners and their families would naturally feel they have more time and space to consider other options that would preserve their quality of life and their communities. Please help stop this displacement that's happening all over Seattle. Thanks so much for your time. Our next speaker is Emily D. followed by Colleen McAleer.

Thank you, Council members. My name is Emily Rosenflag. I'm a tenant of District 1, and for years now, our tenants in our building have been subsidizing our landlord to the tune of about $70,000 a year, which does not even take into account charges like pet fees. A few years back, our trash fees increased by $45 a month when our landlord chose to contract with two third-party services, valet garbage and waste experts, because they could not keep up with the flow of garbage from the chutes and because they cut a maintenance person at the property. Our building bought this enrollment by citing Seattle Municipal Code, which says landlords are legally responsible for maintaining communal areas of the property, but SBCI said that they could not enforce this code because the services are written into our leases. This is when I learned a lease can legally enforce something even if it appears to be written in violation of city code.

Landlords are shirking the financial responsibilities of property maintenance while charging residents double and triple the contracted rates for these services. Renters need protection and meaningful accountability. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker is Colleen McAleer, followed by Lois Martin.

And Colleen, if you could pass star six.

Hi, good afternoon, City Council members. This is Colleen McAleer, Laurelhurst Community Council representing over 2,000 residents. We support Council Bill 121259. Across the city, there are so many homeowners who have budgeted, worked hard, two jobs, bought a home where they could age in place, and built equity for themselves and their extended families for the future.

Over time, sometimes on fixed incomes, folks get a hard time to maintain their homes, become

a target for unwanted solicitation. But their home is still their home base, and their neighborhood is their support network that they should be able to enjoy. These are benefits as they grow. Being continually solicited to sell your homes is harassment, pounded with unwanted calls, pop-in visits, and mailing. And sometimes the elderly and the vulnerable, they get overwhelmed, and they finally take the cash, which seems like a good deal, and leave.

But these homeowners are displaced elsewhere, and they could have gotten a higher price if sold on the open real estate market with multiple offers.

And they have to leave their network.

We support 121259 and give a chance for folks to cohabitate maybe with their parents and

maybe they'll be able to buy that house in the future. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Lois Barton followed by Mason Fagan.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Lois Martin, and I'm a third-generation Central District resident, homeowner, small business owner, and one of the founding members of the Black Homeowners Policy Council. TB 121659 names what is happening to us. It says predatory home buying practices target communities of color, contributing to displacement and the erosion of generational wealth. And that is my life. I've kept the files since 2015, letters, postcards, emails,

signed agreements left on my porch, text calls from overseas call centers, targeting my home and my business property, including our playground, one of the few left in this neighborhood.

The bill also recognizes damages from mental suffering, and that matters because every unsolicited contact is a stressor. It's designed to wear you down until you give in. I support this bill because it covers the entire city and it gives us a legal tool to hold a boundary.

I ask that the council please vote yes, and your yes vote will make a difference, and it's what our community needs.

Thank you. All right, our next speaker is Mason Fagan, followed by Aiden Carroll. And if folks have any additional comments, they can provide those over email. Thank you. Hello, my name is Mason Fagan. I'm a resident of Crown Hill. I'm an MBA graduate from Seattle University and a former hospitality manager. From my experience, landlords and corporations have the profit margins to be able to cover all of these ancillary costs with the profits from the rent they charge, which takes up more than 30% of the income of the average renter. These fees did not exist a generation ago. This is a status quo that has been set by the extractionary policies meant to hold up the lifestyle standards of capital owners while degrading that of the working class. Access to amenities and allowance for pets are marketing tools that increase occupancy. They shouldn't be charged on top of the exorbitant rent costs. I urge you to put money back in the pockets of renters who make up 60% of the population of Seattle. This money will allow residents to spend on local businesses that have been struggling for years now. I encourage you to view my full analysis in my email after this meeting. Thank you. Our next speaker is Aiden Carroll, followed by Benjamin Merritts.

Hi.

I'm from Capitol Hill.

I live in Wallingford, and I am here to urge you to ban junk fees,

especially but not only at rent and the ratio utility billing system,

which I'm sure you have heard about.

Several people, including Kate Rubin, gave an excellent explanation of how pet rent is duplicative. If it's actually damaged, the tenants end up paying it anyway. All of these things, if the landlord is facing any kind of financial hardship, they can just change the number on the advertisement

to be the number the tenants are already paying. It's not a matter of increasing or decreasing the rent. It's a matter of truth in advertising. Meanwhile, tenants have already in many cases been evicted, which is why you're working on the shelter expansion.

