Evening Rockfell, today is May 18th, 2026, and we are convening meeting 14-26.

I'd like to begin by welcoming Girl Scout Cadet Troop 33140, and they'll be leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please join as you're able.

Can we give them a clap out?

Thank you so much.

We love to welcome young people into this room.

Well, all people, but they are learning about leadership and civic engagement and getting a strong start.

Okay, we're gonna begin with agenda review.

Miss Sarah Taylor Pharrell.

Madam Mayor and Council members, uh, we did add in a late agenda item on consent.

Uh item D, um approval of FY26 year, F year 51 community development block grant contract with Montgomery County, and authorization for the city manager to sign the contract.

And that has been updated online and is available for those who wish to read it.

Thank you.

Can you share when it was added just in case people are looking at different versions?

It was added before noon today.

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr.

City Manager Jeff Mahalek.

Mayor Ashton, members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

Some really good news to report.

The Metro Washington Council of Governments have provided the city of Rockville with a sizable grant of $80,000 to do a new project.

It's called a bench for every bus stop.

And it's exactly what it sounds like.

We're gonna do a feasibility study to see what it would take to provide seating for all bus stops in Rockville, which would be a bunch, including all accessibility requirements.

So it hits a lot of our key goals, and we're excited to receive that grant from MCOG.

Also excited to uh say that we have hometown holidays this weekend.

Unfortunately, the forecast, I don't know.

So get the rain from coming, but we're all excited to get together to celebrate um this weekend with a lot of fun and music and food, etc.

And then also I want to put this on uh save the date.

It's um the Rockville Human Rights Commission's 10th annual Pride Festival from 2 to 5 p.m.

Um at the Rockville Town Center on June 10th.

Really excited about those events.

That's all I have to report, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right.

We're now gonna move on to community forum.

This is a dedicated time to hear from our residents and stakeholders in the community.

We welcome your feedback.

We're going to take those who have signed up in advance, and then I will check to see if anyone else would like to speak.

All persons, please address the mayor and council.

Please speak in a civil and courteous manner.

Be respectful to each other.

Each person is allowed three minutes, and you will see that there is a time clock in front of you.

Please stick to the time clock, the time allowed.

We don't want to use the gavel today.

Please state your name and whether you live in the city of Rockville for the record.

Okay.

We now have David Fields.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor.

Council members.

Um, I'm a recent, relatively recent member uh of Rockville as a resident.

I moved a year ago into a new building called the Milton at the Twin Grove Metro stop.

And it's my understanding that there's some discussion about finalizing landlord tenant regulations.

And I thought I would give some feedback.

I can see better without these now.

Um I liked everything in the summary in terms of the existing code adjustments.

Um, I did have certain questions.

I don't expect answers, these are rhetorical questions.

Under the auspices of early lease termination, a property maintenance violation affecting health and safety failed to be corrected.

This is hypothetical.

Um what is health?

Define health, what constitutes a health risk.

I've noticed that somehow all jurisdictions have judiciously avoided cigarette smoke or pot smoke, any kind of smoke as being a health hazard.

It's something that can't be enforced.

And that's one of the reasons why I'm here.

I'll get into that in a bit.

Under lease review, I was curious because it said require landlords to provide prospective tenants with a copy of their proposed lease at least two days prior.

Well, although I'm retired, some people have jobs or could be out of town.

And I'm wondering whether two days is enough time.

Again, just a question.

Under tenant organizing, prohibit landlords from charging tenant organizations fees for the use of meeting rooms or common areas.

In my building, my building for the sake of younger people here, it's owned by an AREIT, which stands for real estate and investment trust, which is a stock owned corporation, and the purpose of it is to benefit the shareholders.

Therefore, I'm not a human, I'm a revenue center.

I recently uh started feeling that way.

Um prior to moving into this building.

I specifically said I was moving because I wanted to be in a smoke-free environment because my lungs are awful.

I've asthma you name it.

I'm not the only one in my building.

As you're facing the building, there's a large grass plaque to the side of the door.

No smoking within 25 feet of this building.

Well, file that away.

Um someone put up notices they wanted to form a tenants association.

They were taken down by the property manager who uh informed this young lady who put them up, we don't handle things that way here.

Um couple of days ago.

Thank you so much.

I uh that is the three minutes.

But if you have things that are written, we would be willing to take it to the city clerk, and we'd love to read all of your comments, or if you want to send us an email that we welcome that feedback.

She's got them.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

We welcome uh Mark Pashela, representing the College Garden Civic Association.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh, as you can see, I'm accompanied by quite a few people today.

You can hold up your sign, stand up.

Um I have some prepared remarks.

College Gardens asked for several items as March 24, 2026 special meeting on the zoning ordinance.

I want to further emphasize that the materials provided by city staff, it is still impossible for any neighborhood association to determine what differences there are between the current zoning and the proposed zoning.

Only because I have the expertise was I able to go into the text of the current zoning and compare it with the proposed zoning, and only then for a few key issues.

The Collin Gardens Civic Association recognizes that on one key issue the city has moved in the direction of our request for MXCD zones.

For us, this means access on a Rucker Street from College Plaza.

This is in section 25.8.2.2B.

Limitations on vehicular access.

In the MXCD zone, vehicular access to a secondary residential street is prohibited unless determined by the director of public works, chief of inspection services, or file marshal to be necessary.

This helps.

Thank you.

But we request now that one sentence be added to this text.

Such determinations must be made based on a published standard and in consultation with impacted neighborhoods.

That's very important to us.

If access is needed, for example, for stormwater management utilities or emergency services, then these can be done in such a way that these accesses are only for those purposes.

This is recently done for Newmark Commons.

For one of our other requests, it is in our opinion that a purpose statement for zones actually include a purpose, not just a description.

This is found on page 151 of the red line version.

The single lot, the small single lot unit unit residential zones, including the R90, R75, R60, and R40 zones.

These zones are intended primarily for single unit residential uses on smaller lots than those in a large lot, single unit residential zones.

That's as far as it goes.

That's a description.

It's not a purpose.

We asked you to add the purposes of these zones include one, provide appropriately located areas for residential development that are consistent with the plan and public health and safety, and two, stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of existing residential neighborhoods.

This text was taken from the current ordinance.

This is to remind future elected officials that they must pay attention to the master plan and that there's value in preserving the essential characteristics of our existing neighborhoods.

There's been one council member of public amusing about changing zoning for larger lot, single family zones.

And I just gotta say just to make an ad hoc remark on something mentioned last meeting.

The pre-application meetings are important for larger projects.

That's where the neighborhood can really go in and thank you very much.

Next, we welcome Julia Binder.

Thanks, Mark.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members.

My name is Julia Binder.

I live in Newmark Commons.

I'm a member of the HOA board.

Thank you for listening to the concerns of many neighbors about noise, traffic, pollution, and safety, and deciding to prohibit traffic through Newmark Commons and Markwood to and from any development proposed for ZOR ID 17.

Thank you also for rejecting the proposed RMD 25 designation for this parcel.

However, the recommendation for RMD 15 with a 55-foot height cap exception that you were presented a week ago for the parcel is alarming.

The City Code, Article 11, Section 251104 says RMD 15 has a height cap of 40 feet.

It allows for duplexes, townhouses, and apartments.

55 feet is more than double the height of any of the homes in surrounding neighborhoods and is an increase of 37% over the height cap.

This definition doesn't exist in the code.

We experienced a similarly confusing situation when the planning commission and zoning team crafted a footnote modifying RMD 25 regarding vehicular access from Newmark to Z O R I D 17.

It begs the question why have a code for the city of Rockville with specific definitions if permutations keep getting proposed.

The height cap needs to stay at 40 feet to be compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods of Newmark and Markwood and all the other surrounding neighborhoods.

It needs to stay consistent with the definition in the code.

Otherwise, the code doesn't matter anymore.

I urge you to consider RMD 10 for this parcel as the most compatible zoning designation.

Since it seems part of the lot is unsuitable for development, the 100 dwelling units it would permit would be concentrated on fewer acres, in effect, doubling the density to 20 units per acre.

Whether you adopt our preferred RMD 10 or the RMD 15 zoning designation for this parcel, please stick with the height cap of 40 feet in the code, not the altered height of 55 feet.

It allows a suitable and compatible increased level of density and height to support the city's goal of adding multiple housing options on ZORID 17.

Thank you very much for your service and all you do for the residents of Rockville.

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Susan Knowles.

Hi, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Susan Knowles, and I live in Newmark Commons.

You know, we we have to stop meeting like this.

On a more serious side, though, I was so happy to hear all three bodies come to a consensus about no road through Newmark.

At the last public comments, Newmark, the representative from Tower Dawson, and the mayor and council all agreed that allowing through traffic from the Wooton Parkway to Don Mills Court would significantly increase vehicle traffic and create a safety concern not only for Newmark and Markwood, but also the new neighborhood that will be created by Tower Dawson.

Thank you to all sides who listened and did the right thing.

To get back to the zoning of this parcel, people seem to wonder why do we keep stressing RMD 10?

Being a retired math teacher, I created a little chart that shows what might happen in both RMD 15 and RMD 10 if the builder is only allowed to build on the six or so acres that seem to be buildable at the present time.

I sent this chart in an email to the mayor and council last week.

Of the 9.75 acres, there is wetland and a water infiltration system that seem to be out of the buildable area.

You can probably add about one acre for a buffer between 270 and the new neighborhoods.

That leaves about 60% of the parcel left for construction, and legally they can put all of the units allowed for the entire parcel on the buildable acres, which is only about six.

Mathematically, putting all the units on six acres of RMD 15 equates to 24.3 units per acre, which is very close to the RMD 25, which the mayor and council deemed inappropriate for this parcel.

If we go to RMD 10, the buildable part of the parcel equates to 16.3 units per acre, much closer to the RMD 15 that mayor and council decided on a split vote would be appropriate.

It would still allow 15 MPDUs.

I hope that you will reconsider your decision and ask for the staff to make this parcel RMD 10.

Again, thank you for listening to the citizens of Rockville, and I have a copy of the chart for each one of you that I will give over here that you can peruse at your leisure.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Anna Astrid Molina, followed by Pat Rieber.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Anna Astrid Molina, and I have lived in Markwood for over 30 years.

I thank you all for listening to our concerns regarding traffic, safety, noise, and the historic burial site.

And Markwood and Newmark Commons, we are deeply deeply grateful for your decision to limit access through Don Mill Courts to emergency and pedestrian traffic only, and to totally reject the high density RMD 25 proposal for SORID 17 plot.

To responsibly accommodate the city growth, I respectfully urge you to consider an RMD 10 designation with an MPDU 015 capped at the strict 40 foot height limit.

My neighbors and I are deeply alarmed by the proposed RMD 15 designation carrying a 55 foot height exception.

