HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDN 2017-03-27 Item 2A - Update - State Legislative: Port of Seattle Board of Commission / Removal of Unauthorized Person from Foreclosed Residential PropertiesCity of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Rachel Bianchi, Government Affairs and Communications Manager
BY: Brandon Miles, Business Relations Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: March 20, 2017
SUBJECT: Requested State Legislative Update
ISSUE
Should the City take a position on House Bill (HB) 1999, other legislation that pertains to the
Port and SB?
BACKGROUND
Below is a discussion of the three issues that have been requested to be reviewed by the
Community Development and Neighborhoods Committee.
HB 1999
Representative Mia Gregerson approached the City's lobbyist asking for City support for HB
1999, currently being considered in the State House of Representatives. HB 1999 concerns the
makeup and composition of the Port of Seattle's Board of Commissioners. Staff brought the
issue to Committee of the Whole in February, but was asked to bring it to the Community
Development and Neighborhoods committee for further review. Because of agendas and timing
this is the first opportunity for the Committee to review.
Currently, the Port's Commission consists of five commission members elected at large in King
County. HB 1999 restructures the Port Commission to resemble the composition of the King
County Council. The number of Port Commissioners will increase to nine and each
commissioner would represent a specific district. The nine Port Commission districts would have
the same boundaries as the King County Council districts. Under this legislation,
Commissioners must reside in the district he or she represents. Voting is similarly limited by
districts and all at-large positions are eliminated.
HB 1999 was not moved out of the House and is effectively dead.
Studies on Sea-Tac Airport
Air Quality Study
Representative Tina Orwall sponsored HB 1171 that would direct the Washington Department
of Commerce to complete a study regarding "air quality implications of air traffic at the
international airport in this state with the highest number of total annual departures and arrivals."
While the bill itself is dead, it is expected that the budget proviso will move forward. The Port of
Seattle has committed $75,000 to the air quality study. Burien has committed $30,000, which
could be split between the air quality study and impact mitigation study discussed below. The
draft study would need to be presented to the legislature by 2019 and the final by 2021. While
the Senate did not include the proviso in the budget released today, it is expected in the House
budget next week.
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Impact Mitigation Study
The City of SeaTac has been pushing a budget proviso for funding for an Airport Impact Study,
like the one done in 1997. The text of the draft proviso language reads:
"$500, 000 of the general fund is provided solely for distribution to the Department of
Commerce to contract with a consultant to conduct an analysis of the current and ongoing
impacts of the Sea-Tac International Airport. The analysis will include, but not be limited
to the impacts that current airport operations and expansion will have on public health
transportation, parking, public safety property values and economic development in the
cities of Sea Tac, Burien, Des Moines, Tukwila, Federal Way and Normandy Park."
The City of SeaTac has allocated $250,000 to update the study and has asked other
neighboring cities to contribute funding. As of this writing, staff is not aware of other cities
agreeing to such funding, with the exception of Burien's $30,000 that could be split between this
and the air quality study. This proviso was not included in the Senate Transportation budget but
may be in the House Transportation budget.
On a related note, it is possible that an airport capacity study will move this session and may be
included in the Senate budget. The airport capacity study would review long-term capacity
issues as it relates to passenger air travel in Western Washington. This proviso was not
included in the Senate Transportation budget but may be in the House Transportation budget.
S13 5388
At the same Council meeting where HB 1999 was discussed, Council President asked council
for consensus on staff following up on SB 5388, which seeks to provide additional tools for
removal of unauthorized persons from residential foreclosed properties. The bill and Senate Bill
Report are attached to this memo. SB 5388 passed the Senate unanimously and was
scheduled for a public hearing in the House Committee on Judiciary on March 21. It is likely this
bill will pass the Senate as it has enjoyed bi-partisan support.
RECOMMENDATION
HB 1999 is effectively dead, so no need for any action on the request for support. Staff
recommends supporting but not providing funding for the Sea-Tac air quality study and
remaining neutral on the Impact Mitigation Study. Staff further recommends that the City closely
monitor the airport capacity study, and all airport-related planning that affects Western
Washington. Finally, staff recommends that the City support SB 5388.
ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed HB 1999
• HB 1999 Report
• SB 5388
• SB 5388 Report
Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Legislative update CDN 032017.doc
1=9106=1
HOUSE BILL 1999
State of Washington 65th Legislature 2017 Regular Session
By Representatives Gregerson, Stokesbary, Ryu, Hudgins, Cody, Pollet,
Santos, Senn, Springer, Fitzgibbon, McBride, Stanford, Kagi, and
Slatter
Read first time 02/07/17. Referred to Committee on State Govt,
Elections & IT.
1 AN ACT
Relating
to elections in port districts that are
2 coextensive
with a
county having a population of over one-half
3 million; and
amending
RCW 53.12.010.
V
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 53.12.010 and 2002 c 51 s 1 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) The powers of the port district shall be exercised through a
port commission consisting of three or five members, ((when)) or as
otherwise permitted by this title((, five fRefRberrs)).
(a) Every port district that is not coextensive with a county
having a population of five hundred thousand or more shall be divided
into the same number of commissioner districts as there are
commissioner positions, each having approximately equal population,
unless provided otherwise under subsection (2) of this section.
(b) Where a port district with three commissioner positions is
coextensive with the boundaries of a county that has a population of
less than five hundred thousand and the county has three county
legislative authority districts, the port commissioner districts
shall be the county legislative authority districts.
(c) In other instances where a port district is divided into
commissioner districts, the port commission shall divide the port
P. 1 HB 1999
1 district into commissioner districts unless the commissioner
2 districts have been described pursuant to RCW 53.04.031. The
3 commissioner districts shall be altered as provided in chapter 53.16
4 RCW.
5 (d) Commissioner districts shall be used as follows: ((4-a+)) (i)
6 Only a registered voter who resides in a commissioner district may be
7 a candidate for, or hold office as, a commissioner of the
8 commissioner district; and _Ljjj only the voters of a
9 commissioner district may vote at a primary to nominate candidates
10 for a commissioner of the commissioner district. Except as provided
11 in subsection (3) of this section, voters of the entire port district
12 may vote at a general election to elect a person as a commissioner of
13 the commissioner district.
14 (2)(a) In port districts with five commissioners, two of the
15 commissioner districts may include the entire port district if
16 approved by the voters of the district either at the time of
17 formation or at a subsequent port district election at which the
18 issue is proposed pursuant to a resolution adopted by the board of
19 commissioners and delivered to the county auditor.
20 (b) In a port district with five commissioners, where two of the
21 commissioner districts include the entire port district, the port
22 district may be divided into five commissioner districts if proposed
23 pursuant to a resolution adopted by the board of commissioners or
24 pursuant to a petition by the voters and approved by the voters of
25 the district at the next general or special election occurring sixty
26 or more days after the adoption of the resolution. A petition
27 proposing such an increase must be submitted to the county auditor of
28 the county in which the port district is located and signed by voters
29 of the port district at least equal in number to ten percent of the
30 number of voters in the port district who voted at the last general
31 election.
32 Upon approval by the voters, the commissioner district boundaries
33 shall be redrawn into five districts within one hundred twenty days
34 and submitted to the county auditor pursuant to RCW 53.16.015. The
35 new commissioner districts shall be numbered one through five and the
36 three incumbent commissioners representing the three former districts
37 shall represent commissioner districts one through three. The two at
38 large incumbent commissioners shall represent commissioner districts
39 four and five. If, as a result of redrawing the district boundaries-,
40 more tl,.an one of the incumbent commissioners resides in one of the
p. 2 HB 1999
4
1 new commissioner districts, the commissioners who reside in the same
2 commissioner district shall determine by lot which of the numbered
3 commissioner districts they shall represent for the remainder of
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
their respective terms.
(3) (a) Beginning in 2019, any port district with five members
that is coextensive with a county having a -population of over one and
one-half million, and with a legislative authority of nine members,
must be divided into the same commissioner districts as the county
legislative authority districts and include the same number of
commissioner positions as the county legislative authority.
