Loading...
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.