A 50 foot height structure will completely tower over our single homes, which maxed out at 25 feet.

Councilmember Fulton mentioned that RMD 15 zones in college gardens have worked beautifully.

However, those townhouses work because they are under the 40 feet tall height, consisting of just two floors plus a basement.

What the city is proposing for SORI D17 is not the same, is effectively doubles the height of the college gardens townhomes, making it entirely incompatible with our R90 zones.

There is a much better solution, highly compatible and affordable option, a three-level one-on-one stacked townhouse condominium.

These structures feature a ground level garage for each residence and two complete single unit stacked homes above the.

These achieved this density while keeping the building profile low and structurally aligned with the standard neighborhood roof line.

In addition, the plot is not flat or even.

It is a terrain with varying slopes heights.

Building at the top of the slope will make any building look massive.

I urge you not to split the zoning without analyzing the terrain.

Real land is not like an app that you allow simply right or left option.

As the zoning staff recognize our community should have been notified about this plan back in 2015.

Instead, we find out 11 years later.

It has taken an extraordinary communal effort to just to catch up and the implication to find out what the implications of this comprehensive map amendment means for us.

And we're struggling to bridge the gap.

Please consider a compatible RMD 10 framework, protect our neighborhoods, peace, and honor the sacred history of this land.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you.

Can we assume that this will be adopted in the ZOR?

We may have missed discussion about this.

The current code calls for height limit of 40 feet.

You've heard the others.

Referring to the previous testimony of my neighbor Anna Astrid, I believe Councilmember Kate Fulton said RMD 15 will work on this plot next to Newmark because it works in college gardens.

But most of those town homes in college gardens are under 40 feet.

A further worry is that given that about half of the 9.75 acres is unbuildable due to wetlands mitigation and the stormwater filtration infrastructure that you all know about.

All 146 units would be built on about five acres.

Susan's calculation is a bit different from mine, or nearly 30 units per acre.

If the builder gets bonuses for increasing the number of MPDUs, could that company get the go-ahead to increase the height beyond 55 feet and perhaps increase the overall number of units?

Those are questions we're asking.

For all these reasons, we urge you to reconsider the zoning assignment you adopted last week to the least dense option offered by staff RMD 10.

That would reduce the concentration of dwelling units to 20 units on the buildable acreage and lower the height limit to 40 feet.

Thanks again for all you've done for listening for for how you serve our entire community of Rockville and for protecting our neighborhoods from through traffic from Wooten and Montrose.

That's it from me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome, Libby Adams.

Hi.

I'm back.

So we are just three weeks shy of the year anniversary of me discovering the mold of Fuels of Rockville.

All of my family's belongings are still being held hostage by Fields of Rockville and Kettler because we won't sign an agreement saying we won't sue and that we won't speak out anymore.

The city is allowing this.

I've had no communication despite asking Trevor from landlord tenant for an update.

My family is still being plagued by long-term illness caused by our exposure to long-term black mold.

This was partially caused by the city clearing our unit in December, with I quote from the city inspector, the drywall has been replaced, so it must be fine.

Would that be a sufficient response for an inspection for your homes?

Don't worry, that was rhetorical.

Your city is passing off inspections that are far from thorough or efficient.

You are fairly failing renters and likely homeowners and companies as well with inadequate inspections and subsequent license and permits.

Last time you snuck in some ridiculous statement suggesting that the complaints of toxic black mold and the housing facilities refusal to address it facility sufficiently as a mere dispute between me and the complex, and that it was an unfortunate circumstance.

To me, that response falls completely in line with how the city has handled the situation.

You saying you sent inspectors to the whole building is grossly exaggerated, especially considering the lack of knowledge your inspectors even have with mold.

You were slowly and systemically killing people, of which it seems to be directed towards low-income families.

The city needs to do better.

Also, Rockville, I mean, I'm sorry, renters rights in Maryland.com at Gmail, all the things find me because this is ridiculous.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Thank you, everyone, for your testimony.

I want to acknowledge that we have received several written comments as well, which the body has reviewed.

We'll now move on to our consent agenda.

We have several items for review and discussion.

Consent item 9A, approve the recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board to approve the proposal from the Maryland State Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution to plant a Liberty Tree scion at Glenview Mansion in recognition of America's 250th semi quincentennial.

B is the FY26 grant agreement for the Rockville Volunteer Fire Department Emergency Vehicle Contribution.

C is award and authorize the city manager to execute contracts responsive to IFB 2625 for water main rehabilitation program externally funded projects.

Item D, approval of FY26, year 51, the community development block grant contract with Montgomery County and authorization for the city manager to sign the contract.

And lastly, E, the approval of minutes.

Does anyone have any questions or want to discuss any one of these before we poll?

Or before we vote.

Okay.

All right.

I will just make one comment.

Councilman Valeria is not here.

She is maybe on virtually.

She is raised some comments last week, and I also shared an email with my colleagues about the planting of the Liberty Tree.

And Mr.

City Manager, just we asked if it's possible, given the history to help create a more inclusive opportunity to have some sort of recognition or playing of a song by Mary and Anderson to support the Liberty Tree planting.

That's what we're planning to do, Mayor.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I want to thank staff for their reply about consent agenda item 9C with regard to the bid.

Thought it was a little low, but I got some reassurance that this is within line with their pass and that the current bidder who was awarded who will be awarded the contract, presumably after this vote, uh has historically done a good job.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else?

If not, we can take a motion.

Do we have a motion to approve?

Councilmember Van Grack.

Madam Mayor, I move to approve consent agenda items A, B, C, D, and E.

Thank you.

We have a second, Councilmember Jackson.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Councilmember Shaw, is it something that you want to raise under landlord tenant or under old new business?

Just want to make sure we're just one of the questions.

Madam Mayor, I just wanted to make a just a quick comment.

Um, that was something that was raised in community forum.

Um, just for the listening public.

Um tenants are able to organize in their building.

They are able to uh post items in their building just as long as it says where it's from.

And uh tenants are able to uh organize tenant associations.

And I just wanted to make that clear uh just for the listening public because that was an issue that came up.

Thank you.

And we'll be talking through some of those items with rights and responsibilities as part of this next agenda item.

Okay, so we're now moving on to 11A, adoption of potential adoption of an ordinance to amend chapter 18 of the Rockville City Code entitled Rental Facilities and Landlord Tenant Relations.

I'd like to welcome Jane Lyons Radar Raider, Housing Programs Manager, the Housing and Community Development Division, as well as Ryan Trout, who's the director of housing and community development, Trevor Stevens, who is the housing specialist, and I also know we have Christina Shakur Harris to serve as support as assistant city attorney.

Welcome everyone.

And while you're getting set up, just want to say thank you for all the work on this.

And uh, we know that there's been many work sessions work sessions leading up to today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And a note for IT.

This looks like the presentation for the work session.

But we can go ahead and get started while they're working on that, if that's all right.

Yes, please.

Great.

Do you want to start with the background intro on what we've been working on?

Yes, I will hand it over to Trevor here.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Good evening, good to see everyone again.

Um as a reminder, my name's Trevor Stevens.

I'm the housing landlord tenant specialist for the city of Rockville, and we are here about the introduction, hopeful adoption of chapter 18 code update on rental facilities and landlord tenant relations.

So uh before we dive in, I do also want to take a beat and just say that we're we're really excited about how this has come together.

It's been a really exhausting but fulfilling collaborative uh experience with our department with code enforcement with the city attorney's office.

So really grateful for all the work that's been put in.

Um and again, we're really excited.

We think it is an assembly of some of the national best practices in this code, and we look forward to to talking through it a little bit more.

So there it is, right on time.

There we go.

So just going through briefly the outline here.

So just going through briefly the outline here, we will start with the background, and then we'll discuss a little bit about the work session follow-ups as well as the community engagement summary, some of the highlights of the proposed changes, anticipated impacts, as well as the introduction and suggested motions.

So starting with the background, um, again, we know that housing is one of the five focus areas for mayor and council, and to that end, we have had a number of work sessions, including in fall 2024, three different work sessions on the city's housing strategies, and comprehensively updating chapter 18 was approved as a strategy by mayor and council at that point.

In June of 2025, we had a work session on data reporting and transparency.

And then in November 2025, we had the work session on rental licensing inspections, and one of the outcomes from that was the enhanced inspection program that is currently being implemented.

And then following that, we had the December 2025 work session on existing code and new policies, and then most recently in February of 2026, our work session on new policies.

And then again, just a quick reminder about some of the background project goals, and these were presented previously and were based on mayor and council feedback.

So just to quickly go through our timeline of the project that we've had to this point.

It's crazy that it's been almost a year already, over a year already.

Back in April of last year is when we had our initial engagement and outreach with landlords and tenants, where we went over, you know, what the goals of the project were, what we thought we thought some of the uh common issues that we were seeing were and what they wanted to see from the process.

And then we drafted our updated code, went through our work sessions before again in April of this year, going through the additional round of community engagement based off of the actual code language that was generated from all of that.

And then that puts us here today.

And just as a quick touch on some of the things that will follow the chapter 18 work that we've done to this point, uh, we will have a cooling requirements work session to be scheduled for September.

Uh, we will be launching a pre-eviction financial assistance pilot in July.

This is a really exciting program.

It's intended to sort of bridge the gap for those individuals who might have unexpected financial emergencies, uh, things like unexpected medical costs or potential issues with cars.

Um, it doesn't require an eviction notice, but it does require that you have fallen behind on rent.

Uh, under normal circumstances, the maximum is for $750, but with manager approval, that can go up to $1,500.

Uh and any amount that you receive from this would then be deducted from your yearly REAP total.

And as a reminder, the yearly REAP total is $3,000.

So if you were to use $1,000 under this program, then you would be able to come back for REAP, but you would only have $2,000 to work with.

And $3,000 from the county potentially as well.

Yep.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Jane.

So I think one last bullet point there on that.

We will also be creating educational materials to be shared with landlords and tenants so that way they can ensure before the effective date of the new ordinance that they completely understand their uh rights and obligations under the new ordinance.

Um, I'm going to talk a little bit about the various community engagement strategies that we used over the last year.

So, as Trevor talked about, we first hosted two virtual input meetings, one with landlords and one with tenants.

And during those input sessions, we went over the goals of the rewrite.

As Lon is heard from landlords and tenants about what are the common issues that they're facing, um, and were there any changes or clarifications in city code that they would like to see.

So that initial feedback really helped us to set the direction for our research and the overall ordinance update.

We published an engage Rockville web page with information about the project, everything that somebody would need to know about the project is located there, including several opportunities for different engagement tools, such as a comment form, a question portal, and we had two different surveys.

So the first survey was to gain initial input.

Um it was uh an option for folks who couldn't make that input meeting, the same questions generally were asked in that survey.

And then similarly, for folks who couldn't make the second input meeting that we held last month.