(b) Each commissioner must reside in the district from which he
or she is elected, and only voters from each district may elect the
commissioner to fill that district's commissioner position. No
commissioner -position may be elected at large.
(c) Each commissioner elected -prior to 2019 with at least two
years remaining in his or her term may complete his or her term for
the new commissioner district in which he or she resides. If, as a
result of redrawing the district boundaries, more than one of the
incumbent commissioners, with at least two years remaining on each of
their terms, reside in one of the new commissioner districts, the
commissioners who reside in the same commissioner district shall
determine by lot which commissioner will represent the district for
the remainder of the term.
(d) The initial election under this subsection (3) will include
the election of positions in each of the remaining district -positions
as follows:
(i) A certain number of positions elected to serve an initial
two-year term, which in addition to any incumbent commissioner's
-position, as established in (c) of this subsection (3), provide a
total number of four positions that will expire at the end of 2021•
and
(ii) Five -positions elected to serve four-year terms.
(e) The county auditor must select which district positions will
be two-year or four-year terms for the initial election, pursuant to
(d) of this subsection. All subsequent terms for all positions must
be for four-year terms.
(f) Each commissioner must receive the same salary as a member of
the state legislature, as set under RCW 43.03.013.
- -- END - --
p. 3 HB 1999
HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1999
As Reported by House Committee On:
State Government, Elections & Information Technology
Title: An act relating to elections in port districts that are coextensive with a county having a
population of over one -half million.
Brief Description: Concerning elections in port districts that are coextensive with a county
having a population of over one -half million.
Sponsom: Representatives Gregerson, Stokesbary, Ryu, I-ludgins, Cody, l"ollet, Santos, Senn,
Springer, Fitzgibbon, McBride, Stanford, Kagi and Slatter.
Brief History:
Committee Activity:
State Government, Elections & Information Technology: 2/15/17, 2117/17 [DP].
Brief Summary of Bill
• Requires that certain port districts be divided into commissioner districts that
are the same as county legislative authority districts beginning in 2019.
• Makes this requirement applicable to any port district with five members that
is coextensive with a county having a population of over 1.5 million and a
legislative authority of nine members.
• Provides for a transition from five at-large positions to nine district positions,
and requires that the commissioners receive the same salary as state
legislators.
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STATE GOVERNMENT, ELECTIONS & INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
Majority Report: Do pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives Hudgins, Chair-, Dolan,
Vice Chair; Volz, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Appleton, Gregerson, Irwin and
Pellicciotti.
Minority Report: Without recommendation. Signed by 2 members: Representatives
Koster, Ranking Minority Member; Kraft.
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff the use of legislative
members in their deliberations. This analysis is not apart of the legislation nor does it
constitute a statement of legislative intent.
I-louse Bill Report H13 1999
7
Staff: Megan Palchak (786-7105).
Background:
Port districts are established in various counties of the state to acquire, construct, rnoioioin,
operate, develop, and regulate nzi| or motor vehicle transfer and terminal facilities, v/u1er
transfer and terminal facilities, air transfer and terminal facilities or any combination transfer
and terminal facilities and other commercial transportation, transfer, handling, storage and
\c,ruiuui facilities, and industrial improvements. Powers of the port district must be
exercised within the district, through a port commission consisting of five members.
Summary oyBill:
Beginning in 20|9 port districts must be divided into the same cononnismiooc,districts as the
county legislative authority districts when the port district has Fivrmembers and io
coextensive with a county whose Population is over 1.5 million.
