The Washington Multi-Family Housing Association wanted landlords to be able to levy additional, reasonable security deposits for damage based on pet wear and tear should a tenant bring in a pet.
The association also joined its voice with the voices of landlords who objected to a section of the proposed Auburn ordinance that could have resulted in the city’s unwarranted interference in contracts between landlords and tenants.
In the meantime, the King County Housing Authority questioned expanded time frames for rent increase notifications, notably for subsidized housing providers who already have annual income recertification processes in place that adjust rent based on a tenant’s income.
“We don’t want to get in the way of that process,” Auburn Community Services Manager Joy Scott said of KCHA’s concerns.
Scott made the comments at the Aug. 24 work session of the Auburn City Council, where city leaders got a look at the revised version of the Just Cause Eviction Ordinance they’d first taken up in mid-July.
At that time, the council was working under the approaching Aug. 1 sunset of Gov. Jay Inslee’s moratorium on residential tenant evictions. The council tabled the proposed ordinance in favor of adopting a single paragraph that spelled out protections specially addressed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Inslee has since extended that moratorium to Oct. 15.
At the Aug. 24 work session, the council discussed comments it had received and talked about some adjustments.
“In the section of this ordinance that speaks to a notice of sale requirement for low-income housing, we wanted to make sure, based on some comments we received from the rental housing association, that properties that are transferred to family members or through a will or are otherwise not intended to be listed for sale are not caught up in this process,” Scott said.
“So, if there’s a family or a state transference of this property, the intent is not to require notification before that process takes place. We wanted to make sure that was reflected in the code,” Scott said.
Out of concern for the many tenants who had lost their jobs to COVID-19 or were working reduced hours for slimmer paychecks, council members discussed the wide-ranging ordinance on July 13. To spell out, city leaders said at the time, under what precise conditions a landlord could evict a tenant and to establish local requirements for notification time frames a landlord must abide by when increasing rental rates.
Under state law, a landlord must provide a minimum of 60 days notice that rental rates are increasing, irrespective of how much the landlord intends to increase rent. Such an ordinance can establish longer notification time frames for more significant rent increases by setting a percentage increase threshold and a longer time frame.
The draft ordinance originally proposed to establish a 120-day notification requirement whenever rent increases by more than 5 percent. That matters because a tenant may not be able to afford the increase, which means the tenant will need to find a new housing option.
Finding a new housing option, city leaders said on July 13, would require the tenant to secure funds associated with the cost of moving, to make a security deposit for the new home, and make first and last month’s rent. When combined with potential other costs associated with setting up new utility accounts, such as changing school districts and finding new child care, city leaders said it would be difficult for a tenant to be prepared to move to a new home with a 60-day notification.
Five percent is a midpoint, indeed, and the increase could be 3, 5 or 7 percent. Using the average or the median rental rate, 3 percent would translate to a $50-a-month increase, 5 percent would add $85 to the monthly rent, and 7 percent would add $120 a month.
Additionally, the 120-day time frame is a midpoint. It could potentially be 90 days or it could be 150 or 180 days.
“To me,” said Councilmember Claude DaCorsi, “120 days may be a little bit too long, in the sense that perhaps, except for big corporate landlords, there may not be an intent to increase the rent beyond that threshold during that period of time. I think a shorter period of time that allows landlords more opportunity to work within their financial parameters may be justified. I would be comfortable going with 90 days versus 120.”
Finding no council members who agreed with him on that point, however, DaCorsi dropped his opposition to the 120-day time span.
Any evictions or terminations of tenancy outside those specified by the ordinance are considered illegal once it is in effect.
Other cities in Washington state — among them Seattle, Burien and Federal Way — have adopted their own Just Cause Eviction Ordinances (JCEO). After research, Auburn chose Burien’s ordinance as a model for its draft.
In addition to establishing codified reasons for why a landlord may evict a tenant, a JCEO establishes local requirements for the notification time frames that a landlord must abide by when increasing rental rates.
Another advantage of a JCEO is that it allows a city to help tenants and landlords in areas where it currently has no authority. While the landlord tenant laws are well established and are intended to protect both parties, the city does not have authority to enforce these laws. Enforcement is remedied through the courts. A JCEO provides the city with a tool to assist in some areas of landlord tenant relations
Other reasons for the preparation of the JCEO for council consideration at this time are:
• The city council has previously expressed interest in adopting a JCEO in Auburn.
• It is a policy action that is consistent with the recommendations contained in the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force 5 Year Action Plan.
• It is a policy action that is consistent with the Joint Recommendations Committee for the 2020 State Legislative Agenda, of which Auburn is a member.
• It is a policy action consistent with the South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP).
