HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/2017 05A Exploratory Committees Final Reports ReviewBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDASTATEMENT
Item No. 5.A.
For Meeting of: November 7, 2017
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of final reports from Community Integration
Committee and Ethics & Equal Rights Committee
SUBMITTED BY: Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director
Sara Watkins, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
On October 17, 2017, the City Council heard the Community Integration Exploratory Committee
(CI EC) and the Ethics and Equal Rights Exploratory Committee (EERC) final reports. Those
final reports were the culmination of almost 10 months of work by the two exploratory committees
and both committees recommended that the Council create permanent committees. During
Council's discussion, questions arose regarding staff time and resources allocated to the
exploratory committees. In addition, at the Neighborhood & Community Building Committee
meeting on October 19, 2017, Council members asked for additional information to aid in the
Council's decision making. The matter was moved to the November 7, 2017 Council meeting for
further review and for additional information from staff.
ITEM BUDGETED: NA
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Neighborhood and Community Building
APPROVED FORcl*
SUBMITTAL: City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
BOARD/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
NCBC referred these two reports to the full Council for discussion
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type
memo - exploratory committees 10/3112017 Coxer Memo
G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor Kathy Coffey and Council Members
Cliff Moore, City Manager
FROM: Sara Watkins, Senior Assistant City Attorney
DATE: October 31, 2017
SUBJ: Summary of Exploratory Committees: Time Spent, Resources,
Additional Information for Council's Consideration
Dear Mayor Coffey and Council Members:
This memorandum addresses resources and staff time used by the exploratory
committees, a legal analysis of proposals from the Ethics and Equal Rights
Exploratory Committee, and additional information pertinent to the Council's
evaluation of making these exploratory committees permanent. The
memorandum is lengthy. To start, here are some preliminary questions that may
be addressed during your discussion:
• Are the actions or items requested to be addressed by
permanent committees within the purview of the City of
Yakima?
• Does the City have the legal ability to address the action items
requested, or issues presented, in exploratory committees' final
reports?
• Can the City afford to seat one or both of the committees? How
does the Council address the budget and staffing of a
permanent committee?
• Is there another non-profit group or City committee who is
already doing some or all of the proposed actions or addressing
some or all of the issues presented?
• Could the goals of the two proposed committees be addressed
by one committee charged with both community integration and
equal rights? If so, could that committee recommend ad hoc
specialized groups to address specific issues—appointed by
Council but working in conjunction with the committee?
1
4
• Is there enough interest from the public to make these
committees permanent, and are members of the public willing to
participate by becoming committee members?
Below please find more detailed information about resources and staff time, and
a more detailed analysis of the committees' proposals.
1. Resources and Staff Time
a. Community Integration Exploratory Committee (hereinafter referred
to as "CIEC")
Staff time and resources for CIEC includes staff time for Randy Beehler (staff
liaison), Michael Brown (YPAC), Rosalinda Ibarra (Assistant) and myself (staff
liaison). Staff liaisons were asked to be present at the meetings to answer
questions or provide information about programs, initiatives or other work by the
City which corresponded to the ideas brainstormed and analyzed by the CIEC.
Randy Beehler was chosen as a liaison due to his knowledge of the
communications and outreach the City currently undertakes. I was the staff
liaison to provide legal information if necessary. Randy and I did not generally
interject into their conversations as we did not want to drive the discussion or the
outcomes. Randy and I did provide information at the beginning about the
purpose and role of the committee, and later, about the communications and
outreach efforts of the City, initiatives that were ongoing (such as the streetlight
replacement project, coffee with a cop and the neighborhood meetings set up by
Councilmember Dulce Gutierrez). I also provided information about the Public
Records Act when they began talking about doing a survey. Later, CIEC asked
staff questions and inquired as to what we thought would be useful information
for the Council to have in front of you when you made your decision, and we
provided our opinions.
There was a training on December 1, 2016. The committee held 19 committee
meetings from January 2017 through October 2017. The meetings were
scheduled to last from 5:30pm to 7:OOpm and generally ended on time. Thus,
with the 2 hour training in December and my attendance at 17 of the 19
committee meetings, I spent approximately 27.5 hours in CIEC meetings. I also
prepared for meetings and discussed the meeting the next day with other staff. I
would average this to be an additional hour per meeting, totaling 44.5 hours (not
including the prep time for the December 1St training). This totals $2,664.21 for
my time with the committee.