Cnnomiomioncca must reside in the district in which they are elected and receive the anonc
salary as u member oFthe Washington Legislature. Commissioners elected prior to 2019'
with at least two ycu,o remaining in his or her term, may uonop|ck: his Vr her term in n new
oonnruiauionor district. If districts are redrawn, and more than one incumbent commissioner
resides in the same district, the commissioners determine ''by lot" vvbiob will represent the
district for the rcnnuiudor of the 1croo. Commissioner terms are specified. The county auditor
noumL select district position terms.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Preliminary fiscal note available.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 duvm after oJiournmcn(ofthe muaaioo in which the
hU| is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In Support) The defini1i000[u port authority is hoVud. In 1960 ayuihv/ay was established in
|ap/ for u five-person commission. Conoouco\m were noudc to the Legislature regarding
governance problems, lack nfprofessional utuU[ and administrative problems. Tile cost o[
moving to uiuc oornnnisoinnu is one-tenth of percent o[the budget. Nine connnuiasiou
districts follows the charter established by the King County Council, Establishing five
districts supports the appearance ofgerrymandering. It iao simple mathematical u/6ustnucot
to support proportional representation, and mirrors legislative representation. Ports need
local representation 10 dcu) with battles over inopuutu at various |cvc|x and uououg
communities. There in u need to move toward o commission that represents 235,000 rather
than 2.1 million people. This bill supports transparency and increases accountability.
I louse Bill Report -2- 11B 1999
�
�
(Opposed) The majority of commissioners do not support this bill. Districting and
commissioner election conversations have not taken place in maritime labor. There are
concerns about preexisting pressure, balanced representation, equity, and barriers to
employment and job protection. This bill favors SooNu' political uncertainty, and reduces
representation. There io greater diversity within the port than within SooU|c. Commissions
serve not only their district, but the state as vvn|l.
(Other) The Northwest Seaport Alliance effectively generates revenue and supports
Jobs. Changing the governance model would create on imbalance within the alliance.
Prruuox A: (In support) Representative Gregerson, prime sponeor.
(Opposed) John Persak, Puget Sound District Council and International Longshore and
Warehouse Union; Eric Johnson, Washington Public Ports Commission; andTom Albro,
Seattle Port Commission.
(Other) Scan Eagan, The Northwest Seaport Alliance.
Persons Signed XuTo Testify But Not Testifying: None.
House Bill Report - 3 -
8B\999
�
�
W
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5388
State of Washington 65th Legislature 2017 Regular Session
By Senate Law & Justice (originally sponsored by Senators Zeiger,
Sheldon, Kuderer, Padden, Wilson, Conway, Fortunato, Hobbs, Becker,
Warnick, and Honeyford)
READ FIRST TIME 02/09/17.
1 AN ACT Relating to the removal of unauthorized persons from
2 certain premises; adding new sections to chapter 9A.52 RCW; and
3 adding a new section to chapter 4.24 RCW.
M
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION.- Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 9A.52
RCW to read as follows:
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section and upon
the receipt of a declaration signed under penalty of perjury and
containing all of the required information and in the form prescribed
in section 2 of this act, a peace officer shall have the authority
to:
(a) Remove the person or persons from the premises, with or
without arresting the person or persons; and
(b) order the person or persons to remain off the premises or be
subject to arrest for criminal trespass.
(2) only a peace officer having probable cause to believe that a
person is guilty of criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.070 for
knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in a building considered
residential real property, as defined in RCW 61.24.005, has the
authority and discretion to make an arrest or exclude anyone under
penalty of criminal trespass.
P. 1 ESSB 53e8
11
1 (3) While a peace officer can take into account a declaration
2 from the property owner signed under penalty of perjury containing
3 all of the required information and in the form prescribed in section
4 2 of this act, the peace officer must provide the occupant or
5 occupants with a reasonable opportunity to secure and present any
6 credible evidence provided by the person or persons on the premises,
7 which the peace officer must consider, showing that the person or
8 persons are tenants, legal occupants, or the guests or invitees of
9 tenants or legal occupants.
10 (4) Neither the peace officer nor his or her law enforcement
11 agency shall be held liable for actions or omissions made in good
12 faith under this section.
13 (5) This section may not be construed to allow a peace officer to
14 remove or exclude an occupant who is entitled to occupy a dwelling
15 unit under a rental agreement or the occupant's guests or invitees.