We launched a survey that asked the same questions about what do you think about these proposals for the new chapter of code.

We interviewed stakeholder organizations to learn more about how uh things have been changing over time, what are recent trends in the landlord tenant world.

And we also provided regular email updates throughout the project to the engaged Rockville subscribers, all of the rental license holders, property managers, affordable housing operators, and tenant organizations.

And then, as was previously referenced, we had a follow-up virtual input meeting for one for landlords and one for tenants.

To now say, hey, here we have the results of our mayor and council work sessions.

We know the types of things that we're going to be putting into the code.

Pictured here on the right is the fact sheet that we put out, since we know that reading the 40 pages of code is not everybody's cup of tea.

And so that way we were able to get input from folks on the actual code itself.

And now I'm going to go over the major takeaways that we had from those input meetings.

So when we had the initial input meetings, we heard from tenants about high rents, maintenance response times, fees, differences between the city and the county, including on things like rent stabilization, but also cooling requirements, and desire for more information about properties.

So then when we came back to them to say that these are the things that we are proposing to include in the code, there was excitement around banning algorithmic rent pricing and restricting junk fees.

There was disappointment regarding the exclusion of a rent stabilization policy.

Questions about how rent increase information would be collected and displayed in lieu of a rent stabilization policy.

Tenants were very interested in how they could, they and other tenants could learn more about rent increases happening around the city.

And then concerns around the six-month cutoff for a unit being unsafe to occupy before the permanent relocation assistance triggers.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was not clicking.

Tried to make it more digestible with the animations, but that doesn't help if I forget about the animations.

So there you go.

Give you one moment to read just in case.

All right, so then landlord responses to the proposed proposed code.

At the initial input session, we heard about rising costs, the length and difficulty of eviction proceedings and the rental license inspection process, responsiveness from city staff and RHE, and difficulty adhering to code requirements, and because of that, wanting to have more educational resources and templates to help them to understand and adhere to requirements in the code.

So when we came back to them with the proposed code, we heard a general feeling of bias towards tenants and concerns at some of the specific policies.

This include the requirement to offer tenants a two-year lease term, although we clarified with landlords that as long as there is language in the lease stating as such, a landlord could provide an increase during a two-year lease term as long as there is a 90-day notice before that rent increase.

So we clarified that for them.

It's really just about on the rental application itself not asking about eviction history.

And then concerns around a repair and deduct policy for tenants to be allowed to make repairs without landlord approval when the landlord has not made those repairs within a reasonable amount of time.

And the main concern that we heard from landlords there was a worry that tenants would use unlicensed contractors, but in the code language, it specifically says that this can only be used as an option if the tenant is using a licensed contractor.

There were questions and concerns around the relocation assistance requirements, particularly around the cost of the permanent relocation fee, which can be quite substantial, and as well as determination of responsibility for in what situations the landlord would be required to provide either temporary or permanent relocation assistance.

And then around the fee restrictions, we generally didn't hear a ton of pushback around fee restrictions, but there was a desire to allow fee for return checks and to allow an increased lockout fee for repeated occurrences.

So those were some of the specific things that we heard there.

And now to dive a bit into the highlights of the proposed changes, and it is quite difficult to fit an entire chapter of city code into one slide, but I know we'll go through more of it later.

But to provide the overview per the direction of the council of the mayor and council, the ordinance includes policies like restrictions on algorithmic rent pricing, restrictions on junk fees, and really emphasizes transparency in a variety of different ways.

So, first, this includes restrictions on asking about eviction history, as I previously mentioned, charging tenants court costs and legal fees, and using algorithmic rent pricing systems, new requirements for landlords to report data, provide two-year lease options, adhere to lease review and provision timelines, allow non-electronic payment methods, provide relocation assistance, and allow tenant organizations to use meeting rooms free of charge.

Increased transparency around fees and guarantor requirements, more options for early lease termination, creation of a repair and deduct option, changes to how leases and rent information are provided to the city.

Most commonly, this will be now streamlined through the rental licensing process.

And then lastly, meaningful fines for certain code violations.

And the fine component of the new chapter will not be part of the introduction tonight.

That will be separately considered as a part of a fine resolution.

Before I get to the anticipated impacts, just to say again to reiterate what Trevor mentioned that with all of these policies together that you see here, we're very excited to present a best practice landlord tenant code.

These are best practices based off of national research and successes from jurisdictions across the country, as well as really thorough engagement driven by our local stakeholders here in Rockville.

So now for the anticipated impacts of this action item.

We don't anticipate any environmental impacts.

With equity, we anticipate a positive impact due to the many benefits of improved housing stability, which includes better mental and physical health, better economic security, better educational outcomes, also improved social connections and community diversity, because the families that are often first to be displaced are disproportionately likely to be black or Hispanic in Rockville.

And in general, in Rockville, tenants are disproportionately likely to be black or African American, especially tenants who face the most significant cost burden, but all renters really are facing cost burden to some degree.

Half of all renters are facing cost burden to some degree.

Of note is that on average, the median income of renters is 100,000 less than homeowners in Rockville.

The economy.

We anticipate a neutral impact.

We recognize that these additional requirements put onto landlords may have negative impacts on their decisions to rent or developers' decisions to invest in Rockville, and that compliance costs may put small upward pressure on rents.

But also we recognize again that improved housing stability in addition to bringing benefits to equity also brings economic benefits.

So we also believe that these transparency measures may create a more competitive rental market, resulting in slight downward pressure on rents.

So that brings us to the introduction in suggested motions.

Although I understand that there are likely questions that we are more than happy to address and go through the code before moving forward with the introduction.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

If we could move over to the slide that highlights the major changes.

Okay.

So colleagues, I wanted to just check in to check comfort levels.

Um, I know some colleagues have very specific questions by section, uh, and then some want to do uh other major uh sections here.

I'm willing to start here and then move to this to the articles, but I do know that there are folks who want to go by article.

So what I would suggest is when we do the articles, um, that we take them.

There are five articles that we go in the groups of five, uh, so that we can not jump around from article one to four to three.

Um so just want to see how folks feel about this.

Uh if you want to start here, or do you want to just go through the articles?

Okay, all right.

Um councilmember Shaw.

Um, I have some overall just like questions about um the highlights and the proposed highlights.

So okay.

So let's let's um what I do want to be careful of is that the highlights.

Um if you want to go high level, that's great.

I do know that um all of these are in the sections as well, and so some of them are very, very deep questions.

So if you have maybe uh an overarching question before we get started going down the line, please feel free.

Madam Mayor, I have quite a few questions.

Okay.

Um overall, and and um also some questions around the equity impact and some data questions as well.

Okay, why don't we um go down the line and maybe we can go by article to start and then we'll hit the major points within there?

Is that okay?

All right, uh Dr.

Miles.

Um we start last week.

Are you okay to start?

Do you want me to start on the other side?

You're willing to be put in the hot seat first?

Okay.

All right, Dr.

Miles, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

In terms of the overall highlights, um, no broad questions that I have here.

I had more specific questions that staff replied to with regard to an explanation about the permanent relocation assistance, which I imagine we can get into once we get into the individual sections.

Um, and so I'm happy to reserve my questions until that point if that's okay.

Okay, perfect.

So we're on Article One, which I should say Article 1 covers definitions, purposes, policies, applicability, interpretation, penalties, uh ceasing operations in lieu of compliance, folio to comply, and then there's a section that's reserved.

So we that that section is covered later.

So if you want to hold, yeah, I can hope.

Yeah, no problem.

All right.

Councilmember Fulton.

I don't have any questions on that article, so thank you.

Okay, perfect.

Um, I have uh just a few.

Um there is something about ceasing operations in lieu of compliance.

It's section 18-6.

Um, and it's very minor.

I just was curious because this code initially was created before there was a Department of Housing and Community Development.

Actually, last term we created the housing department of housing community development.

And I was just wondering whether some of these sections should acknowledge that, or is it all should say city manager?

I that that is your, you know, I'm open and flexible about that, but I just wanted to note that um there's a section that says if someone if a landlord decides to cease operations, um, that they have to submit that information to the city manager.

My two questions are that uh should this be going to uh can this be done electronically and should this go to DHCD or not?

That's one question.

Sure.

So uh I can address that, and I know um assistant city attorney Christina Harris is on the line as well.

Um, but my understanding is that the city manager essentially delegates that responsibility on an administrative basis to the department and to specific staff members.

The ultimate authority still lies with him.

Um, but that uh for consistency throughout the code, you will see those references to the city manager.

But those responsibilities, depending on the article, are either delegated to Department of Housing and Community Development or to Department of Uh Community Planning and Development Services.

Okay, thank you.

And because there will be fines and penalties and people have to comply when it says uh you must submit to city manager, that can that be done electronically, and will we be having information?

I understand that there's gonna be a landlord tenant guide that's developed after this, so maybe that will have more specific instructions on how to do that, but I wanted to flag that it wasn't clear.

It it does say, as you quoted, that the copy of the notice must be delivered to this to the city manager.

Um notice to the tenant must be a written notice, but I would think that the copy could be delivered electronically since it doesn't specify one way or the other.

Okay, there's some things that are like must be paper, must be not.

I just want to make sure that as we're looking to this, we're being as clear as possible, and perhaps there'll be more clarity in the landlord tenant guide that's put together.

Mr.

City Manager saying yes.

Okay.

Um and then there's a section that uh is stricken from this is called failure to comply with summons.

My question was why was this removed?

It was failure to comply with the summons issued pursuant to this chapter shall be unlawful and subject to be appropriate legal action being taken by the city.

I'm guessing you may have just this other sections that talk to this.

Is that why you struck it here?

It was moved uh to section 18-78 since it's related to the landlord tenant affairs commission.

Perfect.

Okay, that makes total sense.

Thank you.

All right, Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

So I don't really have any questions uh on this section.

Um first of all, I want to say thank you uh to staff for doing an excellent job of uh engaging with landlords with tenants and with the uh organizations.

Um, we've had conversations with renters and landlords here in Rockville.

Uh we've had conversations and gotten feedback, comments and clarification.

I'm just I'm just gonna read the list because I think it's really impressive uh what you guys have done.

Action in Montgomery, CASA, everyday campusing, housing and each of those partnership, housing justice Montgomery, Juice United for Justice, Latina Economic Development Corporation, Maryland Center for Legal Assistance, Maryland Legal Aid, Montgomery County DSA, Montgomery County Renters Alliance, Progressive Maryland, Renters United, Maryland, Rockville, Renters United.

We also get feedback from um AOVA, the apartment and office building association of Washington, real page, and Southern Management.

So thank you for this deep dive and for shopping it around and getting feedback from a lot of organizations with uh expertise on rental renters and landlords.

I think this is an excellent start.