That's understandable because the housing is not going to be fixed fast enough, but the shelter expansion will take years too. You need to create a couple of sanctioned camps in every council district. There is no other place for people to go.

That is just the way it is when everything is so expensive.

All right, and can you share any additional comment over email? Next, we have Benjamin Maritz followed by David Haynes.

Hi. My name is Ben Maritz. I am a property manager here in Seattle. We manage about 5,000 homes in Seattle,

almost all of which are affordable to people earning between 40% and 60% of the area median income.

I'm here with comments about the junk fee legislation.

I support greater transparency and predictability in pricing for apartments. I think it will benefit both housing providers and renters as well, and I applaud the process that the mayor's team has gone through to build consensus around this.

I would like to talk about pet fees in particular. Our business has been able to keep rents stable and even have them decline. On average, our rents are about 4% to 5% lower today for our residents. And a big part of that is because we're able to control our costs. Pets in the buildings do create quite a bit of cost that should be borne by the pet owners, and pet rent is the most fair way to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. And our final two speakers are David Haynes followed by Tasha May.

Hi, thank you, David Ains. Is council going to share the fines to the homeowners who get themselves on the do not solicit list? Anyway, we need better protections from corrupt landlords, some of whom are on city council, self-dealing with backstabbing restrictions on the comprehensive plan, denying a better choice in housing to appease the greedy sellouts who don't want people building back better, higher, denser, more robustly due to sellouts taking advantage of a supply and demand squeeze and a corrupt, nonprofit, unqualified group, a politically connected that cannot build 21st century first world quality housing, who wants to weaponize the MHA fee funds. yet i want to know why isn't council creating a law that says that when you move in and you

discover your landlord artificially inflated and dilapidated their housing and you got floor plans and the neighborhood neighbor shuts their door the wall shakes you should be allowed to renegotiate the inflated rent and you shouldn't have to pay fifty dollars to ethics because they

got one group handling seven you can provide any more comment over email our final speaker will be

Tasha May. Good afternoon Chair Foster and members of the committee. My name is Tasha May. I'm the Director of Operations at FMS Global Strategies. I'm also the founder of Advocacy Queen, a nonprofit that teaches people how to speak up for themselves and get through systems that were not built for I support Council Bill 121259. My grandmother is in her 90s. She has never listed her home, and she still gets calls, the mail and the knocks. It does not stop when she says no. That is the point of it. Your own record shows more than a third of respondents got 41 or more solicitations in two years. This is wearing people down until they give in. The families at hardest have the least room to push back in this city, and the same family is locked out of owning homes for generations. That is the House that is only, I'm sorry, that House is the only thing that they have to pass down. Pass Council Bill 121259, adopt Amendment 1, because anyone who will not sign their legal name to a solicitation is telling you who they are. And fund enforcement, a protection nobody enforces is not protection. Thank you.

Thank you. And there are no additional registered speakers.

Okay. As always, thank you so much to all of the folks who came down or showed up in person to provide public comment. With that, we will now move on to our first item of business, items one through eight. Will the clerk please read the items into the record?

All right. Agenda item one, appointment 03547, the appointment of Zoe Bailey Stylanias as as member of the Seattle Human Rights Commission for a term to July 22nd, 2027. Agenda item two, appointment 03548, the appointment of Terry Lynn as member of the Seattle Human Rights Commission for a term to July 22nd, 2028. Agenda item three through eight, appointments 03549 through 03554, reappointments of Katie Sophie Gonzer, Philip Lewis, Nicholas G. Layden, Brandon Monson, Beverly Smith, and Kyle Tibbs as members of the Seattle Human Rights Commission for terms to July 22nd, 2028. Agenda items 9 through 11, appointments 03555 through 03557 of Idinda Kumbi, Ajobi, Rashad O'Neil, and Daniel Ramira as members of Seattle Disability Commission for terms to April 30th, 2028. Agenda Items 12 through 15, Appointment 03558 through 03561, Reappointments of Valvina y Cortez, Shelby Day, Naomi Snow, and Sawyer Stearns as members of the Seattle Disability Commission for terms to April 30th, 2028. Agenda Items 16 through 17, Appointment 03562 through 03563 of Sawyer McCrabe and Caden Sagan as members of the Seattle LGBTQ Commission for terms to April 30th, 2028. and agenda items 18 through 19, appointments 03564 through 03565, reappointments of Andrew Shafu and Ashley E. Ford as members of the Seattle LGBTQ Commission for terms to April 30th,

