Saint Paul logo
File #: Ord 21-21    Version: 1
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 6/23/2021
Title: Repealing Chapter 193 of the Legislative Code related to Tenant Protections.
Sponsors: Amy Brendmoen, Rebecca Noecker, Jane L. Prince, Dai Thao, Chris Tolbert
Attachments: 1. letter against repealing tenant protections, 2. Ord 21-21 - Mike Allen, 3. Ord 21-21 - Tom Basgen, 4. Choma email, 5. Choma attatchment 1, 6. Choma attatchment 2, 7. Graham Email, 8. Rachleff Email, 9. Sinderbrand email, 10. Voss Email, 11. Ord 21-21 - Andrew Eikum, 12. Ord 21-21 - John Slade-MICAH, 13. draughn email, 14. Osborn Email, 15. juergens email, 16. Juergens HJC SAFE Housing litigation memo_ (002), 17. Juergens Queries from City Council for City Attorney (002), 18. Ord 21-21 HDC Resolution for SAFE Housing, 19. Ord 21-21 Jacob Law, 20. Ord 21-21 Carol Duling, 21. Ord 21-21 Sarah Hunt, 22. Ord 21-21 Bryn Chambers, 23. Ord 21-21 Lawrence Mc Donough, 24. Ord 21-21 Jeanette Beger, 25. Ward 4 office Ord 21-21, 26. Ward 4 office Ord 21-21, 27. Ord 21-21 Public Comments Received by Ward 1, 28. Ord 21-21 - Caitlin Magistad, 29. Ord 21-21 Geoffrey Marshall

Title

Repealing Chapter 193 of the Legislative Code related to Tenant Protections.

 

Body

SECTION 1

 

WHEREAS, on July 8, 2020, this Council adopted Ordinance 20-14 Creating Chapter 193 of the Legislative Code (Title XIX) pertaining to Tenant Protections, which ordinance took effect on March 1, 2021; and

 

WHEREAS, on February 12, 2021, several plaintiffs including Lamplighter Village Apartments LLLP filed a federal civil complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, which complaint was assigned to the Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Court Judge for the District of Minnesota; and

 

WHEREAS, plaintiffs asserted several claims, alleging that Ordinance 20-14 violated the Minnesota and United States constitutions; and

 

WHEREAS, on April 19, 2021, Judge Magnuson temporarily and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Saint Paul’s Tenant Protections Ordinance; and

 

WHEREAS, Judge Magnuson’s preliminary injunction order stated that plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims; and

 

WHEREAS, in light of Judge Magnuson’s order, the City Council finds it necessary and reasonable to repeal Chapter 193 in order to reassess legislative opportunities and strengthen the City’s resolve to eliminate rental housing discrimination and ensure access to housing for all Saint Paul residents; and

 

WHEREAS, repealing Chapter 193 does not mean that Saint Paul residents who are victims of rental housing discrimination are without recourse, as federal and state laws-including the Minnesota Human Rights Act-remain in effect to prohibit such discrimination; and

 

WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul remains committed to stable, accessible, fair and equitable housing; now, therefore be it

 

RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby ordain:

 

SECTION 2

 

Chapter 193 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is repealed in its entirety.

 

 

Sec. 193.01. Definitions.

 

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section.

 

Affordable housing building shall mean a single-family rental home or a multiple-family rental housing building where at least twenty (20) percent of the units rent for an amount that is affordable at no more than thirty (30) percent of income to households at or below eighty (80) percent of area median income, as most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) purposes, as adjusted for household size and number of bedrooms.

 

Affordable housing dwelling unit shall mean a rental dwelling unit in an affordable housing building that rents for an amount that is affordable to households at or below eighty (80) percent of area median income, as most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, as adjusted for household size and number of bedrooms.

 

Available for sale shall mean the earliest implementation of any of the following actions: negotiating to enter into a purchase agreement that includes an affordable housing building, advertising the sale of an affordable housing building, entering into a listing agreement to sell an affordable housing building, or posting a sign that an affordable housing building is for sale.

 

Cure the deficiency shall mean that a tenant pays all monies rightfully owed, or fully complies with an order to correct a lease violation or notice to cease an activity that is in violation of a lease.

 

Displacement dwelling unit shall mean the dwelling unit from which a tenant was displaced pursuant to section 193.05(5) or (7).

 

Eviction shall mean a summary court proceeding to remove a tenant or occupant from, or otherwise recover possession of, real property by the process of law, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 504B.

 

Family member shall mean a property owner's child, step-child, adopted child, foster child, adult child, spouse, sibling, parent, step-parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandchild, grandparent, or registered domestic partner as defined by Saint Paul Code of Ordinances section 186.02 and any individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the property owner is the equivalent of a family relationship.

 

Just cause shall mean any of the bases listed in section 193.05(a) upon which a landlord may terminate tenancy.

 

Landlord shall mean the property owner or agent of the property owner.

 

Lease shall mean an oral or written agreement creating a tenancy in real property.

 

Relocation assistance shall mean a payment in an amount equal to three (3) times the rental housing affordability limit at sixty (60) percent of area median income for the Twin Cities metro area as published by the metropolitan council. Annually updated payments calculations can be located on the met council websites affordability limits for ownership and rental housing: https://metrocouncil.org/

 

Rental application fee shall mean a fee paid by the potential tenant to a landlord, in order for the landlord to screen the background of the potential tenant before signing the lease.