I know we have uh uh questions uh about the definitions um and some little language uh tweaks, but overall, I think this is a wonderful effort, and I thank you very much for it.

Thank you.

Just a point of clarification that those were all of the organizations that we reached out to.

We did not necessarily hear feedback from every single one of those organizations.

No, thank you.

Thank you for the clarifying that, but the point still stands.

Thank you.

And I also know that you had many more participated in the second session uh that you did.

I think they were some of them had 40 or 50 different groups there.

Uh so I I know that you've continued to grow that list and appreciate that.

Thank you.

Council Member Shaw.

I also want to echo my colleagues and thank you.

I know this has been in a pretty extensive process.

Um, just just wanted to know, because I know there was some data previously, so half of renters are housing cost burden.

Um, I believe that was more than half, correct?

A few years, a couple years ago, I think it was last year.

Actually, yeah, I think it was last year.

It was um like 56%.

I would have to go back to that exact part of the staff report and see exactly which year of census data that's referencing.

Okay.

Um, but based on the census data that we were looking at, that was the accurate statement.

Okay.

Nearly half.

The last time I saw it, it was 56.

So it'll be good to know if it went down.

Also, that's um, do you have the number of severely cost burden of those spending 50% or more of their income on rent in Rockville?

So um in the staff report, we state that as of 2024, 53% of Rockville renters were considered housing cost burden.

And that means that they're paying more than 30% of their income for housing, and over 20% are considered severely housing cost burden, uh, which means that they're paying more than half of their income towards rent.

And I think you also noted that 46% of tenants have lived in their unit for a year or less than a year.

That sounds correct.

I don't have that staff report in front of you.

That is that is acute housing instability.

Um also uh you noted in here compliance costs may put small upward pressure on rent.

Can you just share a little bit more details on that?

Sure.

So if a landlord is required to bring on more staff in order to adhere with some of the additional requirements, then that would be an additional operating cost.

Um, and in order to cover any additional operating costs, landlords may feel pressured to increase rents a certain amount.

And um, within the feedback for renters, was there one thing in particular that they were requesting?

In terms of one thing in particular.

Yes, we we heard a strong desire for rent stabilization from many of the renters that uh spoke with us.

And that was this year.

Yes, over the last year of doing the update project.

And then the previous year, you when you did the input, um, I think it was in May, the tenant was it the same thing?

Was it rent stabilization again?

Yes, we've heard that consistently.

Also, did you use any of I think there was like hundreds of testimonies for rent stabilization throughout the past several years, not just outside of the input session, there were a lot of renters that shared what they needed.

Um, was any of that information used?

Because I know a lot of them um took a big risk coming and sharing, sharing, sharing that.

So absolutely, yes.

Um, out of that, we monitored the testimony that was given uh from tenants at that time as well.

Um, and one of the things, in addition to the desire for rent stabilization, that was a frequent um challenge listed for tenants was maintenance response times.

Um, so that was something that we heard then, and then we heard when we did the outreach for this specific project as well.

Okay.

And I know we're talking about the inspections.

Um, but I also just wanted to know uh the tenants' ability to call for their inspection and the city being objective between the tenant and the landlord and to go in there and to investigate and just get the facts.

Um also I I wanted to ask about the equity statement.

Um to see if uh if you can just um outside of this, just to provide a little bit more data on that equity statement, because I know that we're not doing rent stabilization, which is the number one thing asked and needed of tenants.

Um, is that and that there is gonna be there may be a small upward pressure on rent.

Um so if there is going to be a small upward pressure on rent, um, could you just describe a little bit more details on how this will benefit?

Uh I think this could be focused just on the fees itself, but there's less of a cost with more restriction on fees.

Is that is that where this is coming from?

It's hard to do that degree of discrete economic analysis.

The best that we can really do at this time is to say that these things may cause slight upward pressure because of some of the additional compliance costs.

But then again, um, there might be slight downward pressure and relief for tenants with the banning of junk fees um and creating hopefully a more competitive uh environment in general that will help to push rents down, as well as through some of the additional uh actions that Mayor and Council is taking outside of just this ordinance, but with the zoning ordinance rewrite as well.

Okay, because I'm I'm just a little unclear on how particularly um the reason why um uh renter black renters, black or African American renters um have the highest burden also aligns with income and discrimination and all these things, right?

And so I was just curious of how you got to the equity statement.

Um just to have some more details and understanding that.

And I I also want to share that at women um are also uh disproportionately burdened, particularly black women and thus black children.

Um these are my questions for now.

Oh, uh one more thing.

Um when you oh, Madam Mayor, my last question.

Thank you.

Yeah, do you have uh is this overarching or do you have any questions about this section?

If you could just let them know if you do.

This is a a clarity question.

Sure, so a point of clarity.

So um you talked about the two-year lease agreement, and you confirmed that in between the two-year lease, like after the first year, they would get a 90-day lease renewal.

It wouldn't necessarily be a lease renewal since they would still have that two-year lease term, it would just be a 90-day notice of rent increase.

And that's covered, sorry, can I just say that's covered under another article?

Uh so feel free to put the question out there, but if I know we're gonna go deeper into that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Councillor Van Gregg.

Um, thank you.

Um, this is really a fantastic job.

You guys have really done a great job.

And I have to tell you, generally, as we go through this, I really don't have many objections to what you have functionally put forward here and the initiatives and this highlighted proposed changes is I think in the direction that we want to go.

My one concern which addresses, I think, partially within this first article and throughout, is I think the one area where we can do a better job is clarification and definitions.

And I know that we've got a section right at the start of the first article that deals with definitions.

One, I think at least when I'm dealing with code, and I noticed that throughout most of the other code and articles, there's the subsections A, B, C, D, and E.

But in where we're talking about definitions here, we don't have that.

It might be beneficial to relate back to specifically have those subsections.

Like, for example, I know the mayor was talking about this.

There's numerous sections here that talks about written notice.

Sometimes that written notice is clarified of exactly as what to happen, certified mail within 72 hours.

Other time it just says written notice.

It might be a good idea right here at the outset to define whether there's different types of written notice or what written notice is meant.

In this day and age, we were talking about just the other day with regard to the zoned ordinance rewrite and some other sections.

What written notice means?

Is electronic notice?

Can a renter consent to having electronic notice as opposed to written notice by certified mail?

That's the type of clarification.

And I think throughout the um code, I know some subsections do have their own definitions.

And I know when we get to 18 148, I think there also should be some clarification, but we'll get to that.

But a lot of the other subsections don't have clear definitions.

And like, for example, um, section 18163, when we're talking about those terms and we're talking about fees, we have a lot of terms that are being used here.

It might be worthwhile in this first article to really set out some of the clear definitions that we're using later.

I mean, for example, we've got just within fees and what's allowed.

What is a pet?

What is a motor v motorized vehicle versus a bicycle?

Is there an in-between where you have a vehicle that has a motor but's not a bicycle?

What can renters do within those areas?

And I think there's a lot of areas within this code that we can make more.

I mean, and this is actually a quote from our city manager, you hear it all the time.

Clarity is kindness.

And I think that on both sides of the position here with regard to renters and landlords.

There's a number of areas, and just an example of some of the code provisions that I think we can have definitions that's clarified.

1811, 18146, 18163, 1814, um, and 18178.

I think each of those areas, there are terms used within those sections, whether it's about the fees, whether it's about the lease terms, whether it's about written notice, or whether it's about the timelines that certain actions are to occur.

Um, we can get into more detail.

I'm happy to provide some of the list of some of the definitions that I think would be helpful, um, but I think having this definition section more enumerated and more clarity with some of the other terms, because it seems to me like when we were uh just as a comparison 18148, 18146, and 18178.

They're all talking about different areas with regard to what can be done, what is a landlord required to do.

But in some of those cases, they seem to be using terms that could be conflicting.

And I just think um and when I went through some of the other landlord tenant codes, like I looked at Baltimore, I looked at um Berkeley, California.

Some of them they have a really robust definitions that permeate through the whole the whole code.

So I think we can do a little better, and I'll give some examples from some of the other codes that I've seen and can send it to staff in the next couple days.

Thank you very much.

We now have the next article.

Uh Councilmember Fulton.

I don't have any questions on this one either.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This article is Article 2, the administration division.

And it covers uh functions of the city manager, composition and appointment, and uh commission related pieces.

Uh, there's also a division three under here that covers uh complaints.

Uh so I'm gonna just highlight just a few small things that I have here.

Um, under the functions of the city manager, there is a piece that speaks to to promulgate administrative procedures governing the licensure and inspection of rental facilities pursuant to this chapter, including at a minimum, the number of dwelling units within a multi-unit building that must be inspected before the issuance of a new rental license or renewal of an existing rental license.

Um I wanted to call this out because we had a very dedicated work session focused on the inspections issue.

And unfortunately, we have seen in the past that there have been some affordable housing areas, in particular, that there have been more concerns that we're hearing concerns from residents and things that we're discovering.

Some of us have found them ourselves and have worked with our city team to help go in and inspect.

But we really did talk about what the enhanced program looked like, that percentage.

We talked about what we were going to be doing to do more to inspect on the general multi-side.

And so I I think that this is something that the mayor and council really wanted to change and to make better so that we can have more quality housing.

And I think we should be clarify and put that in here.

That's a policy decision that we were making and coming to say we were concerned about what was happening before we wanted to make improvements given what we were seeing.

So is it possible to add the elements of what was discussed in our work session?

I think it's probably just two tweaks.

What is the enhanced program?

Are you going in and doing 50% of that at least 50% of the building, or there was some language that we agreed to?

But can we can we make that clearer here?

Um so this language was uh drafted in collaboration with CPDS since that enhanced inspection program falls under them.

I'm just saying I apologize.

I know it's not your department.

I would so I think the quick answer is yes, we can.

I just want to be careful about getting too much detailed in here in case we want to make some flexibility, especially in year one before we come back and do an annual report on the effectiveness of the program.

Thank you.

I think at minimum we had a baseline, and so if we could at least put the baseline in here, you may all come back and say we're not we need more.

I think that's fine, but I do think that because we have seen uh differences in how it's enforced, or you know, there are staff changes, there are mayor and council changes.

We're trying to set this is what the baseline is for inspections program so that we can make sure that everyone has access to affordable and but safe housing.

So do you need any clarity from us?

Do you need a sustor poll?

I know we had a work session on this, so can we just put that in there?

I'll we'll do the best I can to put in something in there.

Again, I'm worried about being super restrictive.

The idea of a baseline in there, I think um something we can work with.

Perfect.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh, and then under the um I I wonder, is it is it understood that it's the city manager or designee everywhere?

I'm assuming that's what you guys will decide, or maybe that's a way to clarify in the early definitions.

There are some parts of our code that do that that say the city manager or designee, so maybe it's worth clarifying there.

Um, but I was looking at specifically the procedure following investigation.