2028. Yeah, we just don't give enough appreciation to the clerks. Thank you so much for that. I appreciate that. And I meant to say at the top, today we'll be voting on appointments to the Commission. We will also be voting my bill on homeowner privacy and protections, and we will be hearing a discussion around amendments for the junk fee legislation, but we will not be voting the junk fee legislation out of committee today. So, meant to say that at the top in case anybody is waiting, so just so you have that information for those of you in chambers or tuning in online. And with that I would like to invite up to the committee table who's already here, Sebastian Wilson from the Seattle Office of Civil Rights who will provide an overview of the Human Rights Commission, Disability Commission, Disability Commission, and LGBTQ Commission and LGBTQ Commission and their selection process for these appointments. Before you introduce yourself and begin, I just want to express my appreciation to the Office of Civil Rights for their work to support commissions and their work to help with the appointment process. It's a lot of work to put these together and identify people and it's a lot of work for the people who volunteer their time on these commissions. And with that, also an appreciation to the folks serving on the Human Rights, Disability and LGBTQ commissions for your service to the city. These commissions play an important role in advocating for and elevating the needs of communities they represent and are important partners in ensuring that the council, the mayor and all of our departments deliver on our promise of equitably serving with our residents and engaging. Sebastian, we'll let you introduce yourself, provide an overview of the appointments, and And then we will open it up to questions from colleagues.

SEBASTIAN WILSON, Thank you, Chair Foster. Thank you, committee members. Thank you, Sage, for all of your help in the consideration of these nominations and having them on your agenda today. My name is Sebastian Wilson. I use he, him pronouns, and I am a capacity development advisor with the Office for Civil Rights, and also the acting staff liaison to the Human Rights Commission. The Office for Civil Rights is honored to house the Disability, Human Rights, LGBTQ, and Women's Commission, and very honored to offer these candidates here today for three of them. The Human Rights Commission advises the city on human rights issues affecting the people of Seattle, and they're currently aligning and finding shared priorities with council, community-based organizations, and have begun developing a relationship with the King County Human and Civil Rights Commission as well. They focus their work on the areas of housing and unhoused populations, criminal legal system reform, human trafficking, government relations and affairs, and also hear all appeals of investigation decisions made by our office, as well as host the annual Human Rights Day event in December, which this year is on December 13th at the Washington Hall Ballroom, open to everyone in the public. I would love to see as many people there as possible. The Disability Commission advises and collaborates with city elected officials on disability related issues. They initiated the closed captioning ordinance, implemented wheelchair charging stations in city buildings, and recently co-sponsored the Disability Pride Proclamation. They're also advising and currently working on the current Seattle transit measures. Their committees focus on advocacy and representation, security and access, and internal commission growth, and development. Our LGBTQ commission collaborates with city officials on matters concerning the LGBTQ community. Their current work plan focuses on intersectional advocacy, community empowerment, and commission sustainability. They recently held the annual Pride flag raising event, which had a couple of hundred in attendee, and I know that most of you on the panel were there as well, and in June, and then they have advocated for a civil state of emergency in response to the number of transgender and queer individuals moving to Seattle, fleeing detrimental policies in other states across our country. The process is essentially the same for our recruitment in all commissions. We seek out applicants who are from diverse backgrounds and experiences, and this includes a commitment to intersectional justice, policy interests, and participation in some of the current work groups. Our recruitment is through community events, online engagement, most of our traction is through LinkedIn and the city website, and of course word of mouth, and that comes from elected officials, past and current commissioners, and city staff. We then review applications of candidates, coordinate interviews, and the panelists include an SOCR staff liaison and confirmed commissioners, and then a recommendation is made and vetted by the Commission's division manager. Appointment packets are sent along to the appointing parties for signature and once signed or received by the city clerk's office and then council member foster staff works their magic to get them here on the council calendar and so then they're all moved forward to council for full full consideration there is a large slate today 19 which is fantastic because we're looking forward to the work that they can accomplish together in the remainder of this year and beyond.

Thank you so much for that overview. I appreciate that. And many of these are reappointments to commissions. Colleagues, I will turn to you to see if you have any questions.

Okay. Seeing none. Oh, is there one? I'm sorry. Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Chair Foster. I just wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation to the Office of Civil Rights for your work supporting these commissions. Colleagues, the fact that we have these commissions is incredibly valuable. And I know my office has really enjoyed engaging with our numerous commissions on different policy matters, legislative matters, advocacy efforts, and just to be able to learn. And so, just want to take a moment to appreciate the work of OCR and supporting the work of these commissions, because that work translates into better policy, in my opinion. So, So thank you, and thank you, Chair. Absolutely.

It's our honor, and I just want to say as well that we really appreciate you seeking them out for their expertise, and they definitely feel appreciated and engaged in the work, too. So thank you.