 

Security deposit shall have the meaning stated in Minn. Stat. § 504B.178.

 

Single month's rent shall have the following meaning: for a lease in which rent is paid once each month in the same amount, single month's rent means that amount. When a tenant's rent is supplemented by a rental subsidy, rent means the total contract rent for the dwelling unit. For a lease in which rent is paid once each period in the same amount but the period is not one (1) month, single month's rent means the amount paid per period divided by the number of days in the period and then multiplied by thirty (30). For other leases, single month's rent means the total amount of rent due under the anticipated length of the lease divided by the number of days in the anticipated length of the lease and then multiplied by thirty (30).

 

Substantially equivalent replacement unit shall mean a dwelling unit which is decent, safe and sanitary, contains at least the same number of bedrooms and other living areas as the displacement dwelling unit, and is available at a substantially similar rental rate within the neighborhood district of the displacement dwelling unit. Perfect comparability is not required.

 

Substantially similar rental rate shall mean the displacement dwelling unit rental rate plus five (5) percent or minus ten (10) percent of the contract rate for a single month rent.

 

Tenant shall mean an authorized occupant of a residential rental building under a lease or contract, whether oral or written.

 

Tenant protection period shall mean the period that commences with the transfer of ownership of an affordable housing building and runs through the end of the ninety (90) calendar days following the month in which written notice of sale is delivered to each affordable housing dwelling unit tenant pursuant to section 193.08(a).

 

Termination of tenancy shall mean the end of a tenancy following written notice given by a landlord to a tenant requiring the tenant to move, including nonrenewal of lease.

 

Transfer of ownership shall mean any conveyance of title to an affordable housing building, whether legal or equitable, voluntary or involuntary, resulting in a transfer of control of the building, effective as of the earlier of the date of delivery of the instrument of conveyance or the date the new owner takes possession.

 

 

Sec. 193.02. Tenant rights information packets and tenant rights posters.

 

(a)                     Tenant rights information packets and posters for landlords and tenants. The office of financial empowerment (the office) will create and maintain a tenant rights information packet that includes:

 

(1)                     A summary of the City of Saint Paul Chapter 193 (Tenant Protections), the Minnesota Attorney General's booklet on Landlords and Tenants Rights and Responsibilities pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 504B.275, and a summary of federal fair housing laws describing the respective rights, obligations, and remedies of landlords and tenants thereunder; and

(2)                     A list of tenant resources, including, but not limited to: information regarding community organizations, government departments, and other entities and organizations that tenants can use to support their housing stability, seek legal advocacy, and provide information or resources for other housing needs.

 

(b)                     Tenant rights information poster. the office of financial empowerment will create and maintain a poster summarizing tenant rights and responsibilities that includes a summary of City of Saint Paul Chapter 193 (Tenant Protections).

 

(c)                     Online availability. The office will make the information packets and posters described in section 193.02 available online.

 

(d)                     Non-English versions. The poster and packet will be printed in English and any other languages that the department determines are needed to notify tenants of their rights under this chapter.

 

Sec. 193.03. Security deposits.

 

(a)                     Limit on security deposit amount. No landlord shall demand, charge, accept, or retain from a tenant more than a single month's rent as a security deposit.

 

(b)                     Pre-paid rent limitation. No landlord shall demand, charge, accept, or retain from a tenant pre-paid rent an amount that exceeds the equivalent of a single month's rent. This provision should not be read to prohibit a landlord from demanding, charging, accepting, or retaining a security deposit, pet deposit, or application fees, pursuant to section 54.03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.

 

(c)                     Governing law. Any security deposit furnished herein shall be governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat., § 504B.178, together with this section.

(d)                     Exception. For applicants who could be disqualified under section 193.04 an owner may charge, accept and retain an additional payment not to exceed one (1) single month's rent in the form of a security deposit or pre-payment as a condition to enter into a lease agreement with the applicant.

 

Sec. 193.04. Applicant screening guidelines for prospective tenants.

 

(a)                     Screening criteria made available. Before accepting applications for rental housing, a landlord must provide written rental screening criteria to all applicants.

 

(b)                     Uniform screening criteria. A landlord must apply uniform screening criteria and cannot disqualify an applicant for any of the following reasons:

 

(1)                     Criminal history.

a.                     Any arrest or charge that did not result in conviction of a crime;

 

b.                     Participation in or completion of a diversion or a deferral of judgment program, including, but not limited to: pre-charge or pretrial diversion, stay of adjudication, continuance for dismissal, or a continuance without prosecution;

 

c.                     Any conviction that has been vacated or expunged;

 

d.                     Any conviction for a crime that is no longer illegal in the state of Minnesota;

 

e.                     Any conviction or any other determination or adjudication in the juvenile justice system, except under procedures pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260B.130.

 

f.                     A petty misdemeanor offense is not a criminal offense. For the purposes of this chapter, a petty misdemeanor cannot be grounds for a denial;

 

g.                     Any misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor or felony conviction stemming from the following traffic offenses: reckless driving, driving without a license, driving with a suspended or revoked license, and DUI that did not result in additional charges for injury to a person;

 

h.                     Any conviction for misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offenses for which the dates of sentencing are older than three (3) years;

 

i.                     Except as indicated in paragraph (j) below, any criminal conviction for felony offenses for which the dates of sentencing are older than seven (7) years; however, a landlord may deny an applicant who has been convicted of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), or for those same offenses that mandate denial of tenancy in federally assisted housing subject to federal regulations, including, but not limited to, when any member of the household is subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement under a state sex offender registration program.