Um, the city manager will attempt to conciliate the matter of methods by initial conference.

That was one I thought we could clarify, or at least put city manager designated, but if we at least put it up front, that would make it clear.

Uh the section 1879 80, a violation of defective tenancy tenancy found.

It changes the potential cost that a tenant might have to pay from 2,000 to $5,000 in fines, but I'm not clear as to how they could get up to that level, and it does that's a big jump.

Um that one gave me pause, and I just wanted to, and I know you're gonna come back with more fine information later, but that was something that gave me some pause.

So, yes, the change from 2,000 to $5,000 is the amount of damages that can be awarded at the landlord tenant affairs commission.

Um we've found that there are many cases where the amount in question goes beyond the $2,000 limit, and then those cases uh were unable to further assist with, and their only option going forward at that point since conciliation was not successful, is to go to court.

So the landlord tenant affairs commission um is a service that we offer as the city to uh be an option other than going to court and having to get lawyers involved to instead come to the city.

So by increasing that cap, and um I'm sure it had been many, many years since that cap had been uh last increased.

So uh based on the types of complaints and cases that we see uh $5,000 was more aligned with the needs of the community.

Okay, thank you for clarifying uh that it might save money in the long run by not having to use as lawyers, uh, but also that you're leveraging this based on the experience that you have.

Um, I do think that the body uh it's gonna be important to see how we break that down and what the fees can be.

So I I'm gonna put a pin in it then and know that you're gonna come back to us with more specific information about how we're gonna be looking at fees and that process.

And I think you mentioned that'll be another work session.

Is that correct?

No, that is not proposed as another work session.

So uh you're just gonna introduce it as a resolution without discussion.

So this is different than penalties.

So the penalties for violating any of the sections of the landlord tenant code, that would be done for uh through a fine resolution, but this is not a fine.

This is the amount that the landlord tenant commission can award as damages.

So it's not necessarily a fine for a code violation, but the amount that they have to play with when saying um that, for example, if there's a security deposit dispute or um a tenant has caused significant damage to an apartment unit or XYZ, all of the different types of cases that we can see.

So those those are two different things the penalties for violating the code and the um maximum award amount for the landlord tenant affairs commission.

And for that, you'll be using actual receipts or some kind of I'm just trying to get to what is the criteria that we're gonna be saying what is fair.

Um yes, so the landlord tenant affairs commission is appointed with the goal that um that they are the body who makes those types of legally binding decisions, which can then be appealed to court.

Um, but they are the body that is looking at all of those receipts in a very, very detailed way.

Um, if Trevor would like to speak more to this as our liaison to the landlord tenant affairs commission, um, but they're looking into those receipts and they hear the arguments from both the complainant and the respondent.

Um it sort of mimics mimics a court procedure without being an actual court procedure.

Um and then they go into deliberation in a closed session where they talk about what they've heard and decide what will be fair.

Um so that that is their sole purpose is really to decide what is fair in those uh situations after receiving all of the evidence and information.

And if folks are unsatisfied at that stubble at that stage, they can still take it to court.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right, that's what I have for that section.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I will be brief.

Um I was wondering though, um, have we run this by the landlord tenant commission?

This section.

So the landlord tenant affairs commission, we're not able to uh go to them for advice on code changes.

Okay.

And so uh I'm just curious like how many cases uh do they hear uh each year?

It can fluctuate from year to year, obviously, but I think this year we have heard five cases so far from formally.

Okay.

No, that's that's uh perfect.

The only other thing, and this is um kind of uh goes to uh council member uh Van Greck's uh point on the definitions, is um there was something in here about um uh security uh uh deposits.

And um I just want to caution you, you know, I I believe uh you are looking at every uh piece of code or law in the state of Maryland, but just to make sure that we kind of align with uh Maryland law as well.

Um somebody uh brought up uh kind of an inconsistency with uh Maryland law and what we had uh for um uh security deposits.

So just making sure that uh we're kind of aligned with uh state law.

We we are aligned with state law there.

If there's some options that uh uh we've been discussing today about ways that we could further clarify that, but um, just to confirm that it is in alignment with state law, um, but we could further clarify the language.

Thank you.

Councilmember Shaw Um I so I I know the way that the landlord tenant commission is formed.

Um there's equal representation for tenants, there's equal representation for landlords.

Are there any long period of time where there's vacancies, particularly on one side recently?

Sure.

Currently, the only vacancy we have is a tenant representative that we are still waiting on.

Okay.

And then I know that um they're set up to have an election.

Um each well, each uh the commission elects their chair, correct?

Or yes, that would be the proposed change, is that there could be an appointed chair.

Okay.

Um so there's not an appointed chair now.

There is an appointed chair now.

Okay.

But there's not they're not elected then.

Um the commission, yes, elects a chairperson from among the appointed members.

Okay.

Um if there's vacancies for a long period of time, like say you don't have a tenant, um, then the person who is leading, there's not fair representation with the leadership on the commission.

So the chair, are they a non They don't count towards the they don't count towards the balance of landlords or tenants?

Because we have both landlords, tenants, and parties that represent.

So they don't vote.

They do vote, yes, but they are not designated as a member representing one of those parties.

Um something that could be considered is having co-chairs with a represent a representative from a tenant and a representative from a landlord, just to make it a little bit more even, especially considering that there's been a while where there's been a tenant representation.

I just want to share that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Van Greg.

Thanks.

Um, I actually don't have any specific uh uh um definitional concerns with this section.

But just to follow up with Councilmember Jackson.

Councilmember Jackson, I assume you're referring to the section, I think it's uh of a real property article eight two oh three that talks about the different specific requirements of how much deposits can come at come out.

I was and also uh 18 uh 8.

Um well as comparison to real property article 8203.

So um in my looking into this, and correct me if I'm wrong, the state has a requirement.

We can go more stringent than that.

The state just sets us the limit.

Is that correct?

Meaning that if the state says two, we could go one, being more limiting.

Yes, that is generally how it would work.

Yeah, because I couldn't find any at least case law that says a municipality or county couldn't go lower than the state.

The state just sets the baseline limit.

Is that right?

Or or is that incorrect?

Yes, in this case, 1880 is talking about um uh security deposit disputes and that if a landlord imposes a security deposit more than the equivalent of one month, sorry, one month's rent per dwelling unit, um, they can award up to three times the extra amount charged um as permitted by Maryland law.

I think the question around there was that Maryland law does state that there are some exceptions where the landlord can charge more than one month's rent.

Um, and this is not necessarily stating those exceptions, but we do by including um as permitted by Maryland law, um, we're acknowledging that this section does need to be in compliance with Maryland law.

I gotcha.

So what you're saying is you're interpreting this to clarify we're going to the state limit, and those same exceptions would apply to Rockville landlords.

Yes, yes, this is not changing what a landlord can charge for a security deposit.

That's actually a great clarification.

Because and I thank you, Council Jackson.

Then that uh I actually interpret it differently.

I interpreted that Rockville was actually saying we're gonna be more limiting the state law.

So it actually could be something that we could more clarify in this section to clarify that the char the the amount of the landlords charging and even potentially even reference, you know, the real property article is not something that we would be asking a landlord to do more or less than it's the same limit that applies by state law.

Because I actually interpreted it like council member Jackson.

And this section is specifically talking about what happens if a landlord goes beyond that state.

Exactly correct.

Well, and I was interpreting that we were trying to make it more stringent, so uh that that that's a great clarification.

I appreciate that.

I will admit that I was as well.

So um we got some feedback about that.

Uh there were a couple things today where there was uh thought that we were more stringent than the state, and there was a concern, gosh, was it a utility cost or something related to that where it's it goes beyond I think it's when a land something about when uh utility costs need to be paid to the landlord and there was a concern that they should be able to collect for that?

Um so I just wanted to flag that feedback that we got from the community from members of the community.

Yes, we received that feedback as well.

Um which part of code for that one specifically, if you have the reference about the utility let's come back to this.

Yeah, it's it's actually if you go to the the real estate property article A 203B2 is where there's the specific exception for the utilities um that can be paid directly to a landlord.

Yes, I'd be happy to talk about that more when we get to that article.

We yes, we haven't gotten there, but thank you.

Okay.

Dr.

Miles, do you have anything on article?

Oh, the wait, did you are you done?

Or you still have more?

Is it maybe article?

Let me double check.

I'll come back to you.

Do you have anything else in this article?

That is A is in this article.

Yeah, it is.

I'm just looking to Jane.

Do you want us to come back to this?

To that question specifically about utility billing.

Um related to security deposits.

Oh, related to security deposits.

That's that's the interplay between the feedback we received in the community that you said you received, and I was just gonna ask you what's your interpretation of what we received specifically relating to the issue of the security deposit and not being able to collect that utility fee.

Um let me get back to you on that one.

Okay, the understood.

We'll give you time.

Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Um, I have no specific questions about this article.

I'm good to article four, but I do appreciate the conversation of my colleagues in staff's pre preparation for this.

That's all.

Excellent.

Okay, thank you.

So next we go to uh article three, uh, and it's covering rental facility requirements division.

Uh and there covers general licensure uh rentals facility goes more into inspections, uh displaying of licenses, minimum facilities requirements.

So I have a couple here.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um next.

Okay.

So for this one under division two.

Um the language is kind of interesting here because it looks like an under section 1811 that we would be potentially striking the language.

A rental facility must be inspected upon the receipt of a completed application for a rental facility license and before issuance of a renewal of a rental facility license.

I think you're trying to you're addressing that later, and that's maybe why you struck it from that section, but I just wanted to clarify.

Yes, I believe that that section uh we now have section 18-115 rental facilities inspections.

Um, so that section goes a little bit deeper into those things.

Um, and also the following language about the city manager may only issue a renew of rental license upon finding that 1234 goes a little bit deeper than what was previously there.

Okay, I just want to be careful because I know when we had that bigger discussion, there are some jurisdictions that hand over licenses without inspections.

We will not be doing that.

No, there's no proposal to change that.

I just want to make sure I this is something I care deeply about because of the quality of housing uh issues that we've discussed.

So I won't belabor the point.

Um, and then uh it says the city must provide at least 72 hours written notice before any inspection of a rental facility by certified mail, sent to the landlord's last known address and posting of it at the main entrance of the rental facility.

I just kind of to the comments of of myself and Councilman Van Grack and Councilman Jackson, just the definitions on what is can they do in email in addition to a letter?

I mean, I just I do think that um I was concerned about the delay on the process, and you know, if someone can get an email quickly, then they can start moving to to get to go.

So we don't really address electronic uh communications very well in this section because maybe you don't if we don't typically do that or require that, but I just wanted to flag that is a concern to me.

Um, and then section E in this area.

Um, a landlord is deemed to have violated this chapter for cities inspectors refuse entry to the landlord's rental facility to conduct an inspection that has been properly noticed under this section.