It is likely that a permanent committee would use more staff time to research and
provide information to the committee. It would be safe to estimate that the
amount necessary for a legal liaison to the committee would be double to triple
the amount spent for the exploratory committee.
061
Randy Beehler also attended the majority of the meetings. For purposes of this
memo, I will use the same numbers for Randy as I did for myself. As such, to
have Randy at the meeting and participate it cost $2,414.57.
Michael Brown attended the meetings to ensure that the meetings were filmed
and available to the residents of Yakima on our local access channel. He
attended all of the meetings, but not the training, totaling approximately 38 hours
plus additional time to format and get the recording ready for online viewing (an
estimated 1 hour per meeting). Based on his salary, I estimate that the cost of
having someone film the meetings this past year and put them on YPAC totaled
$1,133.73.
Rosalinda Ibarra's role was to maintain the record and assist in coordinating
meetings. Her tasks before the meeting included scheduling the meeting room,
ensuring YPAC availability for recording, notifying the Building Maintenance Staff
for safety/security reasons, posting the agenda at City Hall and uploading it to
the document center, printing the agenda and distributing it to staff. Her tasks
post -meeting included scanning and uploading approved minutes to the
document center and NOVUS as well as including the minutes in NCBC packets.
She also gathered the quarterly reports and exhibits and submitted them to
NOVUS for the committee's presentation. She estimated that she spent
approximately 1 1/ hours per meeting on these activities (both pre and post
meeting activities). Based on her current rate of pay, the total hours spent per
meeting and the time spent organizing and uploading the quarterly reports, her
expense was approximately $962.00.
The total estimated expenses for staff time for CIEC for the exploratory
period is $7,174.51.
It should be noted that a limited number of copies were made of agendas and
documents to facilitate discussion at the meetings or when people forgot to bring
their materials. The committee members generally provided copies of agendas,
draft and final meeting minutes, and their surveys. As such, there were minimal
costs associated with the committee other than the salaries of the staff involved.
Staff liaison costs, YPAC costs and Ms. Ibarra's costs would be highly
dependent on the number of meetings a permanent committee would hold in a
year. Further, staff liaison costs would also depend on the amount of staff
analysis and work requested by the permanent committee.
b. Ethics and Equal Rights Exploratory Committee (hereinafter
referred to as "EERC")
Staff time and resources for the EERC includes staff time for Joan Davenport
(staff liaison), Michael Brown (YPAC), Rosalinda Ibarra (Assistant) and myself
(staff liaison).
Staff liaisons were asked to be present at the meetings to answer questions or
provide information about programs, initiatives or other work by the City which
corresponded to the ideas brainstormed and analyzed by the CIEC. Joan
Davenport was one liaison due to her knowledge of the built environment, codes
enforcement program, ONDS, planning and her work on community
development. I was the staff liaison to provide legal information if requested.
There were two attorneys on the committee and I was rarely asked my legal
opinion during their discussions. Staff did not generally interject into the
committee's conversations as we did not want to drive the discussion or the
outcomes. Staff assisted if asked, which did not often occur.
There was a training on December 1, 2016 and the committee held 13
committee meetings. The meetings were scheduled to last from 5:30pm to
6:30pm and generally ended on time. Thus, with the 2 hour training and
attendance at 13 committee meetings, I spent approximately 15 hours in
meetings. I also prepared for meetings and discussed the meeting the next day
with other staff. I would average this to be an additional hour per meeting,
totaling 13 hours (not including the prep time for the December 1St training). I
also researched some of the proposals as they arose with regards to the legality
and whether other jurisdictions had similar programs, approximately an
additional 10 hours. This totals $2,275.06 for my time with the EERC. Because I
believe the staff will be more extensively used by a permanent committee I would
foresee this amount being significantly higher for a permanent committee,
especially if they are looking into legal issues and legal staff is required to do
legal research and provide analysis.
Joan Davenport also attended the majority of the meetings. For purposes of this
memo, I will use the same numbers for Joan as I did for myself. As such, to
have Joan at the meeting and participate with the committee it cost $2,389.06.
Michael Brown attended the meetings to ensure that the meetings were filmed
and available to the residents of Yakima on our local access channel. His 13
hours plus additional time to format and prepare the recording cost
approximately $517.14.
Rosalinda Ibarra's role for this committee was the same as the CIEC. Based on
her current rate of pay, the total hours spent per meeting and the time spent
organizing and uploading the quarterly reports, her expense was approximately
$577.20.