Fantastic. Thank you for that, and apologies I missed your hand there. All right, colleagues, any other questions or comments before we move for a vote? Okay. I move that the committee recommend confirmation of appointments 03547 through 03565. Is there a second? Second. It is moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of the appointments. Are there any further comments? Okay. Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to confirm appointments?

Council President Hollingsworth? Yes. Council Member Rink? Yes. Vice Chair Lin? Yes. Chair Foster? Yes. Chair, there are four votes in favor and none opposed.

Fantastic. The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the appointments be confirmed will be sent to the July 28, 2026 City Council meeting. Thank you so much. We really appreciate you. And before we move on to agenda item 20, colleagues, if there is no objection, I'm going to move the committee into recess. For folks, we had a long committee meeting this morning, and I just need to step off the dais briefly. So if there is no objection the committee will be in recess until 3 o'clock Hearing no objection the committee is in recess until 3 o'clock

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. The End

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let's go. Let's do it. so

Thank you. Thank you. so

Thank you. Thank you.

Channel we are ready to begin again. Let me know when Seattle Channel is back on.

Okay all right fantastic and thank you so much. It is 3.01 p.m. and the committee will now reconvene. We will, I'm so excited to now move on to agenda item 20. Will the clerk please read the item into the record? Agenda item 20,

Council Bill 121259, an ordinance relating to unfair housing practices adding new protections for homeowners for unwanted solicitation of residential property by establishing the do

not solicit list, providing enforcement process prescribing penalties, amending sections 1408020 and 1408190 of the Seattle Municipal Code, adding a new section 1408042 to the Seattle

Municipal Code, and adding reporting requirements for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Okay, fantastic. And we'll be hearing from Jen LeBrecq in just a moment. I move that the committee recommend adoption of Council Bill 121259. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. I would like to invite up to the committee table Jen LeBrecq from Council Central Staff, who will provide an overview of several changes that were made to the bill before the bill was introduced. And Jen will also provide an overview of Amendment 1, which I am sponsoring. Before she begins, I'm really excited to bring this forward, this important piece of legislation for a vote in committee today. This is legislation that will help families build generational wealth by disrupting excessive solicitation and ensuring that homeowners can live in peace in their homes. I want to express my deep sense of gratitude to everyone who has shown up to share their stories of how unwanted and repeated solicitations impact the well-being of our homeowners. I, in particular, want to express appreciation to folks who came to committee last month and spoke on this, Shikandi Salisbury, Maria Bataola, and Gregory Davis. And I also want to express my gratitude to Jen and Tracy with central staff. And I forgot to put her on here, but Sarah from Law. You know, this was something that I heard about often in community. And it's actually, since we've introduced the bill, I've had folks, when I talk to them about it, I say, oh, you know, we're trying to help people stop getting calls to get them out of their homes. Before I can get maybe 10 words out of my mouth, folks go, oh my God, that's happened to me, or that happens to somebody I know, or this is really incessant, or let me show you this text message, or these 40 text messages. And since introducing this, I think we've come to understand exactly how widespread this practice is in our city. And it's my intent with this to make sure that we are protecting our homeowners from unwanted solicitation, and also striking a balance. We took an approach with this bill where we've created an opt-in do not solicit list. And because of that, and I know Jen will speak to this, because we chose to opt in, we wanted to be inclusive.

not solicit ordinance, mostly with a focus on changes to the draft that you all had seen as part of an information item on several council or committee agendas.

So just as a reminder, big picture, this ordinance would establish a new unfair housing practice prohibiting unwanted solicitation of residential properties, and it would establish a do not solicit list that homeowners could opt into that would protect them from unwanted residential property solicitations. The ordinance, including the list, would be administered by the Office

of Civil Rights. This legislation was discussed in its draft form at both a June 29th committee meeting as well as July 8th, and some changes were made from the draft version to the introduced version largely based on stakeholder feedback. Those changes included that we added new recitals related to public comment and the panel conversation at the June 29th committee meeting. We expanded the definition of residential property owner to include any person having the right to sell or approve the sale of the property. And this was intended to include heirs who are living in a home, but maybe the home wasn't going through probate. And so it was intended to broaden essentially the pool of folks who would qualify to be able to put their name on the do not solicit list we added two actions that explicitly do not constitute solicitation in order to be clear that included communication that was initiated by the property owner or any action by a government or any action by a person acting on behalf of a government or utility we removed the option for a property owner to remove their name but not their address to the list, as the list could not constitute public notice without both name and address.