 

j.                     Any criminal conviction for the following felony offenses for which the dates of sentencing are older than ten (10) years: first-degree assault (Minn. Stat. § 609.221), first-degree arson (Minn. Stat. § 609.561), aggravated robbery (Minn. Stat. § 609.245), first-degree murder (Minn. Stat. § 609.185), second-degree murder (Minn. Stat. § 609.19), third-degree murder (Minnesota Statutes 609.195), first-degree manslaughter (Minnesota Statutes 609.20), kidnapping (Minn. Stat. § 609.25), or first-degree criminal sexual conduct (Minn. Stat. § 609.342).

 

(2)                     Credit history.

 

a.                     Credit score by itself; however, a landlord may use credit report information to the extent the report demonstrates a failure to pay rent or utility bills; or

 

b.                     Insufficient credit history, unless the applicant in bad faith withholds credit                                           history information that might otherwise form a basis for denial.

 

(3)                     Rental history.

 

a.                     An eviction action pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 504 or other equivalents in other states, if the action occurred three (3) or more years before the applicant submits the application or if the action occurred during the three (3) years immediately preceding submission of the application but did not result in a judgment entered against the applicant.

 

b.                     Insufficient rental history, unless the applicant in bad faith withholds rental history information that might otherwise form a basis for denial.

 

c.                     If a landlord uses a minimum income test requiring an income equal to two and half (2.5) times the rent or higher, the landlord must allow an exception to that test where the applicant can demonstrate a history of successful rent payment with the same or lower ratio of income to rent.

 

d.                     Exception. Whenever local, state, or federal funding or loan requirements for tenant screening conflict with any portion of section 193.04, the funding or loan requirements will take precedence over only those portions in conflict.

 

Sec. 193.05. Just cause notice for tenants.

 

(a)                     Just cause notice. A landlord may not issue a notice terminating tenancy unless the landlord is able to establish one (5) or more of the following grounds:

 

(1)                     Non-payment of rent. The tenant fails to cure the deficiency after receiving a non-payment notice from the landlord, and the landlord does not pursue a valid non-payment eviction action under Minn. Stat. § 504B.291, subd. 1(a), but decides to terminate tenancy at the end of the lease.

 

(2)                     Repeated late payment of rent. The tenant repeatedly makes late payments of rent, no fewer than five (5) times in a 12-month period. The landlord must provide the tenant with notice following a late payment that a subsequent late payment may be grounds for termination of tenancy. If the tenant continues to make a late payment on no fewer than five (5) occasions per year, the landlord must give the tenant notice to vacate at least equal to the notice period outlined in the original lease agreement terms.

 

(3)                     Material non-compliance. After receiving a written notice to cease from the landlord, the tenant continues, or fails to cure the deficiency, to a material breach of the lease. This subsection shall not diminish the rights of a landlord, if any, to terminate a lease for actions permitted under Minn. Stat. § 504B.281, et seq.

 

(4)                     Refusal to renew. The tenant refuses to renew or extend the lease after the landlord requests in writing that the tenant do so. The landlord shall give the tenant notice to vacate at least equal to the notice period outlined in the original lease agreement terms following the tenant's refusal to renew or extend the lease. This subsection shall in no way diminish the fifteen (15) to thirty (30) day notice period as required by Minn. Stat. § 504B.145 for leases with automatic renewal provisions.

 

(5)                     Occupancy by property owner or family member. The property owner, in good faith, seeks to recover possession of the dwelling unit so that the property owner or a family member may occupy the unit as that person's principal residence. The property owner or family member must move into the unit within ninety (90) days from the tenant's vacation. If a substantially equivalent replacement unit is vacant and available, that unit must be made available to the tenant at a substantially similar rental rate as the tenant's current lease.

 

(6)                     Building demolishment and dwelling unit conversion. The landlord (i) elects to demolish the building, convert it to a cooperative provided the landlord complies with the provisions of Minn. Stat. ch. 515B, or convert it to nonresidential use; provided that, the landlord must obtain a permit necessary to demolish or change the use before terminating any tenancy, or (ii) the landlord seeks, in good faith, to recover the unit to sell it in accordance with a condominium conversion, provided the landlord complies with the provisions of Minn. Stat. ch. 515B, or (iii) the dwelling unit is being converted to a unit subsidized under a local, state or federal housing program and the tenant does not qualify to rent the unit under that program.

 

(7)                     Rehab and renovation. The landlord seeks, in good faith, to recover possession of the dwelling unit that will render the unit uninhabitable for the duration of the rehabilitation or renovation. The landlord must provide ninety (90) days' written notice to the tenant, and shall provide relocation assistance to the tenant upon delivery of the written notice. If a substantially equivalent replacement unit is vacant and available in the building, that unit may be made available to the tenant at a substantially similar rental rate as the tenant's current lease.

 

(8)                     Complying with a government order to vacate. The landlord is complying with a government agency's order to vacate, order to abate, or any other order that necessitates the vacating of the dwelling unit as a result of a violation of Saint Paul city codes or any other provision of law. The landlord shall provide relocation assistance to the tenant upon delivery of the written notice. If a substantially equivalent replacement unit is vacant and available in the building, that unit may be made available to the tenant at a substantially similar rental rate as the tenant's current lease.