The total estimated expenses for staff time for the EERC is $5,758.46.
It should be noted that a limited number of copies were made of agendas and
documents to facilitate discussion at the meetings or when people forgot to bring
their materials. The committee members generally provided copies of agendas,
draft and final meeting minutes. As such, there were minimal costs associated
with the committee other than the salaries of the staff involved.
Similarly to the CIEC, staff liaison costs, YPAC costs and Ms. Ibarra's costs for a
permanent EERC would be highly dependent on the number of meetings held
E
per year. Further, staff liaison costs would also depend on the amount of staff
analysis and work requested by the permanent committee.
2. Legal Issues
a. Background
Due to the intent that staff not drive any of the conversations during the
exploratory committee terms, staff did not provide any legal analysis to
committee members unless asked, and did not comment on proposals or issue
items presented.
b. Community Integration Exploratory Committee: Future legal issues.
At CIEC there was discussion about the purview of the City and its services, with
regards to the issues they were exploring, as well as a discussion about the
Public Records Act and challenges with retention requirements with regards to
the survey. The CIEC focused mainly on education and outreach efforts and
providing an equity lens as an aid to the Council in making decisions, so there
were not as many legal matters to discuss during their term.
This committee's roadmap for its future includes three main areas to evaluate:
education and outreach, increasing community pride, and providing an equity
lens for policy decisions. Their roadmap provides little to evaluate at this point in
time. Their presentation regarding the equity lens for policy decisions indicates
that they see the permanent committee as one where the committee would be
making policy recommendations to council members. Appropriately, they do not
see the committee itself make any decisions, but rather supporting council in its
policy-making role. The education and outreach may require some evaluation of
the Public Records Act, and any surveys conducted would benefit from being
vetted by professional researchers. In addition, a more scientific approach in
determining how to generate a true random sample, would make the results
more reliable. That, however, is more of a practical determination than a legal
conclusion. Legal issues may arise if a permanent committee decides to explore
other topics.
c. Ethics and Equal Rights Exploratory Committee: Future legal
issues.
This committee's final report provided a list of fifteen issues for a permanent
committee, if approved, to address.
Landlord/Tenant
EERC supplied an extensive outline of housing issues for the Council to review
as part of its final report (Attachment 1). The landlord/tenant relationship is one
of individual contracting, and the City is not involved in contracting between
private parties. During committee discussions a number of ideas were presented
by committee members that were not listed in the final report. Many of those
8
ideas, such as the City reviewing all landlord/tenant agreements, were not within
the legal purview of the City. For example, the suggestion that the City should
review landlord/tenant agreements to ensure they comply with state law would
be providing free legal advice and review to private persons, likely violating the
State Constitution prohibition on gifting of public funds. Another issue brought to
Council's attention in the final report is the percentage of income versus rent
paid, but the City has no ability to dictate what a private landlord charges a
tenant for rent, or cap what percentage residents are allowed to pay for housing.
Similarly, a number of "common issues" are presented in the final report which
show how landlords and creditors may take advantage of renters and buyers.
These actions may be illegal, but the claims are generally between the parties
involved.
There are state laws dictating many facets of the landlord/tenant relationship
(See RCW 59.18, or RCW 59.20 for mobile home parks), including, but not
limited to, proper notice for evictions, proper notice of rent increases, landlord
duties, tenant duties, and the procedure to evict a tenant. Evictions go through
the courts, so a judge reviews the actions of the landlord. Tenants get notice of
the proceedings and can appear and state their case. In the event tenants
would like legal representation, and meet income requirements for no -cost legal
help, Northwest Justice Project takes housing cases and represents tenants.
The local Volunteer Attorney Services group also can help represent low-income
persons with landlord/tenant issues. Further, there is a website,
http://www.washingtonlawhglp.org, that provides free legal help online in many
different areas of law, including landlord/tenant.
The final report also references code enforcement, which is a subject that a
permanent committee could evaluate. Such an evaluation may need to involve,
at the outset, all interested parties, not just the committee members, especially if
the goal is to adopt additional ordinances or regulations. The legal department
would need to be involved in any ordinance drafting and making sure ordinances
conformed to the City's jurisdiction and powers.