We clarified that placement on the do not solicit list constitutes notice of desire not to be solicited or to sell. We clarified that notice of a residential property owner's desire not to sell their residential property or be solicited includes but is not limited to being on the do not solicit list. So a residential property owner may notify a person of their desire not to be solicited or to sell their property in writing or orally. So if someone came to a homeowner's door and they weren't on the do not solicit list and the person said I don't want to be solicited anymore and then that

person came back that would actually also be a violation of this unfair housing practice. You don't, if you verbally or orally, sorry, verbally or in writing communicate that you don't want to be solicited and someone returns, it can also be constituted as a violation of the, or as an unfair housing practice. And we clarified that the list could not be used for

commercial purposes. We also added a reporting section. We are requiring a report in July of 2028 and 2029 that provides the information listed here on the slide, broken down by Council District. And we also ask that OCR report back to Council on efforts to coordinate with the Department of Financial and Administrative Services on outreach and enforcement of Ordinance

127-292. This was a bill that passed last year that regulated wholesalers. There is a lot of overlap in terms of policy intent. And so the goal here is really to ask the departments to work together to think about how to spread the word about both of these ordinances. And I'll stop there.

Thank you so much, Jen. Colleagues, any questions? Oh, actually, excuse me. Jen, we're going to turn to you to provide an overview of Amendment 1, and then we'll take any questions and I'll make some

final comments. Great. So, Amendment 1 is sponsored by Council Member Foster. this amendment would add a new unfair practice related to failure to disclose contact and other identifying information.

It would only apply when a residential property owner who does not want to sell or be solicited has been solicited. As a result, someone who solicits when a homeowner does not want to be solicited and fails to disclose their contact information

could be issued a citation for two violations, one for unwanted solicitation and another for failure to disclose contact information. And one of the intents here is to facilitate enforcement with the idea that if contact information is provided, it may make it easier to identify the company or the

person who is doing the solicitation. Thank you so much Jen, I appreciate that

and you spoke to this very well but that is the intent of this amendment is to make sure that we have identifiable information and it also allows OCR to pursue a second penalty for those who may attempt to skirt enforcement by not disclosing their identity.

I will first move to amend Council Bill 121259 as presented on Amendment 1.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Are there any comments on Amendment 1?

Just double checking as I missed them before. Okay. All right. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Council President Hollingsworth?

Yes. Council Member Rink? Yes. Vice Chair Lin? Yes. Chair Foster? Yes. Chair, there are four votes in favor and none opposed.

Okay. The motion carries. And before we move to vote on the bill, I will check to see if there are any comments

or questions from committee members about any of the changes to the bill that were just discussed by Jen LeBrac.

Council President Hollingsworth. I don't have any questions. Is this the last time we can speak? This is your time. Sorry, it's just a long day. My apologies.

So I just wanted to thank you, Council Member Foster, for bringing this and doing the stakeholdering that you've done. I know we've heard feedback from a lot of folks regarding this and trying to err on the side of caution and the solicitation piece and the definition of that. And so I know you really care about that and trying to protect people as well and not have unintended consequences. So I support this. I'll be voting yes on this today, just understanding some of the concerns that I've heard from community, some stuff that I've experienced as well. We've gotten a lot of feedback from people, and I know this strengthens last year what council passed just in addition to that regarding the soliciting piece, just protecting homeowners. And I think a really big piece of this is more so on the enforcement side, that the city can obviously do a better job and still want to continue to work with our realtors and all them so we're not having again the unintended consequences as well to this. So anyway, supporting this today and really appreciate your time and attention and the process that you ran to get to this point. So thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much, Council President Hollingsworth. Councilmember Lin, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to express my strong support and great appreciation for your efforts for everyone who came to testify and who has helped contribute to this bill. We know that we have a lot more work to do, especially when it comes to our efforts to allow families to stay in place, to address those displacement concerns. And I think this is going to be a super effective and efficient way to address these constant contacts, these harassing calls and texts and mail. It's, you know, I think it's going to be, I think it's a relatively small number of folks that engage in that activity of who reach out to homeowners. And, you know, after this bill is passed and the system is set up, it will be very easy to enforce because there will be a very clean list of opt-in folks. And I think once the word gets out, people will say, hey, all you have to do is put your name on this list and you can stop those harassing calls. I think word will spread quickly for homeowners who don't want to keep getting those. So anyway, just super excited to see this. And obviously we'll need to work on the budget side next. But strong support. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Lynn. Councilmember Rank, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Foster. And I want to join in the chorus of gratitude to you for your work on this bill and responding to a very serious community concern. I really appreciated the panel that we had in committee just a few weeks ago and just what was outlined before us. And I think it's clear that this issue is not just a one and done, and our work will continue on addressing this because nobody should be harassed out of their home and particularly intentionally misled or manipulated in the ways that are clearly happening across our community. So this bill is to me a step in the right direction for pushing back on these harmful practices that are taking advantage of people and feeling displacement across our communities. So I'm looking forward to voting yes today and I thank you again for your work.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Rank.