 

(9)                     Occupancy conditioned on employment. The tenant's occupancy is conditioned upon employment on the property and the employment relationship is terminated.

 

(10)                     Exceeding occupancy. Tenant exceeds the occupancy standards under City of Saint Paul Code 34.13, except for that no tenant may be evicted, denied a continuing tenancy, or denied a renewal of a lease on the basis of familial status commenced during the tenancy unless one (1) year has elapsed from the commencement of the familial status and the landlord has given the tenant six (6) months prior notice in writing, except in case of nonpayment of rent, damage to the premises, disturbance of other tenants, or other breach of the lease. Any provision, whether oral or written, of any lease or other agreement, whereby any provision of this section is waived by a tenant, is contrary to public policy and void.

 

(b)                     Landlord responsibilities. All residential tenant leases, except for state licensed residential facilities and subject to all preemptory state and federal laws, shall include the following just cause notice language: The landlord under this lease shall not unilaterally terminate or attempt to terminate the tenancy of any tenant unless the landlord can prove in court that just cause exists. The reasons for termination of tenancy listed in the City of Saint Paul's just cause notice (section 193.05), and no others, shall constitute just cause under this provision.

 

(c)                     Application. This section applies to every lease, written or oral.

 

(d)                     Notice requirements. With any termination notices required by law, landlords terminating any tenancy protected by this chapter shall advise the affected tenant or tenants in writing of the reasons for the termination and the facts in support of those reasons.

 

 

Sec. 193.06. Advance notice of sale (of affordable housing).

 

(a)                     Notice of proposed sale. Any owner or representative of the owner who intends to make available for sale any affordable housing building shall notify the director of the department of planning and economic development. The notice shall be on a form prescribed by the city stating the owner's intent to make available for sale the affordable housing building and which may include, at the city's sole discretion, some or all of the following information:

 

(1)                     Owner's name, phone number, and mailing address;

 

(2)                     Address of the affordable housing building that will be made available for sale;

 

(3)                     Total number of dwelling units in the building; and

 

(4)                     Number and type (e.g., efficiency, one (1) bedroom, two (2) bedrooms, etc.) of affordable housing dwelling units in the building and the contract rent for every dwelling unit in the building.

 

(b)                     Manner and timing of notice. The notice shall be mailed, or hand delivered to the director of the department of planning and economic development no later than ninety (90) days prior to the affordable housing building being made available for sale. The notice shall also be delivered directly to all affected tenants and include the following language requirement: "This is important information about your housing. If you do not understand it, have someone translate it for you now, or request a translation from your landlord." This advisory must be stated in the notice in the following languages: English, Spanish, Somali, Karen, and Hmong. This notice shall be delivered to all affected tenants no later than ninety (90) days prior to the Affordable Housing Building being made Available for Sale. Upon request by the tenant, the owner must provide a written translation of the notice into the tenant's preferred language of ones listed above.

 

(c)                     Exclusions. This section shall not apply to the sale of transfer of title of an affordable housing building already subject to federal, state, or local rent or income restrictions that continue to remain in effect after the sale or transfer.

 

Sec. 193.07 Relocation assistance.

 

(a)                     Relocation assistance required. If, during the tenant protection period provided in section 193.08(b), the new owner of an affordable housing building terminates or refuses to renew any affordable housing dwelling unit tenant's lease without cause, then the new owner shall pay relocation assistance.

 

(b)                     Relocation assistance upon written notice of termination. If, during the tenant protection period provided in section 193.08(b), the new owner of an affordable housing building raises any affordable housing dwelling unit tenant's rent, or rescreens an existing affordable housing dwelling unit tenant, and the tenant or new owner delivers written notice to terminate the lease because the new owner has determined that the tenant does not meet the new screening criteria, the new owner shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving or delivering written notice of termination of the lease, pay relocation assistance to the tenant.

 

 

Sec. 193.08. Notice of sale (of affordable housing).

 

(a)                     Written notice required. When a transfer of ownership occurs, the new owner shall, within thirty (30) days of acquiring ownership of the property, deliver written notice to each affordable housing dwelling unit tenant of the building that the property is under new ownership and all of the following information:

 

(1)                     Name, phone number, and mailing address of the new owner.

 

(2)                     The following statement: "Saint Paul Code of Ordinances section 193.08 provides for a ninety (90) day Tenant Protection Period for affordable housing dwelling unit tenants. Under section 193.07, an affordable housing dwelling unit tenant may be entitled to Relocation Assistance from the new owner if the new owner terminates or does not renew (pursuant to the City of Saint Paul Just Cause Notice) the tenant's lease without cause within the ninety (90) day Tenant Protection Period following delivery of this notice. Affordable housing unit tenants may also be entitled to Relocation Assistance from the new owner if the owner raises the rent or initiates a tenant screening process within the Tenant Protection Period and the tenant terminates their lease."

 

(3)                     Whether there will be any rent increase within the ninety (90) day tenant protection period with the amount of the rent increase and the date the rent increase will take effect.

 

(4)                     Whether the new owner will require existing affordable housing dwelling unit tenants to be rescreened to determine compliance with existing or modified residency screening criteria (pursuant to section 193.04) during the ninety (90) day tenant protection period and, if so, a copy of the screening criteria.

 

(5)                     Whether the new owner will terminate or not renew leases without cause during the ninety (90) day tenant protection period and, if so, notice to the affected affordable housing dwelling unit tenants whose leases will terminate and the date the leases will terminate.