Housing discrimination issues (also referenced in the final report) can be
addressed through a number of non-profit channels in existence, including, but
not limited to Washington Law Help (above), htt:// w.tenantsunion.org,
http://www.fhcwashin_qton.grg, and the Washington State Human Rights
Commission. Further, the Washington State Housing Finance Commission has
the ability to take complaints regarding some forms of housing.
http://www.wshfc.oLq/mana_qers/f,,,,,,,h,,,,,,,,resources.htm
ii. Wage Theft
The wage theft section of the EERC report did not contain any proposals, but did
reference Seattle's wage theft ordinance, which is administered through its Office
of Labor Standards. The ordinance requires the police department to investigate
complaints of wage theft. There are criminal and civil penalties associated with
wage theft that occurs specifically in the Seattle city limits. For more information,
please see this website:
http://www.seattle._qov/laborstandards/ordinances/wa_qe-thef
Currently, wage theft in Yakima may be addressed by the state through
complaints to the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.
Complaints can be filed online and there is a telephone number to call for
assistance. ttps://secure.lni.wa.gov/wagecomplaint/.
In Yakima County a number of wage theft cases have been brought on behalf of
farm and dairy workers by Columbia Legal Services (which offers assistance at
reduced or no cost). Most recently, a judge approved a settlement for dairy
workers in the lower valley.
htt ://w .ya ima eraid.com/news/business/local/judge-gives- reliming
ap roval-of-wage-settlement-for-yaima-valley/article 551 f1 bc0- cif -11 e7-a1-
a5c3d3a. htm I
iii. Other listed items
Many of the other listed items in the list of 15 priorities do not have enough detail
to enable staff to provide a substantive legal analysis for the Council right now.
For example, "Funding to Support Program" does not provide any information
about what programs, or what aspect of funding may be addressed. Additionally,
the items listed as "Code Enforcement," "Police/Criminal Justice," "Distribution of
Resources," and "City Investments" give no indication of what the committee's
focus would be.
With regards to "Gender/Race/Pay Equity" this topic could raise significant legal
issues. As a general rule, cities do not have separate laws or requirements
other than the state and federal laws regarding discrimination and minimum
wage, however, a number of cities in Washington State have passed local
minimum wage ordinances increasing the minimum wage within their
jurisdictions. Some cities have adopted local ordinances regarding human
rights, including discrimination. Any specific proposal or idea that a permanent
committee would look at would benefit from careful review by the legal
department to increase the possibility that local regulations would stand in the
face of a court challenge.
Website Development would likely not need a lot of legal analysis, other than an
evaluation of any public disclosure act and retention issues that may arise.
Another issue that is listed in the final report is "Diversity City/Workforce." This is
not yet fully developed, but, based on some initial conversations at the
exploratory committee there was an interest in seeing how the City could
increase the diversity of staff and more closely reflect the demographics of the
City. Personnel issues associated with such a review would need to be reviewed
by the legal department, however, the committee could evaluate the City's
7
HE
process for hiring (i.e. the actual application, how jobs are advertised, the
interview process), with aid from city staff.
Finally, there are a number of items listed in the final report from EERC that are
addressed directly or indirectly within the CIEC final report and road map.
Specifically: Education about Issues; Distribution of Resources; Community
Engagement; City Investments; and Perception of Racism.
During one of the quarterly presentations, the EERC indicated that it wanted to
become a "one stop shop" for residents to go with questions on these issues.
This is also reflected on page two of their final report. It might be difficult for a
committee to have enough knowledge to be able to field and answer residents'
questions at monthly meetings. However, a committee might be able to assist
the City's communications department in education and outreach, and perhaps
provide more information about non -City services on the City's website (such as
a link to wash ingtonlawhelp.org or other similar websites).
In the oral presentation of the final report, Ms. Rodriguez indicated the
permanent committee would field complaints from the public. Although there is
no specific mention of this in the final report (unless it is contemplated in the "one
stop shop"), having a complaint panel made up of residents for residents
presents a number of issues that would benefit from further evaluation by the
legal department and other city staff members, depending on the nature of the
complaint. This may not be the intent of the permanent committee, so below are
some possible issues associated with such a complaint panel:
1. The committee would have no ability to take any action to
remedy the complaints, which could create a situation
where residents feel like their concerns and complaints
are not addressed, and committee members may feel
dissatisfied with their experience.
2. Complaints regarding employees would need to be
handled in accordance with city policy and collective
bargaining agreements that outline disciplinary
procedures. Currently there are avenues for complaints
against employees, and the Yakima City Charter outlines
the discretion given to the City Manager regarding
employment of City workers.
