Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole Packet for 04/16/2018 AGENDA Committee of the Whole Meeting 6:00 PM - Monday, April 16, 2018 Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way 1. Source of Income Discrimination Ordinance Issue Paper c:\users\jmedzegian\desktop\4. memo to cc - soid.docx DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 9, 2018 TO: Ed Prince, Council President Members of Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: C. E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Paul Hintz, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Source of Income Discrimination – Options in Response to Pending State Legislation House Bill 2578, which recently passed both the House and Senate and was signed by Governor Inslee, prohibits a landlord from refusing to lease or rent real property to a prospective tenant or current tenant, or expelling a tenant from real property, based on the source of income of an otherwise eligible tenant. The bill will be effective on June 6, 2018. This memo is intended to provide councilmembers with a clear understanding of how the City’s proposed SOID legislation would differ from the state’s legislation, as well as the options moving forward and their effects. The new state protections will be both broader and narrower than the draft SOID ordinance in different ways with the most notable differences explained below: 1. The City’s ordinance would allow sources of income to be disregarded if the benefit/subsidy will expire within the lease term, while the state law will not. 2. The City’s ordinance would provide protections for all legal and verifiable income sources, however, the state law only protects “benefits and subsidies…or other retirement programs, and other programs administered by any federal, state, local, or nonprofit entity” – child support is an example of an income source that doesn’t appear to be protected by HB 2578. 3. The state law provides civil remedies that are more specific than those provided by the City, but no administrative enforcement of the discrimination protections. Enforcement of the state law is achieved only through a civil lawsuit filed by the tenant. Unlike with race/family/sex/etc. discrimination, it does not appear that the Washington State Human Rights Commission will be enforcing the new state source of income protections. The City’s ordinance provides for enforcement by the City in the form of civil fines and, on a third offense, criminal charges. Therefore, the City’s ordinance provides tenants much greater access to enforceability and holds landlords more accountable. AGENDA ITEM #1. Renton City Council Committee of the Whole Page 2 of 2 April 9, 2018 c:\users\jmedzegian\desktop\4. memo to cc - soid.docx 4. The state law will allow landlords to reject a prospective tenant if the person’s source of income is conditioned on the real property passing inspection, and the written estimate of the cost of improvements necessary to pass inspection is $1,500 or more. The City is not preempted from having an overlapping ordinance on this issue. However, the state law could preempt the effect of certain portions of the City’s ordinance (e.g. if the City allows landlords to disregard benefits/subsidies that will expire within the lease term, and the state law would not allow the landlord to do that, state law would prevail). By the City adopting the drafted ordinance there would be a couple advantages, but several disadvantages that could make it more difficult to for landlords or tenants to navigate both laws. Advantage: To the extent the City provides greater remedies (civil penalties/criminal prosecution), tenants have greater rights and don’t need to file a suit as their only means of recourse. Likewise, the City can extend protections for sources of income not covered by HB 2578. Disadvantages: Having overlapping/differing definitions of source of income and their protections could be confusing for both tenants and landlords – particularly to the extent the City’s protections are greater in some respects but less in others. Landlords will have to separately interpret both the state SOID protections and the City SOID protections and comply with the more restrictive. Where the two laws have a different structure and different way of defining SOID, it may be difficult for landlords to identify practical differences between the two. Moreover, to the extent the state law requires landlords to refrain from doing something that the City’s law specifically authorizes (e.g., disregarding sources of income known to sunset within the lease term), the City’s allowance for such conduct would not excuse landlords from compliance with the state law. That could potentially mislead landlords into violating the state law by relying upon the more specific provisions in the City law. There are four apparent actions City Council may choose (see below). The Administration recommends option #4 in order to eliminate contradicting provisions while retaining the City’s options for enforcement (e.g., civil penalties/criminal prosecution): 1. Take no action to adopt a SOID ordinance and instead allow the state law to provide protections for renters using alternative sources of income. 2. Consider adopting the SOID ordinance as currently drafted and presented during the February 26, 2018 meeting of the Committee of the Whole; 3. Alter the currently drafted ordinance to closely match HB 2578 in order to be identical inasmuch as possible; or 4. Alter the currently drafted ordinance to be similar to HB 2578 but retain the City’s ability to issue civil fines or pursue criminal charges. AGENDA ITEM #1.