Each day an inspector's refuse entry to conduct a property notice and inspection is a separate violation.

So one of the things that you all have shared with us is that sometimes tenants deny access.

So what happens in that case?

Because it's kind of silent, it speaks mostly to the landlord.

And sometimes the landlord may be open to inspection, but the tenant doesn't allow.

So what do we do in that case?

So part of the reason why E is in there is because we're we want to hold the landlord responsible for enforcing their own lease with the tenant, and that the lease includes language around that you must provide access for these types of repairs and inspections.

So if it were to be directly uh direct us saying that the tenant is in violation, we would not want to institute a in a municipal infraction on a tenant and be enforcing the landlord's lease for them.

So that is why this language is in here, so that we are essentially requiring the landlord to enforce their own lease.

I do think that we should clarify that the tenant also, I mean, I that's part of the law the legal requirements.

We should also know that the tenant must provide access and value home.

That's something we could certainly clarify in the educational materials that we create afterwards.

What is so you're just saying so a landlord can be fined if a tenant doesn't provide access, but only the landlord can be fined, not the tenant.

Correct.

The tenant could be found um in violation of the lease, and then the landlord could take the tenant to court over not uh uh over a defective tenancy.

All right, you all have shared that this is a common issue, and so I'm concerned that I don't feel like it's as clear as it could be.

I do feel like we should say the tenant should also be is also the landlord and the tenant are required to provide access.

I'm not sure whether or not that is something that we can do.

I don't know if Christina's mic is working, if she's able to speak more to this than I could.

And sometimes this impacts the safety of other tenants, nearby tenants, um, because there are issues that are going on that spread to other units.

So that's one of the things, and I've heard feedback from you all about it.

And in those cases, Madam Mayor, too, just as a point of clarification in emergency situations where we do think it is gonna impact the health of adjacent units, a landlord could go in without providing that 24 hours notice.

And if the the landlord is fined because the city is not accessed, the landlord cannot pass on that fine to the tenant.

Because we have other sections saying that.

So this is why I think is tricky, and we should just be clear of what we're intending.

Uh is anyone from legal want to respond, or do you want to just get back to us?

Because I don't want to put you on the spot if you need more time.

I think we were trying to um get Christina Harris on.

Is there a problem with her mic?

She had let me know that she was having some issues with her mic.

Okay, we can put a pin on this, but if maybe if she maybe she can send the quick email in or note in so that we have that advice, so it'll be very helpful.

Oh, so we're seeing that um people who are online can hear her.

But we can't.

But we can't, yeah.

She is uh typing a message to me.

So okay.

Well, in the interest of time, I'll continue moving.

Uh go ahead.

Oh, she's saying it to all of us.

Whoever whoever has control of the system, there's a note that's come up on the system that says our output is muted.

So if there's someone either um within staff that can push the button that says unmuted, um we might be able to hear it here.

Teamwork makes the dream.

Well, they're working on that.

She has told me that she believes it's addressed in a different.

She's speaking, she's in we hear her.

Great.

Um, I believe this is in a different section.

I remember including it and making sure it was in here.

Um, but I can't currently find that.

I'm trying to do a search of the edits, but we can do that, and we can um, you know, um require that landlord can get in there and enforce their um lease.

We can make that adjustment to make it clear clear here.

Um that will be in the find where it is, I'll um advise.

Okay, I think if we can do that, that would be great to have that addition, and then also to include it in the education materials so that everyone is clear on their responsibilities.

Thank you.

All right, so um there are a couple other things in this section.

There was some questions that I saw about um just clarifying what the timelines are, and I think that's something that council member and grack also raised.

This section also covers those kinds of timelines.

Is it business days?

Is it um is it not business days?

I think that would be helpful.

Um I think there are also um some potential questions about um repair and deduct, and I'll get into that in a bit, but um section 18.

Well, I'll hold on that.

Uh 18127 also gets into um requiring on-site personnel for 100 or more units.

That is a new addition.

Is that correct?

Or are you requiring that now and it's not being forced?

No, so that is a current requirement.

Okay.

So there is a building.

I'm not gonna say which one, but there is one in Twinbrook that has this new technology.

Do you know what I'm talking about?

I don't want to say the names of the building, but they it's it's it's like not a on-site card, it's kind of like they there's a more electronic access and and things of that sort.

I I would be happy to share which one to see what they're doing, but please do.

That was one of the ones that I was just concerned about.

How would this have an impact?

And is this something where we haven't been enforcing and now that's gonna cause cause additional cost?

Have you have have we enforced this rule?

So Article 3 is enforced by CPDS, so I can't necessarily speak to that part of it.

Um I have not necessarily heard about it being enforced, but they would be able to give you more accurate information there.

Okay, all right.

Um, all right, and then you have uh sections on display uh rental license.

Um the landlord of a single unit detached dwelling right you must provide a copy of a valid rental license to all tenants of the rental facility.

This um I just wanted to note this is a new addition, which I think is a good thing.

Well, was it if it looked like it was add-in?

Um I want to make sure that there is communication specifically to small landlords for any new additions.

I know corporate landlords have staff and and so any new additions in this section that were really doing a lot of work to say here's the new thing before we start finding people.

So there haven't been any significant changes proposed for this section, but we will certainly be reminding folks of the current requirements when we do the uh educational outreach.

Okay.

And then on transferability, a rental license holder must give the city manager written notification of any change in address or change of property ownership within 10 days of such change or transfer.

Um if you sell if if you you're you got a rental license, your house no longer has a tenant and you sell it, you still you're saying you still want someone to contact the city manager.

Sorry, could you point me to exactly which section this is?

Transferability.

Which number?

Uh 1811, I think it's A.

Um, yes, if they uh are changing the property ownership, then yes, they must give the city manager a notification.

What if they're changing the ownership and no longer renting?

I'm thinking of small landlords here.

If they're no longer renting, then I believe there is also a requirement to let us know.

Okay.

I would have to double check.

Anyway, I think that's that seems overly onerous, but because normally the rental license comes up and they ask you have you sold your house and for single family that it's every two years.

So I just wanted to flag that.

I believe that if a if a small landlord renting a single family home were to stop renting and to sell their house, if they didn't have an active tenant, then there's nothing more that they need to do.

The rental license would just expire.

Perfect.

But if they do have a tenant, then there's a series of things that need to happen.

That is an important clarification.

That wasn't clear to me, and I appreciate you saying that.

Okay.

And then there's a section 1811 on administrative appeals.

It seems like there was language removed to be able to appeal the city manager's decision to the landlord tenant commission.

Um again, that's section 1811 administrative appeals.

Yeah, so this section uh is to uh really just streamline the process and to make it a little bit more clear than the um information that was in there previously.

Okay, well, here's why because I you told me before that the landlord tenant commission has helped people not have to go to court, but in this section, it's like the city manager delivers something, and in the past that they could go to the they could go to the landlord tenant to appeal that decision, but in the way it's rewritten is they city manager has a decision and then they have to go to court.

So I just it seemed to have met you know cut that step out as an option that it does not legal intensive that a tenant or a landlord could have to try to come to an agreement.

But I just wanted to flag that.

I may be misreading it, but would love to get clarification.

I'm trying to see if we moved that language to Article 2, but I am not seeing it in there.

I didn't.

So if someone could just check on that to make sure we're not losing anything that wasn't intended to be lost.

Oh no, not the I see the language that you're pointing out in Article 3, um, but I'm checking to see if we move that language into Article 2 where it talks more about the landlord tenant affairs commission.

I don't believe that we did.

Um the reasoning behind that is that um going to the landlord tenant affairs commission, uh having that as an option is a really great option for landlords and tenants to avoid court, but then um appealing the decision, um, it would really just be appealing it again and going through the same process with the landlord tenant affairs commission um and would be redundant.

Um so instead of incorporating that process into the code, we figured it would be more streamlined to uh tell folks that at that point you really just need to go to court to settle those matters.

Okay, and so at that point when the city manager gets involved, are you saying they would have already gone to land to landlord tenant?

And it would be a loop again.

Is there a possibility where the city manager issues because at that point we would potentially have the city manager being in conflict with the landlord tenant affairs commission, and that's a situation that we are also trying to avoid because in at that point um at that point there would be a question about what happens there.

Um and so the way that it's currently written is that the landlord tenant affairs commission, the city manager makes the the findings, does the investigation, tempts the conciliation, uh makes the recommendation for the case to go before the landlord tenant affairs commission, and then at that point the commission is the final say.

Um, but then having it to go back through the appeals process um would potentially put those two parties in conflict.

Thank you.

I think there's something like this go ahead.

I might be able to clarify this.

Yes.

Um, and so I believe it took me a moment to realize it's section 1811.

Um this is uh final action of the city manager under this article, as so in regards to issuance of rental licenses or suspension of rental licenses.

So this would not be addressing other issues regarding landlord tenant um disputes.

This would be purely article two, or uh this article on the licenses.

Um and so for that um regarding expertise of the commission and um where it would go for to have the dispute regarded this is again the final action for city manager to go to circuit court rather than landlord tenant affairs commission and only to this article.

That is super helpful, that it's only related to loss of a rental license.

Okay, and in that case, if the land it's mostly would be just be the landlord that would be concerned about that, and they would take take this issue to court, probably the city to court.

Correct.

All right, and some of the other items are already going to court if they're uh violation of rental licenses in a municipal infraction.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um under Division Three, minimum facilities requirements.

So we have specific language that speaks to smoke detectors.

I didn't see language that speaks to common uh carbon monoxide detectors.

So I was just curious, that is a common thing for safety in homes.

Why include smoke detectors but not carbon monoxide detectors?

I believe carbon monoxide detectors might be further covered, as are many other things related to property maintenance and those facilities under chapter five rather than chapter 18.

I I was thinking that, but then I saw smoke detectors and I was like, well, we have smoke detectors here.

So either we're including those things in the building code or we're including them here.

I just if we're gonna say smoke detectors, I think we should also say carbon oxide because we get to other gases like radon.

But I just that was something I think if we're gonna say smoke detectors, then add then add carbon dioxide, or are you gonna refer to the other chapter?

Okay, and then we get to some very specifics about hotels and inns.

I'm not gonna belabor that section, but it says like every hotel room must have two chairs.

That's not a thing anymore, really, in every hotel room.

So I just thought one chair, uh, I just wanted to clarify that because most hotels now you'll just see one chair so we weren't proposing to change anything related to hotels.

Um, but if the mayor and council would like to change something like one to two chairs, I wouldn't see any issue with that or two to one chairs.

I'm proposing we do one chair, because that's what's in practice now.

If we don't have to start violate, finding people for having less than two chairs in the hotel room.

Do you need a straw vote on that?

I'm not sure.

Basic enough that we can just do it.

Okay, thank you.