3. Complaints regarding non -City individuals or businesses
may not be within the purview of things the City could
address (see section 1 above).
4. The City has methods to question, comment on, and
complain about matters within the City, such as Yak
Back, meeting with individual council members, coming
to council meetings, and meeting with the City Manager.
N.
m
If a complaint panel is within the duties the City Council is going to assign a
permanent committee, it is recommended that the legal department do a full
legal analysis on the issue.
d. Overall Legal Analysis of the EERC
It is difficult to give a cogent analysis of whether the City can legally partake in
proposed activities from the EERC because specific ideas about expectations.
Their report focuses on the evidence supporting their recommendation for a
permanent committee. Matters concerning wage theft, landlord/tenant issues,
employment, discrimination and pay equity may be outside of the City's authority
or ability, but it depends on what actions the committee recommends. If a
permanent committee is approved, the legal department would likely be heavily
involved in reviewing, analyzing and giving advice to the committee.
3. Other matters pertaining to the Committees for your consideration and
final thoughts
At the October NCBC committee meeting, NCBC members asked staff to
provide additional information or details that would help in making decisions on
whether to make the exploratory committees permanent.
One thing that both committees grappled with was the purpose of the committee
and the role they played in the overall work of City government. The volunteer
residents on the committees did not initially feel that they were provided a lot of
direction for their work. The City had not undertaken such exploratory
committees in the past, and the City Council wanted the residents to have an
opportunity to discuss their ideas, not be guided by City Council members or
staff. Now that the exploratory committees have finished their work, the City has
a better idea of what the purpose of a permanent committee might be, and the
role the committee might play in City government. The CIEC provides a good
example of this in its final report.
If Council does choose to move forward with one or both of these committees,
committee members should also know in advance what the time commitment
would be, rather than allowing the committee to determine how often it will meet.
These matters can be addressed in the drafting of a complete resolution, or, if
the Council wishes the committee to be added to the municipal code (like the
majority of city committees and commissions), an ordinance, that outlines the
committee's purpose, structure, membership, requirements and general activities
prior to seating any members on the committee. Other things to think about
when determining the administrative details of the committee are:
a. Administrative matters such as number of committee members,
administrative process, who will act as secretary (staff or a
member), records and record-keeping requirements and who
from staff would best staff the committee; and
I
12
b. Budget issues associated with the formation of a new
committee.
4. Next Steps
The following is a list of options for Council action regarding the exploratory
committees for your review:
a. Move to approve both committees and instruct staff to come
back with a resolution or ordinance regarding the administrative
and operational components of the committees.
b. Move to approve the formation of one committee whose
purpose is to encompass both integration and equal rights, and
instruct staff to come back with a resolution or ordinance
regarding the administrative and operational components of the
committee.
c. Move to approve the formation of one or both committees and
schedule a study session to discuss the purpose, administrative
and operational components of the committee. This also could
be delegated to a council committee if the full City Council
determines that to be appropriate.
d. Schedule a study session to have more discussion and/or
public comment on this issue before making a final decision on
how you would like to move forward.
e. Table the issue until a resolution/ordinance is brought back for
review outlining the purpose, administrative and operational
components of the committee and direct staff to provide that for
council review (some basic direction would be needed from
Council such as the number of committees and general
purpose).
f. Table the issue to a future council meeting for further discussion
and comment from the public.
g. Do not approve either of the committees.
10
4
Attachment 1
Basic Characteristics'
The City of Yakima is estimated to have 93261 persons living in it right now. Of these, 67, 724 are adults.
This is based on the 2015 American Community Survey. In terms of diversity, 45.0 percent are "Hispanic
or Latino" and 49.4 percent are "white alone." Yakima has 1.0 percent African American population, 1.1
percent Native American„ 1. Percent Asian, and 2.2 percent of persons list more than one "race." Of the
67724 adults, 56099 are US citizens. There are 30697 persons who speak Spanish at home.
In terms of our households, the most recent data is from the 2010 US Census. That data shows that
there are 33,074 households in Yakima, 64.7 of which are "family households" and 35.3 percent are non
family households. About 9,496 persons live alone in the City. There are 9749 persons who live in two
person households and 4981 persons who live in three person household. Our average household size is
2.68 and our average family size is 3.30. In terms of family composition, there are 21411 families, 5,187
of which are listed as "female household, no husband present families," and 14127 are listed as
"husband -wife" families.