 

(6)                     Whether, on the day immediately following the tenant protection period, the new owner intends to increase rent, require existing affordable housing dwelling unit tenants to be rescreened to determine compliance with existing or modified residency screening criteria, or terminate or not renew affordable housing dwelling unit leases without cause.

 

(b)                     Tenant protection period. The tenant protection period commences with the transfer of ownership of an affordable housing building and runs through the end of the ninety (90) calendar days following the month in which written notice of sale is delivered to each affordable housing dwelling unit tenant pursuant to this section.

 

(c)                     Delivery of notice to department of safety and inspections. This same written notice shall be furnished to the director of the department of safety and inspections at the same time notice is delivered to tenants. The new owner or representative of the new owner of an affordable housing building shall not terminate or not renew a tenant's lease without cause, raise rent, or rescreen existing tenants during the tenant protection period without providing the notices required by this section. The notice shall also include the following language requirement: "This is important information about your housing. If you do not understand it, have someone translate it for you now, or request a translation from your landlord." This advisory must be stated in the notice in the following languages: Spanish, Somali, Karen, and Hmong. Upon request by the tenant, the owner must provide a written translation of the notice into the tenant's preferred language of ones listed above.

 

Sec. 193.09 Enforcement, penalties, and prohibitions.

 

(a)                     Private right of action created penalties for violation. In addition to any other remedy available at equity or law, failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter may result in criminal prosecution and/or administrative fines. In addition, any tenant aggrieved by a landlord's noncompliance with this chapter may seek redress in any court of competent jurisdiction to the extent permitted by law.

 

(b)                     Damages for violation of section 193.05, Just Cause. A landlord who terminates a tenancy using a notice which references section 193.05 as the ground for termination of tenancy, without fulfilling or carrying out the stated reason for or condition justifying the termination of such tenancy, shall be liable to such tenant in a private right for action for damages equal to relocation assistance under section 193.07(b), costs of suit or arbitration, and reasonable attorney's fees.

 

(c)                     Administrative fines and notice requirement for violation of section 193.08, Notice of Sale. A violation of section 193.08 as to each affordable housing dwelling unit shall constitute a separate offense. A notice of violation shall not be required in order to establish or enforce a violation of the section. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, the administrative fine for a violation of section 193.08 shall be the sum of the applicable amount of relocation assistance. Within thirty (35) days after receipt of this money by the city, the city shall pay to the displaced tenant of the affordable housing dwelling unit for which the violation occurred an amount equal to the relocation assistance as defined by this chapter.

 

(d)                     Prohibition of waiver. Any lease provision which waives or purports to waive any right, benefit or entitlement created in this chapter shall be deemed void and of no lawful force or effect.

 

(e)                     'No just cause' as lawful defense. In any action commenced to non-renew or to otherwise terminate the tenancy of any tenant, it shall be a defense to the action that there was no just cause for such non-renewal of lease or termination as required in this section.

 

(f)                     Mutual termination. This section does not preclude a landlord and tenant from agreeing to a mutual termination.

 

Sec. 193.10. Evaluation.

 

The OFE shall conduct an evaluation of the impact of this chapter to determine if the section should be maintained or amended. The evaluation shall demonstrate the section's impacts, if any, on the ability of low-income persons, persons of color, and persons with limited English proficiency to obtain housing, and the overall availability of affordable housing in the city and known data on the compliance and known violations of the ordinance. The OFE may retain an independent, outside party to conduct the evaluation. The evaluation shall be conducted eighteen (18) months following the effective date of this chapter, and be submitted to the city council within two and one-half (2.5) years following the effective date.

 

Sec. 193.11. Budget.

 

Within ninety (90) days after passage of this section, the OFE shall present to the council the costs of implementing this section, including education and enforcement, and will propose a budget equal to these costs for the council's consideration for every year beginning in 2021.

 

Sec. 193.12. Exemptions.

 

Whenever local, state, or federal funding or loan requirements conflict with any portion of this chapter, those funding or loan requirements will take precedence over only those portions in conflict. This subsection shall not be read to exempt properties from the requirements of this chapter based on funding source alone.

 

Sec. 193.13. Implementation task force created.

The office of financial empowerment (OFE) shall convene an implementation task force made up of tenants, landlords and tenants' and landlords' advocates to propose rules and an implementation plan for this chapter, including a plan for educating landlords and tenants about the provisions in this section.

Sec. 193.14. Severability.

If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this chapter is determined to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that section, clause, provision, or portion shall be deemed severed from the chapter, and such determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the chapter.

 

SECTION 2

This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days following its passage, approval, and publication.

