Woodinville Tenant Protections Update

Carter's City Council testimony is below:

Good Evening, Mayor Millman, and members of the council. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. My name is Carter Nelson, and I am speaking on behalf of the Washington Multi-Family Housing Association. We represent over 347,000 rental units in the state, 1,541 of which are in the City of Woodinville. We appreciate the communication from city staff and the recent amendment to delay the effective date of Ordinance 755 by 120 days.

This delay provides necessary time for our operators to comply if this is passed and valuable time for further discussion, which we hope will lead to a more balanced approach. We have concerns about several provisions of the proposed ordinance, which we outlined in more detail in our previous letter, as well as some additional concerns raised by our members.  

The proposed ordinance includes a long notice period for rent increases. While intended to give residents more time to prepare, this extended notice period will lead to higher average rent increases. Housing providers, faced with the uncertainty of market conditions, occupancy rates, and other factors at the time of a lease renewal, may find themselves needing to raise rent more than they would like to protect against these risks. While well intentioned, we feel that this provision will contribute negatively to the overall affordability challenges in the city.  

 We are also concerned that the ordinance may conflict with state law. The Valley Cities v. Eddines decision concluded that state statute preempts local ordinances by creating payment standards for move-in costs and fixed term rental agreements. This could create unnecessary and unintended legal complexity and uncertainty for housing providers and for the City of Woodinville.

Our final concern is related to deposits. Damage and other deposits are designed to mitigate risk for housing providers. The fees are used to offset costs incurred due to failure to pay, damage and other expenses, that although limited to a few bad actors, do occur. By requiring reasonable deposits to offset these costs, housing providers are also protecting their other residents.  We believe that restrictions on security deposits should be considered separately from other costs, such as screening fees, which are paid before a lease is signed. Limiting the security deposit to one month's rent is reasonable for standard property wear and tear, but we urge the Council to include an exemption for households with pets. Pets often cause damage well beyond what typical wear and tear might result in, including chewing on fixtures, damaging mechanical systems due to dander and hair, in addition to more topical damage in the home. A reasonable, additional security deposit for households with pets is an appropriate measure to cover these unique costs and protect other residents from bearing the financial burden. 

In light of these concerns, we respectfully request that the Council remove item 12 from the consent agenda to allow for further thoughtful consideration. We kindly ask that you reconsider the proposed provisions taking into account the points we have raised, and I look forward to continued discussions on how we can work together to create a fair and equitable housing market in Woodinville. 

Thank you for your time and consideration.