I will provide some final thoughts prior to the vote. And I'll just say, and actually, first let me thank you in particular, Councilman Berlin. We're very lucky to have a lawyer with an expertise in housing practice on this committee.

And I appreciate your feedback, the work that you did with central staff on some of these pre-introduction changes to make sure that we are really honing in on the intent of this legislation. So I want to appreciate you for that. And Council Member Hollingsworth, I want to appreciate you for the connections that you've brought to this legislation, and in particular, you know, your experience as a long-time central district resident and homeowner and community leader have been really invaluable as we've been working on in shaping this legislation. And Council Member Rink, I really appreciate your support today and all the comments that you've provided as we've discussed this in committee. I think this is our third time now. So I just want to express my gratitude to you colleagues for all the ways that you have worked to make this bill a better piece of legislation. And I want to say, you know, I believe really

deeply that the people of the city who have worked so hard to purchase a home, who've worked so hard to hold on to their homes, in particular with the forces of gentrification, I believe that we owe them every effort to ensure that they maintain their stability. And when we hear of the things that I've heard of during this practice, whether that is letters to homeowners that say, my child

would really like to purchase your house and the hurt that that homeowner feels when they've raised

their family in that home, whether that is what we heard in committee very early on about people showing up unsolicited on your doorstep and leaving contracts there for a signature for your home, whether that is people leaving candy for your grandchildren to try to entice and encourage people to agree with that solicitation.

Those are practices that just shouldn't be happening.

And so through this legislation, through allowing people to say, I don't want to be solicited, I want to live in my home in peace, I think that we are both providing two things. We are providing additional stability to our homeowners, but we are also providing the ability for those homeowners to live in peace and enjoy the privacy of their home. So, colleagues, I'm excited to bring this forward today, and I ask for your support.

With that, I move that the committee recommend adoption of Council Bill 121259 as amended.

Is there a second? Second. Second. It is moved and seconded to recommend adoption of the bill. Are there any further comments? All right. Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to adopt Council Bill 121259 as amended?

Council President Hollingsworth?

Yes. Council Member Rink? Yes. Vice Chair Lin? Yes. Chair Foster? Yes. Chair, there are four votes in favor and none opposed.

Fantastic. The motion carries in the committee recommendation that the council bill be adopted as amended will be sent to the July 28, 2026 City Council meeting. And before we move on to our next item of business, I really want to express my deep gratitude. I'm sorry, I I thanked a lot of people, but I forgot to thank you, Sage. So thank you so much for all of your incredible hard work and leadership on this, connecting with people, doing a lot of follow-up, and clerking the committee. Really couldn't do it without you. And I want to also express my gratitude to Nusheen, who's been holding it down in our office,

and to all of the staff who worked on this.

Okay, we will now move on to our next item of business. Will the clerk please read item 21 into the record?

Agenda Item 21, Council Bill 121254, an ordinance relating to rental agreement regulation requiring disclosure of fees, prohibiting and limiting certain fees, requiring retention of compliance records, expanding investigation authority, and establishing new enforcement mechanisms, amending Section 724020, 724050, 724060, 724120, and 724030 of, and adding new section 724-039, 724-040, 724-045, 724-170, 724-180, 724-190, 724-200, 724-210, 724-220, 724-230, and 724-240 to the Seattle Municipal Code for a briefing, discussion, and a possible vote.

ZA. All right. be hearing Amendment 1 being brought forward by Councilmember Rink. We will not be voting on the

bill or the amendment today, but we want to provide an opportunity for committee members to ask any

questions they have about the bill or the amendment. I plan to hold a vote during our next meeting and I'm planning to schedule a special committee meeting on Monday, August 3rd, so that we have the ability to hear this bill again during that committee meeting. HB from Central Staff, so colleagues

want to make sure if there are any additional amendment ideas, HB has asked for those amendments to her no later than July 27th.

We also today have with us, and I want to express my appreciation, members from the mayor's office and SDCI in chambers. Okay, so that is just a little overview of the process. And before we start off, I want to again express my gratitude to the mayor's office and to

her team for their work and their leadership on this bill, as well as the over 30 community members who showed up last committee meeting.

There were probably 20-something members here today during public comment to talk about the impact of rental fees and how that's adding costs for renters. So thank you all for showing up and participating in this process. HB, when you are ready, please introduce yourself and begin with your presentation. And after you're done, we'll pause for questions from the committee before we turn to discussion of the amendment.