 

Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
6/24/2021 2:17 PMCorinne McHie Against Please do not repeal the SAFE ordinance for renters. Stable housing makes St. Paul a better city for everyone. These are reasonable and modest protections and they should be upheld. +8 -7 7
6/23/2021 8:35 PMJoshua T. Medley Against I am against repealing the SAFE ordinances. I have experienced organized efforts from my landlord to get tenants to testify against our local homeless/houseless ***istance program and now attacks on tenant rights. This is of course concerning. Lawsuits from landlords that will end in the cities favor should not influence Saint Paul’s policy. Whether or not policy is good should determine our policy. SAFE was and is good policy. +8 -7 7
6/23/2021 4:28 PMMartin Hernandez Against The city council voted unanimously for these ordinances when they were proposed. Show some backbone and stand up for you convictions and defend your previous votes in favor of SAFE ordinances. The corporate landlord cl*** will sue over anything that gives renters any modi*** of rights so any SAFE 2.0 you propose will also bring on a landlord lawsuit. Keep your promises and defend renter rights. No to Repeal. +8 -7 7
6/23/2021 4:18 PMCheyanne J Against I am strongly opposed to repealing this ordinance that benefits a large portion of the population of St. Paul +8 -7 7
6/23/2021 4:18 PMCheyanne J Against I am strongly opposed to repealing this ordinance that benefits a large portion of the population of St. Paul +6 -6 6
6/23/2021 4:03 PMJeanette Beger Against I am against the repeal of the SAFE ordinance. Each of our neighbors deserves to have an affordable place to live. We will build a better Saint Paul when we continue to provide stable housing. +7 -6 6
6/23/2021 3:09 PMPatrice Tetta Against I am strongly opposed to the repealing of these protections for tenants. Rising rents disproportionately affect BIPOC households and widen existing racial disparities in housing cost-burden, housing instability, and homelessness. Many Saint Paul renters have seen their rents increase hundreds of dollars at a time and we must do something about unreasonable rent growth. As a long term homeowner, I feel that renters should NOT be at a disadvantage. When I last rented (25 years ago), my monthly rent on a great TWO bedroom apartment in a nice, albeit not upscale, neighborhood was $525 -- the equivalent of $900 today. I was able to afford that on my relatively-small salary. A two-bedroom apartment at $900 is unheard of today. People need to be able to live affordably. Renters need protection. Please do not repeal this ordinance. +7 -6 6
6/23/2021 6:37 AMIan Hedberg Against The needs that drove p***age of the SAFE ordinance have not gone away. At the very least, some basic protections from a new ordinance need to be in place. Some landlords have expressed a chilling belief that if a person has committed a crime and served out their punishment in full, it is a landlord's right to further punish them by forbidding them the shelter they need to live for the rest of their life. Does the city represent only this small group of landlords accustomed to, and feeling entitled to, dictator-like power? Is the city not concerned about the possibility of a greed landlord evicting poor renters so they can get even more money from rich people moving in, which would greatly exacerbate our homeless crisis? Are renters, the majority of our city, not people worth fighting for? +7 -6 6
6/22/2021 10:38 PMSara  Against +8 -6 5
6/16/2021 7:56 PMNicolaas VanMeerten Against The St. Paul city council should be working to protect tenants not landlords who are already in a position of power. +8 -6 6
6/15/2021 12:55 AMAndrea Buiser Against Please do not repeal the S.A.F.E. Housing ordinance. Your most marginalized constituents are relying on you all to stand by the legislation created to protect tenants' rights. We are counting on each and every Councilmember to stand up for the population of renters in Saint Paul. +9 -6 6
6/10/2021 5:43 PMAnthony LaRose Against I am against the repeal of SAFE housing! St. Paul is majority renters and repealing this will cause more problems than benefits. +8 -8 6
6/9/2021 7:32 PMRobert Craft Against I am astounded that the City Council would retreat from protecting tenants with the proposed repeal of our Safe Housing Ordinance. The Council had to know the landlords would litigate the matter. Giving up without a fight because of one judge's opinion indicates a both of lack of resolve and a misplaced concern for legal expenses over human rights. Claiming that other protections and resources are available insults the testimony of all those who supported the ordinance because those resources fail tenants time and again. +9 -8 6
6/8/2021 10:11 PMSam Robertson Against Please do not repeal the S.A.F.E. Housing ordinance. I work at a domestic violence shelter in St Paul and this ordinance has allowed many of our residents to access fair housing where they would not have been able to without the ordinance. Revoking the S.A.F.E. Housing ordinance removes an essential protection for many residents of St Paul (housed and looking for housing) and is a colossal step back from housing equity. The ordinance works. We have seen it work successfully. +10 -8 6
6/8/2021 9:38 PMOnnie Brodkorb Against Please do not repeal this ordinance. S.A.F.E. housing is a well-researched and legally backed ordinance that put bare minimum basic protections into place. I work with unhoused people in the city of St Paul and during the short time S.A.F.E housing was in place I saw it work to connect people who are able and willing to pay rent overcome the barriers to housing that exist when property owners have overreaching tenant screenings. Do not believe the rhetoric that this requires property owners to rent to criminals! The ordinance says the look back period for misdemeanors is 3 years and 7(!) years for felonies. People who have been convicted and completed their sentences should not be subject to constant punishment and denial of housing. MN property owners concerned about criminal activity on the property are already protected by MN 504b.171. Not only is St Paul a majority renter city, but the majority of landlords want to do the right thing and to have fair rental standards. +10 -8 6
6/8/2021 9:23 PMJoan Countryman Against Please do not repeal! Our renters need our ***istance. +9 -7 5