Um Councilmember Shaw.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, wanted to clarify.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, and then we for some reason struck providing fresh linens in a hotel.

So the reason behind that is because if you've been to a hotel lately, you may have seen that some places will have the um environmentally uh eco-friendly note saying that if you would like your linens changed uh once a day, um then you can contact them, but unless they're otherwise contacted, they wouldn't be changing the linens as frequently.

So I I would propose a modification that we don't say that they don't have to provide fresh linen, that they have to provide fresh linen, but strike the every day.

I want people to go into whole tour room and know that they're first lens from another guest understood.

Okay.

Um and I'm saying that because there have been issues, not necessarily in Rockfall, but that has been a thing.

Um and actually there's some places that they don't provide linen, people have to bring their own, which is also wild.

So okay.

Um and I didn't see in this section a fine for not filing a rental license.

So there are some properties that operate without rental licenses.

Is that gonna come separately?

Yes, that will be a part of the fine resolution that's provided separately.

But as of right now, um everything within chapter 18 is considered a municipal infraction uh with a cost of a hundred dollars.

Okay.

And then section 127, um 18-127.

It talks about a burner's five uh four or five burner stone stove.

I assume that since our building code is moving towards more electric, that's just understood.

Understood that it has to be electric, and it may not be a burner.

Sorry, it may not be a burner, maybe it may not be a sort of a traditional burner, maybe an electric kind of place.

I believe that the burner refers to either gas or electric.

Okay.

It's not specifying that you have to provide one or the other.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right, those are my sections for this comments for this section.

Thank you.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh actually, no questions for me.

Councilmember Shaw.

Yes, I have a few questions.

Um, I believe right rights are under the section.

That's Article 4.

Okay.

Sorry.

Um the two-year leases, that's under the section, right?

Or is that four?

No, that would be the next uh article.

Next one is juicy.

Um the data collection is also under that, I believe is under, that's at the very, very end of the chapter.

So I believe that's article uh article five.

Okay.

No questions for the section.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Vancrang.

Uh thank you.

So um a lot of my focus, just similar to some of the things that the mayor was said and said I said previously is with regarding some of the definitions and clarity.

Um, I also was looking at 18 uh 115, similar to what the mayor was.

I also circled with regard to subsection E with the refused, although I was looking at a little bit of a different direction, as opposed to penalizing the renter who might be refusing.

We might want to put an exception clarifying that the landlord will not be penalized if it is the renter who is doing the refusing.

Essentially, because this is for this is facing the penalties that's going to the landlord, right?

And if the penalties are going to the landlord, we don't need to increase the penalties to the tenant, because just as you said, that could be dealt with from a civil manner regarding the rights in the lease.

But the more important part is this is imposing a penalty directly on the landlord for the refusal.

If we clarify that if the refusal has nothing to do with the landlord's refusal and is a th either a third-party refusal, such as the tenant or some other circumstance that it is no fault of the landlord, then there shouldn't be an uh a penalty imposed.

Um because if we're imposing a penalty on the landlord for a problem in a unit where the tenant is the one refusing, should we really be imposing any penalty at all?

That's supposed to be for the benefit of the uh of the uh uh tenant.

I is that a potential way to deal with this?

I believe that the rationale behind still having a penalty for the landlord is that the landlord might need encouragement in order to uh in order to uh implement their own lease in this situation, um, that there could be a situation where the tenant has made a complaint about the property maintenance and they want it fixed.

Um, but for whatever reason they're not providing the access to the unit.

Um, and the landlord can what incentive does the landlord have to enforce the lease and bring the tenant to court for a breach of lease, if not then also receiving a uh municipal infraction from the code.

So then, but here in lies, I think some of the issues.

We're imposing some pretty very quick penalties.

We're talking about notice, we're talking about days to bring something with regard to a breach of lease against a tenant by a landlord, that doesn't happen within days, right?

That's things that could happen within many, many months.

So you're essentially saying to the landlord, we're gonna penalize you in a matter of days.

However, your only recourse is to try to enforce a lease, which could take months.

And so that's that's where I see kind of a juxtaposition of we're saying, hey, go ahead and do it, but their recourse is months and months away, whereas we're opposing penalties within a matter of days.

So that's why you know I think that allowing a landlord to be able to say, hey, I have done everything that is within my power.

I will still go and try to enforce it, but I shouldn't be penalized within a matter of days when I'm doing everything I can, including trying to go to court with a matter of months.

I see the point you're making there.

Okay.

Um and similarly, with regard to um as we go through 1811, sim we're talking about a wide range of the ability of the city manager or the city manager designee um to make um timing issues and specified period of time, but we're not giving any clarifications to what is within the permutation of specified period of time.

And I know this is not something that we can you know clarify here, but this is kind of one of those definitional areas that we might want to clarify.

For example, there could be a difference between a violation that is severe health and safety of the whole building, or it could be a violation that's maybe ministerial that doesn't need to be that area, and it could be something that we might want to have guidance for the city manager and his staff to be able to determine what that specified period of time is.

Umilarly, and I note just as an example, we're talking about written notice here within 1811.

The mayor talked about, I talked about it with the 72 hours of notice, but just in other sections, for example, 1811, we're just saying giving the city manager written notice.

So that's one of the areas that we might want to clarify, just as an example, that there's two neighboring sections, one of which clarifies the written notice and the other doesn't, how it could come to play.

Um those are my only comments in this section.

Thank you.

Dr.

Miles.

Again, I'm good until section four.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Fulton.

I think we've yes, I'm good.

Okay, sorry.

Yeah, great.

Um, so one last question for you.

With this new landlord tenant code update, are you gonna be reinforcing or have any way to there's some people are doing the right thing and getting licenses and some people are not?

Is that part of your program of what you're looking at in the city?

So we will continue to do what we currently do, which is to administer the rental license program.

And if we are made aware of a landlord renting without a license, they're issued a notice of violation and given a period of time to come into compliance.

Okay.

Previously, uh there was discussion about a technology that the city was gonna be investing in to understand when that it was kind of a scanner to see if if there are um properties being marketed that don't have rental licenses.

So I we haven't the Mary and Council haven't hasn't received a briefing on that.

This relates to my second topic related to this is um there are they're about 150 at least uh marketed short-term rentals that are happening.

Um and currently we don't have a regulatory framework for that to even be legal.

So uh, but if they're marketing without a license, we don't know that those units are safe.

So it just is a broader question not to be answered tonight, but I just wanted to raise this issue for us.

Okay, the next big section goes to councilmember Jackson, and it covers landlord tenants' rights and obligations, and some of the sections are contents, notice of entry to your lease, sub-leasing, additional leasing requirements, early lease termination, uh miscellaneous, uh those are some of the highlights, but there's more.

Oh my gosh.

I didn't plan that, Councilmember Jackson.

Sure, sure, certainly not, Mayor.

I believe that.

Um let me see.

You know what?

I'm gonna pass because I have to get my notes together.

No problem.

Councilman for Shaw.

Um, so I just wanted to note um that many of these rights are already state law and were existing.

Um so and I'm speaking particularly about the right to assemble, the right to distribute information, the right to use a common area without a charge.

That's actually a state, a state right.

Um so I I'm glad that we are aligning, but I just wanted to make sure, like especially for the listening public, that a lot of these rights we we've already had for um some time, and um they are incredibly important.

I just think that we have to just do um continue doing work just to let tenants know of these rights.

Um just like we heard today, um, you know, someone was um it was shared that someone wasn't able to distribute information when they were organizing a tenant association, that's against our law.

So I think it's really important to be able to make sure that tenants understand their rights.

Thank you.

I agree.

Councilmember Vancouver.

So, not surprisingly, some of my comments here with regard to clarity and definitions.

Um, and one of them, um, I know that the last time we were discussing the um and doing a straw poll and talking about um with regard to two years versus one year leases.

I know that's the first section that we get here.

Um, even amongst the mayor and council, when some of us have been talking this past week, there have been some even lack of clarity with how it's done how it's laid out here about what is allowed, what isn't allowed within the the a two-year lease which is required to be offered.

Now we do make it clear, which is absolutely crystal within um 181461B that you can offer more or less.

So you can offer a six-month lease, you can offer a one-year lease, you can offer a three-year lease.

But within the two-year lease, um, I know there have been some comments and clarifications with regard to whether that can you can have a graduated increase of uh pricing with of the rent within that two-year period.

Um I think it's debatable, but from what I've heard from a lot of folks, I've heard from some renters and I've heard from um some landlords that they want the flexibility to be able to adjust from a contractual relationship the way they would if, for example, it was going to be a one-year lease and a one-year lease to increase.

We might want to clarify to the extent that a graduated rental increase, so long as it is made clear through the benefit of the bargain and um upfront clarity that that's allowed.

Um, because I know that how it's phrased, I've heard some people say it is allowed, some people say it isn't, but we might want to make even even a subsection uh make B C and have a B there talking about pricing, because we've heard a lot from folks regarding rental pricing.

We don't want to have the landlord be forced to have one price when it could be graduated.

By the same vein, I think one of the reason we're doing this is because we want that option to be there, but we have the subsection B to say you might want a lower rate, a lower time period or a longer time period.

So I think we might want to just clarify again, city managers phrasing clarity is kindness, that we would allow a graduated um rental increase, because I think that benefit everybody.

Umilarly when we're going down in these kind of sections when we're talking about the contents.

Um similar to what we were talking about before.

Um, I just want to make sure that we're not imposing unreasonable restrictions on the landlord with regard to, and I guess this goes to things that could benefit the whole um unit as opposed to one unit who is unnecessarily um restricting access.

So just to look, I would probably make it a little bit more um stronger ability for a landlord to be able to do that.

Again, we've heard numerous times and landlords say that there is potentially sometimes a tenant who is unreasonable, run reasonably limiting the ability for them to get access, and it's disturbing everybody else.

Um that's something to consider.

Similarly, in subsection 16, when we're talking about subleasing, it says unreasonably withheld with regard to what a landlord's allowed to say no to with regard to a sublease.

We might want to clarify that definition.

What is unreasonably withheld?

I know sometimes that means that what is a reasonable person and one reasonable perspective.

Is financial reasonable?

Is the amount of people that is looking for the sublease unreasonable?

Is it outside the definition of household from the earlier section of the code?

When we're good, if we're going to be enforcing this, it's something that I'd want to have as much clarity as possible.

And I think this also goes to subsection 18163.

Now I thoroughly agree, and we've talked about this with regard to fees.

Like when we're talking about services or amenities related to the performance of any repairs, maintenance tasks or other work, which the landlord has a duty to perform to maintain the liability, the habitability of the dwelling unit.

Well, we could come into a situation where the utilities are adjusted, and that is now something that could be needed to be added, depending on how that utility is being charged for the whole unit.