Thank you. H.B. Harper, Council Central Staff. So we're here to discuss Council Bill 12-1254,

rental fees and enforcement. So this briefing will cover some background context for these regulations, an overview of the draft legislation, including a breakdown of requirements,

fees proposed to be allowed and prohibited, and some details on implementation and enforcement, as well as a description of fiscal impacts. So the draft legislation enters a landscape of landlord tenant-related laws in Washington that began in the 70s with the Residential Landlord Tenant Act, which is a state law establishing a shared framework for the duties, obligations, and rights of both tenants and landlords. What's on the books today, of course, it's been amended many times. At the state level, there are a few fee-related regulations, including stipulations on fees for late rent, prohibiting fees or deposits to be on a wait list, caps on fees or deposits to hold a dwelling unit, that kind of thing. So Seattle entered this regulatory landscape in the 90s

with bills establishing terms and laying the foundational framework related to security

deposits and notices for rent increases. And then in the mid to late 2000s, the council passed ordinances capping the amount of security deposits and move-in fees, allowing move-in fees to be paid

at installments and beginning to establish enforcement mechanisms. And then in 2023,

late fees were capped. So from a fee perspective, the initial move in fees and deposits and late

fees, those have really been the focus of much of the regulation in the landlord-tenant space.

So this legislation moves beyond those to address other fees landlords may charge and the transparency for the prospective tenant regarding the total cost of living. So first and perhaps

most importantly the legislation requires that advertisements and rental applications for rental units disclose all costs upfront so that includes the

monthly rent any discounts utilities whether those are included or not and the amounts of all fees the tenant will be assessed so that disclosure is the first component that's important to understand as a key piece of the bill next of course it addresses fees which we'll get to in a minute and then there are

requirements for landlords to retain records documenting compliance with these laws and finally there's quite a bit of detail on enforcement and I'll go through some of that in detail after we talk fees. So there are essentially

three categories in the bill for fees. Category one is sort of fees that are allowed and then there's optional and then prohibited. So allowed in this case means that a landlord can assess them across the table. A tenant doesn't have to opt in. So the list on the screen here shows you those fees that are allowed, which include many of them that are already regulated, as well as proposed additional allowed fees for replacement keys, lockout fees, and fees for payment returned with insufficient funds. And in all of those cases,

there are caps on those three additional fees, and there are already caps on the already regulated fees. And all of those are detailed in attachment one to the memo that was sent via email a few days

ago. So, you know, within the stipulations a tenant doesn't have to opt in, they can

be assessed any of these fees as long as you know the landlord is meeting the the stipulations that are laid out in the bill. In addition to these, landlords may

assess optional fees. An optional fee is where a tenant opts in to paying for a

particular good or service. So these optional fees must meet four requirements. Clear disclosure, affirmative opt-in so they can't be defaulted in, they need to choose to opt into the fee. A clear method for opting out that involves no charge or fee to the tenant that needs to be disclosed up front. And finally, if the landlord contracts with a third party for a good or service, the cost to the tenant cannot exceed the cost to the landlord. So we did the first category, fees allowed.

Second category, optional fees. Finally, we have prohibited fees. and prohibited fees are determined to be unfair or excessive so they cannot be assessed as optional even if they meet those requirements we discussed on the

last slide. So there's a list on the screen but beyond this list the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections is also given the ability through the legislation to determine additional fees to add to this list as being unfair and excessive and they would do that via a director's rule. There are factors the director shall consider before putting such a rule out there, and that's all laid out in the bill. But so the list on the screen may grow over time, but as proposed, it includes the use of in-unit appliances, access to common areas, but note, and for both of those, there are exceptions,

fees to accept rent payments, access mail, perform any aspect of landlord duty, and any partial change in tenancy for adding or removing roommates. Finally, it prohibits that monthly fee for keeping a pet, although pet damage

deposits can still be assessed. So that all feels really meaty, but the true

meat of this ordinance, in my opinion, is in the enforcement. So a lot of is dedicated to sort of implementing these regulations, and it represents a pretty significant shift that I'd like to try to walk you through. So today already, SDCI can investigate individual complaints from tenants related to

existing regulations like notice and move-in fees and can issue citations

and assess penalties. This legislation gives SDCI the power to initiate an

investigation on a broader scale beyond an individual complainant and look at a building-wide or company-wide in issue and enforce the regulations at that scale. So this is where that records retention requirement becomes important and because the department may request those records those documents and create required timelines for response to those requests via director's rule and if needed through the hearing examiner subpoena the landlords. SDCI can refer the subpoena or any case under investigation to the city attorney's office for filing a civil action and again that's a pretty significant shift

from how things work today. So in a situation where a violation is found there are remedies and penalties spelled out in the draft bill. They're summarized

at a very high level here and spelled out in detail in attachment to to the

memo. And I wanted to note that the director does have some discretion here and the legislation gives the director some direction and factors to consider in exercising that discretion. In terms of fiscal impact enforcement of this program is expected to require three additional FTEs on an ongoing basis as well as initial initial startup costs related to outreach and engagement for tenants and landlords. The bill itself does not change appropriations but as

part of the 2027 budget, an increase of about a million dollars is anticipated.