6/8/2021 9:13 PMRainbow Health Minnesota Against Rainbow Health Minnesota, based in St. Paul, knows that safe, stable housing is critical to people's health. We would urge the Council to not rush to repeal these provisions, but to take the time to develop a robust legal defense AND a back-up plan for protecting tenants. +9 -6 5
6/8/2021 1:46 PMAndrew Eikum Against The city should protect its renters by not repealing these protections. +8 -7 5
6/7/2021 11:20 PMJoe Nathan Against Having been a renter and then a homeowner, I strongly urge the Council and Mayor to delay action - and to instruct the City Attorney to appeal this Judge's Decision. New Jersey has used many of the ideas in the city's ordinance to balance needs of renters and landlords. Yes, we need to respect property rights. But St Paul should be a city that welcomes rather than discourages renters. +9 -5 5
6/7/2021 10:17 PMJoan Ostrove Against Please do not repeal the SAFE Housing ordinance. We will be abandoning our city’s renters and privileging the interests of corporate landlords. The repeal will disproportionately hurt renters of color and working cl*** families, who deserve to be protected from displacement. Thank you +7 -6 5
6/7/2021 9:28 PMElaine Tarone Against I observedJudge Magnuson’s hearing of the cases for and against the landlords injunction. He clearly hadn’t even read the City’s written case; he plainly said he hadn’t. I urge you not to repeal the tenant protections in the face of such a judge’s opinion. Please fight hard against the landlords’ injunction. Get St Paul’s tenant protections enforced! +12 -6 5
6/7/2021 8:54 PMApril Mootz Against The fact that 5 of St Paul's council members are pushing to repeal a bill that was created to protect tenants from discrimination and exploitation at the hands of landlords is disheartening to say the very least. While our city is experiencing a housing and homelessness crisis no less. Our city is majority renters. I am a renter. Everyone I am in community with are renters as well. Everyone of the council members sponsoring this bill have a responsibility to the community's who gave them their power. By repealing tenant protections they are turning their backs on their own constitutes, as well as thousands of families who rent in St Paul. Keep SAFE housing in St Paul and stop pandering to landlords who are systematically exploiting and discriminating against black, brown, and working cl*** constitutes. +8 -6 5
6/2/2021 8:31 PMJames Wilkinson   SAFE goals are important. I think that City should engage with plaintiffs and try to preserve some aspects of the ordinance now and look to improve and remedy problems in a thoughtful manner. +8 -5 5
6/1/2021 2:43 PMMatt Jarvi Against Please support basic housing justice. Keep the SAFE Act. +8 -9 5
6/1/2021 2:25 PMAdrian Perryman Against +10 -8 5
5/31/2021 5:05 PM  For Repeal. Do not force private landlords to rent to criminals. Instead help private landlords to filter and keep our good law abiding citizens safe, especially in muti- units. +14 -14 7
5/31/2021 3:38 PMSalina Amey For Fix this. Basic tenant rights have already been guaranteed by the State of MN and numerous organizations are at the ready to implement those rights. The City of St. Paul overstepped its authority by impeding on property owners right to sell, disabling their ability to remove problem tenants due to the extremely limiting "Just Cause" portion of the ordinance and creating a revolving lease agreement which will hinder proper maintenance and upkeep by responsible property owners of affordable housing who may need to replace carpeting, refinish hard wood floors, renovate a bathroom, etc. at end of lease term, but cannot schedule such work unless the tenant chooses to not renew or relocation fees are paid. To be clear, the revolving lease takes away an owner's right/ability to decide whether or not to renew a lease and gives sole decision to tenant. Lastly, the ordinance punishes small property owners of affordable housing units while big developers remain relatively untouched. +11 -13 5
5/31/2021 1:39 PMRichelle Schenfeld For This ordinance was fraught with problems from the beginning and poorly thought out. I encourage everyone to read the Judge's ruling in it's entirety. I agree with his opinions and am grateful for his wisdom. The ordinance should be repealed. The city does not need another costly and lengthy lawsuit. +10 -9 6
5/31/2021 3:23 AMEric Lein For When creating "Tenant Protections," please listen to, respect, balance & incorporate the viewpoints and rights of ALL affected parties. Note these EXCERPTS FROM JUDGE MAGNUSON'S ORDER of 04/19/2021: The ordinance [Chapter 193] forces Plaintiffs [Landlords] to bear society’s burden related to housing needs. Plaintiffs have shown a probable likelihood of success on the merits of their regulatory takings claim. /// While the ordinance references racial disparities, that concern is addressed by the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits race-based housing discrimination. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their substantive due process claim. /// Plaintiffs have established the existence of irreparable harm because continued enforcement of the ordinance is likely to result in ongoing violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and “loss of [constitutional] freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.... +13 -9 5
5/28/2021 9:08 PMDanette Lincoln For Basic tenant rights have already been guaranteed by the State of MN and numerous organizations are at the ready to implement those rights. The City of St. Paul overstepped its authority by impeding on property owners right to sell, disabling their ability to remove problem tenants due to the extremely limiting "Just Cause" portion of the ordinance and creating a revolving lease agreement which will hinder proper maintenance and upkeep by responsible property owners of affordable housing who may need to replace carpeting, refinish hard wood floors, renovate a bathroom, etc. at end of lease term, but cannot schedule such work unless the tenant chooses to not renew or relocation fees are paid. To be clear, the revolving lease takes away an owner's right/ability to decide whether or not to renew a lease and gives sole decision to tenant. Lastly, the ordinance punishes small property owners of affordable housing units while big developers remain relatively untouched. +14 -12 5
5/28/2021 9:04 PMBarbara Sellers Against Please support basic housing justice. Keep the SAFE Act. +10 -7 5