The Housing Stock of Yakima. Of the 33.081 housing units in Yakima, 60.7 are detached, 4.6 percent are
attached, 29.5 percent are apartments and 5.2 percent are mobile homes. Hour housing skews to older
for the most part. 71.2 percent was built before 1980. Only .5 percent has been built since 2010. The
vast majority, 73.6 are in the 2-3 bedroom range. 97.8 percent have kitchens, 99.4 percent have
plumbing. 96.3 percent have telephone service available. In terms of heating, 37.4 percent receive gas,
58.2 percent receive electricity. Nine percent of households do not have a vehicle. One of the most
concerning thing that stands out is that there is a discrepancy between the 2010 census numbers and
the 2015 ACS averages, it looks as if the amount of housing units without kitchens or telephone service
has been increasing.
There are many renter households. Roughly a little below half, 15,238 households, are renters. The
"median rent" in Yakima is 771 dollars, with structures built in the last 20 years commanding over 900
dollars while most structures built between 2000 and down command an average rent in the 700+
range. In terms of a percentage of households, about 45.8 percent pay over 35 percent of their income
towards rent, and 8.4 percent between 30-35 percent. Somewhat concerningly, about 4 percent of
renter households in any given month are behind in rent. There is a correlation between income and
percentage of income paid in rent, with 87 percent of households earning less than 20k paying more
than 30 percent in rent, and 71 percent of households earning between 20k and 30k paying more than
' These numbers can be generated using the factfinder.census.gov website.
5
30 percent in rent. By comparison only 3.8 percent of households earning more than 75k pay more than
30 percent in rent.
The majority of housing units, 17843, are owned by the occupant. Of these, 11219 hove mortgages. The
median mortgage is about 1184 dollars per month in Yakima. The average value of a home in Yakima is
156,700 dollars. On average, home owners are not as stressed as renters, only 31 percent pay more
than 30 percent of their household income on housing, with 25.4 spending 35.0 percent or more.
In terms of tenure, 1.6 percent of households have moved to their current location within the last year,
35.7 percent have moved in between 2010 and 2014, 37.3 percent moved in between 2009 and 2000,
and 25.4 percent moved in before 2000.
Taking a look at the mobile homes in our community, the median value of a mobile home is 31500
dollars. The mobile home market seems to have two spikes in terms of value in the overall distribution,
one large group is located in mobile homes that sell between 15000 and 20000 while another large
group is located in homes that sell between 100000 and 250000. There are practically no mobile homes
in between.
Finally, considering the internet connectivity of our community, only 22,410 of our 33,290 households
have internet. The majority of those who get internet use cable modem. Less than one percent have
fiber optic. DSL is the second most popular choice for internet access. Oddly enough, the amount of
households with a computer, 27547 exceeds those with internet by over 5,000. Most persons with a
computer have a desktop or laptop. Income does seem to have an affect on internet connectivity, of the
6606 households with less than 20k in earnings, more than half do not have internet households. While
about a third of the households earning between 20k and 75k do not have internet, and 11 percent of
households that earn 75k or more.
Rental companies in Yakima.
There are various companies/firms that own or manage rental properties in Yakima. Wilson Real Estate
Management, Landmark Management Services, Jevons, Graft Investments, and Megaladon Property are
the largest.
Common Issues in the Housing world of Yakima
Equity stealing. This is usually a financing scheme that allows lenders to take a complete ownership
interest in a home where the house is used as collateral. There are many examples of this, but usually, a
home owner who has come into money troubles calls a lending agent. The lending agent connects the
individual with an "investor" who will give a personal loan to the home owner in exchange for a high
interest rate (think above 10 percent) and place the home as collateral. The loans are designed to fail,
with staggered payment structures, so that when the home owner can't come up with the money, the
investor or the agent will capture the whole house and foreclose on it. There are also examples of
outright fraud in the these types of schemes.
6
"Eastern Washington Land Deals." These are usually off -the -books oral contracts. Usually a person will
be told that they can own a house, or part of a house (think — "you can own that house but not the field
behind it"), if they pay an individual, likely someone they already trust, a certain amount over time. The
occupant will proceed as if they have a mortgage and pay over a long period of time and then the owner
of the property will pretend that he occupant made up the story and was a renter all along. Oral
contracts for property and mobile homes are very common.