The increase is expected to be paid for via a new per-rental unit fee that's charged as part of SDCI's annual fee bill, which will be part of the Council's 2027 budget legislation. The three FTEs would include two code compliance

analysts and a senior planning and development specialist to handle increased case intake, investigations, and landlord assistance. The hearing Examiner and City Attorney's Office are expected to be able to absorb any additional work that results from this bill and so they're not asking for

additional resources. And with that I'm happy to answer any questions and or speak to the amendment when you're ready. Thanks. Fantastic. Thank you so much HB

for that overview of the legislation. Colleagues, I intend to go to you first

for questions about the legislation as is prior to going to the amendment. Are

there are questions from the presentation from central staff. Okay, well I'll ask a few even though I'm sponsoring it because I love to make sure that there's clarity in the public realm. Can you just share a little bit more, and I know we heard from our speakers at the mayor's office as well as one of the economists from Stanford last, feels like last week, at last committee

meeting, but can you just speak a little bit around the intent to do the prohibition on all

fees except for those that are expressly allowed by the ordinance? Yes, in terms of structure,

sort of structuring the ordinance that way? Right, so there are a few different ways you can try to regulate fees, and rather than naming every single fee that's prohibited, you know, taking an approach where we name what's allowed and say that everything else is prohibited as long as it, you know, doesn't fall into that optional category sort of ensures that we're not playing whack-a-mole with discovering new fees that landlords are, you know, sort of renaming or reviving in different forms.

Thank you so much. And I think I asked, thank you for that, HB. And I know I asked this last week, but I'll just say it again, or last committee meeting, I'll say it again, though.

My understanding when it comes to pet rent is that we are still allowing a pet deposit as well as any potential charges for damages. Can you speak to that briefly?

That's right. Pet damage deposits are still allowed, and there's stipulations regarding repair when damage is done that I believe are in state law. So nothing about that is changing.

Thank you so much. Colleagues, any further questions for HB?

Okay. I believe we're going to turn to you now, HB, to provide an overview of Amendment 1. Given we won't be voting on amendments today, we'll just be having an overview and

discussion. Thank you. So Amendment 1 sponsored by Councilmember Rink would

add a fee, would add a sorry a stipulation to the list of optional fees. So if an

optional fee is assessed that is a bundled set of goods or services such as

a technology fee, bundling cable and internet, this amendment would require that the landlord also make each component of the bundle available separately. So it cannot solely be offered as a bundled set of good or services.

Okay. Thank you so much, HB. I wanted to make sure you didn't have anything further. I appreciate that overview. And Council Member Rink, I'd like to recognize you to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Foster. And thank you, HB, for the overview on this. Colleagues, this a very straightforward amendment, and I brought this forward after direct discussions with tenants rights advocates and folks who work in tenant support services and legal aid. I'm bringing this forward because I believe this will serve as an important clarification and the closure of a possible loophole to ensure no junk fees or banning would be required to receive a service that to many is essential. So while bundling isn't a the most common issue we face today, I have concerns that it could become more frequent. So this is the reason that I brought this amendment forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that, Councilmember Rink. Colleagues, are there any questions for HB or Councilmember Rink on the amendment as put forward in committee today?

Council President Hollingsworth. Yeah, no questions, just a comment. thanking Council Member Rank for putting this forward and wholeheartedly supporting junk fees

and the amendment that's put forth today as well. We'll not have any amendments to the legislation and just looking forward to supporting it as is.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Council President. I appreciate that. Checking for hands here. Okay. Going once, going twice.

Are there any final comments or questions from committee members?

All right. Fantastic. Thank you so much, HB. We really appreciate that. And again, I want to express my gratitude to the mayor for bringing this legislation forward

and to mayor's office staff, to Karim, for all of your hard work on this over the last several months. Are there any further items of business to come before the committee?

Okay, hearing none, this concludes the July 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Housing Arts and Civil Rights

Committee. Colleagues, our next scheduled meeting is August 12th. However, as I mentioned to you earlier have an intent to hold a special meeting earlier in August, so we will

notice that shortly. Thank you all for attending. It is 3 33 p.m. and we are

adjourned. Thank you.