5/28/2021 6:03 PMDavid Ackos Against The city must not repeal this ordinance! It is a set of legal protections that has already been reviewed and the city needs to stand behind its renter residents, our neighbors, and its SAFE ordinance. The SAFE ordinance has strong support among my neighbors, renters and homeowners, and we want to see the city defend it in court, not roll it back. We are actively organizing for safety and security for renters and for racial justice, and it's very disappointing to see councilmembers trying to remove a recently p***ed protection for our renter neighbors. Don't walk this law back. Defend it and expand it. Support our neighbors! +9 -8 5
5/28/2021 5:59 PMJeffrey Grizzell Against Renters make up a strong majority of St Paul residents and they deserve protections! If we keep the protections, it will help renters to have more stable housing, helping to build a stronger community. Do not pull the rug out from under your constituents whose interests you were elected to serve. +14 -7 7
5/28/2021 5:01 PMIlya Garelik Against This proposal only has the interests of privileged people in mind and is in opposition to the interests of renters who need help. If City Council wants to enact racial justice and the betterment of oppressed people, then this proposal should not be allowed to p***. In addition, working to repeal a recently p***ed policy is anti-democratic and reactionary. +9 -9 5
5/28/2021 4:09 PMBahieh Hartshorn Against More than 50% of residents in Saint Paul are renters, and we deserve to be protected. Last year the council made a bold vote in alignment towards a vision of Saint Paul as the most "livable city" and this repeal would be a direct violation of that vision. This is really disappointing, and I hope that council members will stick with the vote you all took last summer that affirmed that renters deserve to be protected. +13 -6 4
5/28/2021 3:52 PM    This ordinance was p***ed unanimously and it seems disingenuous to now repeal it after a little bit of totally expected push back. Renters in St. Paul deserve these protections AND EVEN MORE. Stand up for what you stood for last year and withdraw this ordinance! +8 -6 4
5/28/2021 1:10 PMMargaret Johnson Against I have owned a home for 16 years in St. Paul, after being a renter. One of my daughters is a renter. The majority of people in St. Paul are renters. Please keep this very modest legal protection to help check the power balance, supporting basic housing justice. Please keep the code. +12 -6 4
5/28/2021 12:40 PMRick Hedrick Against I live in an area with rentals and owned homes. Renter occupied units make up a majority of housing units in Saint Paul. The SAFE ordinance can only be seen as a law that promotes human rights against unrestricted property rights. Renters should have more agency in their lives. Please stop this outrageous effort to repeal the law. Instead stand strong with the majority of your voters. +9 -5 4
5/28/2021 11:24 AMRob Ramer Against I have owned a home in St. Paul for 25 years.And I have been a landlord and a renter. I was proud of my city for p***ing decent tenant protections. The SAFE ordinance can only be seen as a law that promotes human rights against unrestricted property rights. Please stop this outrageous effort to repeal the law. Instead stand strong with the majority of your voters. This morning I took a walk around Merriam Park. I saw good furniture and belongings out in the rain. How many more evictions are coming if this law is repealed and the worst landlords see that tenants have no friends in the city council., +8 -6 4
5/28/2021 3:07 AMAlan Richardson Hohn Against The council engaged community organically and had consensus from district council in our when these protections were p***ed. Many residents felt the protections did not go far enough and the promise was that these would be the begining of protections. The city anticipated legal challenges and even wrote specific language into the code regarding the striking of any language which was found unconsitiutional. The effort to remove section 193 in entirety rather than strike portions which are found unconstitutional go against the language written in the section. To claim this is to avoid legal challenge and ***ociated cost to go back to square one and restart talks on the same topic is a waste of finances, disregards previous community input, and does not feel genuine considering the promise that this was the start of reforms when originally adopted. +12 -6 4
5/28/2021 3:05 AMChris Holbrook For This is the best proposal I've ever seen. Respect private property rights. +18 -13 3
5/28/2021 1:05 AMThom Hirschboeck Against A majority of St Paulites are renters. A basic set of legal protections aimed toward more equitable access to housing is not only needed by so many of our neighbors (as I'm sure you all know), it is the necessary foundation for stable communities and a truly livable city. +10 -5 3
5/28/2021 1:03 AMBrigitte Temple Against Last year St Paul city council listened to to needs of our majority renter city and decided to stand with renters. The modest tenant protections are necessary to ensure that St Paul can live up to its motto "Most livable city in America". The city council should continue listen to the voices of renters and keep the protections in place. +10 -6 3
5/28/2021 12:51 AMMichelle Hirschboeck Against Tenant protections help to check the power balance, supporting basic housing justice. Please keep the code! +17 -7 6
5/27/2021 11:05 PMTram Hoang Against The City already did its legal homework on this issue and anticipated the legal challenges that would come from opposition. These policies are legal and have been implemented in cities across the country. St. Paul is doing nothing new or revolutionary with these tenant protections, and they must be defended in court. Now is not the time to abandon our majority-renter city. Renters, who are more likely to be BIPOC and low-wealth residents, need these protections, especially during this COVID housing crisis. City Council must hold itself accountable to the promises made during community engagement and defend this legally sound and proven public policy in court. +18 -7 3
5/27/2021 10:11 PMBenjamin Werner Against We need strong tenant protections in Saint Paul. They need to stand as they are. +19 -5 2
5/27/2021 10:04 PMJohn Slade Against The council worked hard with community to craft these protections, which are desperately needed particularly as the ending of the eviction moratorium comes closer. They have been upheld in other jurisdictions. This is premature. Please do not repeal these; instead, vigorously defend them. +19 -5 2