Mobile home schemes. Because mobile homes can be affixed to property as real estate or be considered
movable personal property, they are often the subject of creative purchasing agreements. I will not get
into all of them, but examples include oral contracts that do not materialize in real ownership, promises
to workers that they will get the home and not actually giving it to them, selling the land with the mobile
home as affixed while a family thought they owned it as personal property, and purchase prices that are
4-10x as expensive as the actual assessed value of the mobile home. Additionally, because mobile
homes from the 1970s and before are not movable under the law, many people who buy mobile homes
find that they have no value or can't be moved and have to be scrapped.
Private Mortgages. Many persons in Yakima lack the credit history or large down payments to buy a
traditional home. As a result, a large sector of rent -to -own mortgages has arisen in Yakima. Usually a
private lender or owner will make a contract with a family to purchase the home for a super low price at
the end a long term (20-30 year) contract to pay rent. These are not illegal per -se but there are
examples of exorbitant rents being charged, of the owner selling the property halfway through the
contract, and other shady dealings. The most important thing to recognize is that the renter does not
have the same protections they would under normal mortgages.'
Common issues in the rental world of Yakima
There is very little available housing in general. Our vacancy rate for the county is 2.2 percent, in line
with major cities like Seattle and NYC.
Evictions without proper notice- While the Residential Landlord Tennant act and other statutory
schemes specify the proper procedure for unlawful detainer and eviction actions, it is often the case
that landlords still do not do things properly. This could range from unlawful detainer actions that are
not reasonably calculated to give proper notice to the tenant to complete self help evictions, i.e., taking
the law into your own hands. Another improper way of evicting someone is making their life difficult
until they decide to move, this is called constructive eviction and is against the law.
2 More information is available at: http://www,washin tonlawhelp.ora/resource/know-Your-rights-rent-to-own-in-
washington-st
7
Refusal to accept section 8- Section 8 is a Federally funded housing program that provides vouchers for
low income people to live in rental housing at the market rate. It makes up the difference between what
the person is able to pay and what the market rate is by giving them a voucher that the land lord can
turn into cash. While many cities have made it illegal to refuse to accept Section 8 vouchers, most cities
have not. They normally call this "source of income discrimination." Often, however, refusal to accept
section 8 vouchers is code for racial discrimination, as Section 8 is associated with some minority groups
in some part of the country. There have been examples of NJP opening up investigations into whether
refusal to accept Section 8 is discriminatory either as hidden purposeful discrimination or
disproportionate impact. Those cases are usually settled quickly. Section 8 vouchers are very difficult to
obtain and there is usually along waiting list (10 years in some places), thus a person has to be
continuously poor for a long time in order to benefit.
Warrantee of Habitability- every tenant, whether a tenant in common law, under the mobile home
landlord tenant act or the residential landlord tenant act is owed a "warrantee of habitability." This
basically describes keeping the housing in such shape that it is livable. The common responsibilities
include available heating and water. Under the statutory residential landlord tenant act a landlord must
"keep the premises fit for human habitation at all times during the tenancy" and keep the premises in a
way that complies substantially with all state and local laws substantially affecting your health and
safety. While ideally no rental housing would fall below standard, many do. This is probably the number
one issue for low income tenants.
Retaliation- where a person reports an issue or uses their statutory rights to make the landlord fix
something, it is usually assumed that any evictions or other bad actions that happen to the tenant are
related to the first event. It is illegal to retaliate against tenants. Nevertheless, it happens in a variety of
ways- eviction, enforcement of strict rules, the sudden refusal to landscape the property, raising the
rent, cutting off water or heating, and many other ways.
Code Enforcement- a landlord cannot rent a property that has existing code violations. The result is that
if housing is below code and was rented anyway, the tenant can bring a case against the landlord. Code
enforcement is controversial because often if the city shuts down an existing housing site, the tenants
will have nowhere to go but the streets. Where people are evicted for code violations the landlord owes
them damages, but this is difficult to collect at the exact moment when it is needed. There is statutory
authority to create what is known as a Relocation Assistance Fund. The RAF gives 3x rent or 2000 dollars
to a tenant where their housing has been shut down by the local government for code violations. The
city would collect it's loss by placing a lien on the property. The city of Yakima does not now participate
in the RAF program. RCW 59.18.085. There is also a mobile home version of this set up by the
Department of Commerce that applies where a mobile home park has to close, either because it was
sold or because of code violations. Mobile home landlords are required to pay into the mobile home
relocation assistance fund.