16 NEW SECTION.- Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9A.52
17 RCW to read as follows:
18 The owner of premises, or his or her authorized agent, may
19 initiate the investigation and request the removal of an unauthorized
20 person or persons from the premises by providing to law enforcement a
21 declaration containing all of the following required information and
22 in substantially the following form:
23 REQUEST TO REMOVE TRESPASSER(S) FORM
24 The undersigned owner, or authorized agent of the owner, of the
25 premises located at .......... hereby represents and declares under
26 the penalty of perjury that (initial each box):
27 (1) [ ] The declarant is the owner of the premises or the
28 authorized agent of the owner of the premises;
29 (2) [ ] An unauthorized person or persons have entered and are
30 remaining unlawfully on the premises;
31 (3) [ The person or persons were not authorized to enter or
32 remain;
33 (4) [ The person or persons are not a tenant or tenants and
34 have not been a tenant or tenants for the last twelve months on that
35 property;
36 (5) The declarant has demanded that the unauthorized person
37 or persons vacate the premises but they have not done so;
p. 2 ESSB 5388
12
1. (6) [ ] The premises were not abandoned at the time the
2 unauthorized person or persons entered;
3 (7) [ ] The premises were not open to members of the public at
4 the time the unauthorized person or persons entered;
5 (8) [ ] The declarant understands that a person or persons
6 removed from the premises pursuant to section 1 of this act may bring
7 a cause of action under section 3 of this act against the declarant
8 for any false statements made in this declaration, and that as a
9 result of such action the declarant may be held liable for actual
10 damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees;
11 (9) [ ] The declarant understands and acknowledges the
12 prohibitions in RCW 59.18.230 and 59.18.290 against taking or
13 detaining an occupant's personal property or removing or excluding an
14 occupant from a dwelling unit or rental premises without an
15 authorizing court order;
16 (10) [ ] The declarant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless law
17 enforcement for its actions or omissions made in good faith pursuant
18 to this declaration; and
19 (11) [ ] Additional Optional Explanatory Comments:
20 .................................... ...............................
21 .......
22 An owner of premises who falsely swears on a declaration provided
23 under this section may be guilty of false swearing under RCW
24 9A.72.040 or of making a false or misleading statement to a public
25 servant under RCW 9A.76.175, both of which are gross misdemeanors.
26
NEW
SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 4.24 RCW
27
to read
as follows:
28
All
persons removed from premises
pursuant to section 1 of this
29
act on
the basis of false statements
made by a declarant pursuant to
30
section
2 of this act shall have a
cause of action to recover from
31
the declarant
for the full amount of
damages caused thereby, together
32
with costs
and reasonable attorneys'
fees.
- -- END - - -
p. 3 ESSB 5388
13
Im,
As Passed Senate, 1ebruary 27, 2017
Title: An act relating to the removal of unauthorized persons frorn certain premises.
Brief Description: Concerning the removal o[ unauthorized persons bonu certain premises.
Sponsors: Senate Committee on Law & Justice (originally sponsored by Senators Zeigec
8bc)dno, Kudcror, Padden, Wilson, Conway, Poduooto, Hobbs, Becker, Waooick and
Houcyfou]).
Brief History:
Committee : Law &Justice: 1/26/17, 2/08/17 UlPSl.
Floor Activity:
Pouacd Senate: 2/27/|7'49-O.
Brief Summary of Engrossed First Substitute Bill
° Establishes oprocess for an owner man agent Wprovide to law
cnfbrucoucnt a declaration under pcnuhv ufperjury stating that persons
have entered the prcnniaewunlawfully,
• (]ivoa the occupant the opportunity to secure and provide contrary
credible evidence which must bc considered by the officer.
°
Allows law enforcement to remove the persons, with or without arresting
thcnu' and to order them 0o rcrnnio oU[thc premises or be subject to onrnt
for criminal Urapuou.
° Provides that law enforcement iy not bo held liable.
~ /\Uovvs a person or persons crnnovcd from property on the basis of false
utotconcrdu in u declaration to pursue o cause of' action against the
declarant.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LAW &J0STICE
Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5388 be substituted therefor, and the
substitute bill do pass.
This analysis nns prepared by the use o'legislative
members intheir deliberations. This analysis is no/opart qf/he legislation nor does it
mnslihteu statement of intent.
Senate Bill Report - \ - E88R5288
Signed by Senators Padden, Chair; (YBao, Vice Chair; Pedersen, Ranking Minority
Member; Angel, Darneille, Frockt and Wilson.
Staff: Aldo Melchiori (786-7439)
Background: A tcuuut by suO'craucc is a person who obtains possession of premises
without the consent of the owner or other person having the right to give possession. The
tenant by auOicoocc is liable to pay reasonable rent for the actual time the tenant oocupied
the pzenuimcm, and noua1, on dcn000d, surrender possession to the owner mrperson who had the
right of possession before the entry.
Criminal trespass in the first degree is uAroma ooiodeoncuoor. It is torocnktcd when nperson
knowingly cn1cro and reuuino unlawfully in o building. /\person enters un|av/k/||y when the
person is not |iocuxcd, invited, or otherwise privileged 1m enter. |o any prosecution, itisn
dc6:nmc that (|) a building involved in all offense was abandoned, (2) the prcnniacm were at
the time open to members of the public and the person complied with all |uvvfo| conditions
imposed, {3) the person reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, ur other person
empowered to license access, `vnu|d have licensed the person \o enter orremain, or(4)the
person was attempting to serve legal process.
Summary of Engrossed First Substitute |0i/}: The ov/ne, ofprcooimca, or their authorized
agent, may initiate the investigation and request the removal of an unauthorized person or
persons from the premises by providing to |ov/ cnfbrcenoeo1 u declaration containing all of
the following required iufbnnution:
• the declarant is the owner of the premises or the authorized agent of the owner;
• an unauthorized person or persons have entered and are remaining unlawfully on the
premises;
• the person has not been a tenant on that property for the preceding 12 months;
• the person or persons were not authorized \o enter nrremain;
• the declarant has dcroundod that the unauthorized person or persons vuua10 the
premises but they have not done so;
• the premises were not abandoned at the time the unauthorized person or persons
entered;
• the premises were not open to noenubom of the public at the time the unauthorized
person oc persons entered;
• the declarant understands that uperson or persons rcno*vcd from the premises may
bring o cause of action against the declarant for any false statements oondc in this
declaration, and that as u result of such ooiiou the declarant may be bc|d |iob|c for
actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees;
• the dcu|uruut ogrcca to indemnify and hold horou)cao |uvv ou[brcuon:nt for its actions
oronuiaeions made iu good faith pursuant to this declaration; and
• additional optional explanatory comments.
The |av/ euforccrnco1 officer nuux1 provide the occupant with o rcoa000b\c opportunity to
secure and present any credible evidence, which the officer must consider, showing that the
person or persons are tenants, }cgu| occupants, or the guce\o or invitees of tenants or legal
occupants.
Senate Bill Report -2' 8S8B5388
Upon the receipt of a declaration signed under penalty of perjury and containing all of the
required information and any evidence provided by the occupant, a peace officer has the
authority to:
• remove the person or persons from the premises, with or without arresting the person
or persons; and
• order the person or persons to remain off the premises or be subject to arrest for
criminal trespass.
Neither the peace officer nor their law enforcement agency are liable for actions or omissions
made in good faith. All persons removed from premises on the basis of false statements
made by a declarant have a cause of action to recover from the declarant for the full amount
of damages, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Creates Committee /Commission /Task Force that includes Legislative members: No.
Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony on First Substitute: PRO: This simplifies the
process for removing unauthorized people off of property. Property owners across the state
are encountering this issue. Without a forced entry, these offenses are not being charged.
Unlawful detainer actions take a long time to resolve. Squatters often present falsified leases.
Owners have to go to court and incur those litigation costs for an action against someone
with whom they have no contractual relationship.
Persons Testifying: PRO: Senator Zeiger, Prime Sponsor; Maynard Man, citizen; Rose
Nelson, citizen; Michele Thomas, WA Low Income Housing; Michael Aithauser, Attorney,
Columbia Legal Services; Laura Parks, citizen; Bobbie Garver, citizen.
Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying: No one.
Senate Bill Report -3 - ESSB 5388
17