Whether it's used to be like whether it's something that has been charged by unit and is adjusting versus those specific units that charge a percentage of whole.

How a landlord interprets that or how we're interpreting that, that should dictate.

So I just would like to see how at least staff is interpreting service as services or amenities to make it abundantly clear.

Because I think it's one thing to say you've got to have everything clear at the outset.

It's another thing to say these are what we're actually prohibiting.

I didn't know if you wanted to have any comments with regard to some of those prohibitive fees, or um, what staff is kind of interpreting with regard to those fees, or get back to us with regard to more clarity.

So the intention behind uh section 18-163A3, if that's what you're referring to.

Yeah.

Um, is that a landlord should not be charging a fee for uh fixing a toilet.

A landlord should not be charging a fee for um repairing uh dishwasher, that these are things that are inherent to providing a safe habitable unit, um, and that there shouldn't be any uh additional fee in order to make those uh repairs, and that is something that we have unfortunately seen landlords imposing.

So what you're just saying there, I think is abundantly clear.

I think this definition, just as you said, could be used to say you can't charge a fee for electricity and utilities, because that is certainly something that the landlord has a duty to perform to maintain the habitability of the dwelling unit.

I think I would argue that there's a difference between maintaining and doing maintenance versus providing something like a utility.

Um and then we do speak to utility uh and fees for utilities later in the code as well, with with a five here of any administrative or processing fees for utilities, including trash and in other parts of the code as well, talk specifically about utilities.

Usually if utilities are intended to be included in something, they're specifically called out.

Okay.

I guess I had interpreted that more broadly, but I guess if if everybody's interpreting different than I, then you know I'm clearly the odd duck there.

I know that sorry, before you continue, I know that we received a comment specifically about A2.

Um, that there was concern that services or amenities previously included in the rent could prohibit landlords from introducing utility cost recovery structures or ratio utility billing systems.

Um and so that's something that uh we received that comment and um agreed that it could be potentially interpreted in that way.

So that's something that uh we are happy to discuss uh amending so that it is more clear in that case.

Okay.

Um let's see the um I think hold on.

Um this goes to all right.

148 is still in this section as well, right?

Yes, it is.

All right, so 148 with regard to um um algorithm uh algorithmic prices fully agree.

This is absolutely something that we need to do.

I would ask staff to take a closer look.

I know that there have been a number of lawsuits, and I know that you know one of them in Nevada, which was specifically talking about whether it goes too broad with regard to the definitions of algorithmic prices.

Now I have not yet married specifically all of this definition with the I think I think there's one in California too.

It's a California and Nevada case that specifically said that their definitions were too narrow.

And I believe in both of those cases, when I went and looked up the case history, it ended up with some type of resolution outside of the court interpreting that it was too narrow or that it was properly broad, and the definitions both in those cases made it a more narrow than what the jurisdiction had.

I believe in how I interpreted their definition and our definition is they made it more narrowly tailored through current pricing versus past pricing.

Now, I'm not a specific code drafter, and this isn't my area, but staff might want to look at because while we absolutely want to have this uh this is something that I think almost everybody on this council have talked about it, and this is absolutely the right move to go.

We need to make sure that there isn't improper price fixing going on between landlords.

What I don't want to have happen is we have something that's too broad, and we ourselves have to be facing a lawsuit or an action because we've gone to that over broad that some of the other jurisdictions uh found themselves into a lawsuit as well.

So we might want to look into some of those other jurisdictions and what the consent order that came down from court um in, I believe it was one of them was Clark County, Nevada, and another one was um I forget which jurisdiction I don't have it written down accounting.

Well, it will that's not the county.

The city was Berkeley, but I'm not sure what the county where that lawsuit was in California.

So just something to think about when trying to do with it because it's absolutely the right thing.

I just don't want it taken away because we've been too broad.

Thanks.

Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thanks, staff.

And want again, thank my colleagues for their excellent review.

Uh the question I have is to get some clarity.

I appreciate staff's reply to my re question regarding the permanent relocation assistance.

Uh this is Article 4 division four in our agenda book, it's packet page 248.

What I was trying to gain clarity on are I guess how long, like what is permanent relocation assistance entail?

Is it something that goes on in perpetuity?

Is there uh uh a time at which it would extinguish like the the writing, the explanation for temporary assistance is fairly comprehensive.

I just didn't understand the permanent relocation assistance, and perhaps it's just my inability to interpret it, but I'm happy to take your answer here.

So permanent relocation assistance is really just a payment, is what we're talking about.

Is that a tenant?

Uh, when these XYZ situations occur, they would receive this permanent relocation payment.

Um that's the main thrust of the policy, and that payment includes the full refund of the security deposit prerata rent for the remainder of the month, the cash equivalent of three months fair market value rent, um, actual reasonable storage and moving costs, an additional sum if one tenant is a senior, a person with disabilities, or a minor child.

Um so at the at the end of the day, that's really the main part of the policy, although in that case the uh first right to return would also apply in cases of permanent relocation assistance.

Thanks for that explanation.

So it sounds like the limit is three months plus the security deposit.

Yes, it's those things that I just listed for the um part about the cash equivalent.

It's three months fair market value rent for a unit of comparable size as established by HUD.

And the second part I had a question about clarification is subsection C one B.

And the second part I had a question about clarification is subsection C one B, it says that tenant, I guess permanent relocation assistance.

I guess it's talking about a landlord is required to provide permanent relocation assistance to a tenant.

Looking at part B.

Tenant elects to relinquish tenancy follow-up period of temporary relocation.

That has lasted or is expected to last for at least six months before the tenant has returned to the dwelling unit.

So in this context, is it I'm just trying to figure out what this is saying?

Um I don't do housing for a living, so that's why I defer to you.

Um so if there's a temporary relocation, but the person just decides not to go back to that place even though it's available, they can get the permanent relocation assistance.

Um so this would be a situation where something happens to the unit, it's not safe to occupy, and the tenant has to leave.

They need to be temporarily displaced.

The problem can be fixed, but after looking at, you know, speaking with contractors, talking to them and figuring out how long will it actually take to fix this problem that's causing the unit to be unsafe to occupy, they realize oh wow, this is this problem goes a lot deeper than we thought.

This is gonna take eight months to fix.

At that point, the landlord informs the tenant, hey, I think this is gonna take maybe eight months or more to fix this issue, and for you to be able to return to the unit.

Um, the tenant can decide at that point that's entirely too long.

I'm relinquishing my tenancy, I'm ending my tenancy with this unit.

Um, and if they do that, then they would also be entitled to receiving that permanent relocation assistance payment.

So up to that point, they would have presumably been eligible for the temporary temporary relocation assistance benefit, but they can say at month seven.

So they're you know, the temporary things last for six months.

This project may take an additional month and say, no, it's too much.

I want to take off.

Correct.

And they would be eligible, they would get three months worth of rent, potentially.

Yes, and some of those other parts of the payment as well, but that would be the main part of the payment.

I understand the thrust.

I think it's I mean, as a whole, I think that this rewrite um certainly does center for the most part the you know, the notion that a home is a basic right at some level, uh that we should make sure that people can stay in their homes.

I wouldn't necessarily say this is definitely generous, but it seems to be I won't say disproportionate.

But if for example again, in this crazy example that I make up that probably isn't true, it's just a hypothetical.

But just to suggest a point, if the repair would take an additional month, they can say now I'm good for three months.

I don't know.

I I think that that strikes me as odd.

I I think it's great for the tenant.

I don't know if it's a small mom and pop landlord, that might be hard.

Um yeah, it might be it might be hard.

That's all.

So I'm I'm curious to see what my colleagues think, but it's just something that struck my struck me when I read it.

That's all councilmember Fulton.

Thank you.

I do actually have some questions on this article.

For first of all, I will say when I had several questions on this article, but you did a really great job of going over the feedback from the landlord and how you clarified for them that answered about half of the questions I would have had.

So thank you for that at the outset.

Um my first question though is going back, uh you all had a good conversation about the 1816 three on regulation of fees and clarity there, but you skipped over the one that I actually need more clarity on, and it's 18163A4.

I think it might just be awkward wording.

Any charge for which the landlord failed to request from the tenant after more than 45 days?

After 45 days of from what I don't know what we're trying to do there.

So this would be in situations where what kind of fee to use for this example?

Um, where there was some sort of parking fee for for example, or a bicycle fee, and the landlord did not charge the tenant for that fee and forgot to charge them for whatever reason.

Um if it's been more than 45 days since that charge is intended to occur, then the landlord would no longer be allowed to ask the tenant to make that payment.

That's interesting.

So number one, I think it just does need some clarity on 45 days from from what that so this would be a situation where it's a legitimate fee.

We have no concerns about this fee in general.

But if a landlord, I don't know, there was a mistake and it wasn't charged.

Is it you can't charge retroactively or you can never charge it again?

Uh you just can't re charge retroactively for that fee that was not charged for.

So I can't, you can't get my bicycle fee in arrears, but you can charge me next month for my bicycle fee.

Correct, yes.

Okay.

Um that all makes sense to me.

I think we might need a little bit of clarity on the on how that's I I support what we're trying to do.

I it wasn't clear to me uh when I read that.

Um my other question is on the relocation uh assistance.

Uh I have a couple questions.

I I share my colleagues' concern, maybe that um aspects of it might be more of a burden.

Uh the burden might outweigh the benefit.

But broadly speaking, if as I read it right for temporary relocation, so it's 18178.

Um, it is not uh that's not an entitlement when I think the language is the tenant failed to uphold the obligations.

I can't find it.

Hold on.

So when the reason for the dis the dislocation is because the tenant failed to upkeep or whatever, that there's an exception that there's no entitlement.

I can't find it anymore, but I'll just speak to it.

Um for the temporary.

That same exception is not in the permanent relocation provision.

Shouldn't it be?

Let me see if I can find that.

I'm trying.

Sorry, I'm trying to find exactly what you're talking about.

Yeah, me too.

What's the term for the line?

Uh I think would it be under fails to uphold number no no number four?

This is so bizarre.

I literally just had it up.

But generally speaking, that I think it might be number five, where it says the city manager may lift a landlord's obligation to provide temporary relocation assistance if a landlord provides evidence that a tenant's interference, obstruction, or delay has prevented the landlord from conducting necessary repairs to restore the unit to occupancy.

Sorry.

Um I believe it's at B2C.

Um the tenant's failure to uphold their responsibilities under the lease has led to the property becoming not fit for occupancy.

Yep.

Thank you.

There we go.

So thank you very much.

That's there for temporary, which makes sense to me.

But the same exemption doesn't apply for permanent.

So looking at the reasons why permanent relocation assistance could be triggered.

Um that would apply under it would be under C2, would be that because it the the parallel is notwithstanding, the landlord is not required under these circumstances.

And it's not repeated there, and I'm wondering why.

So for the situation, um, the first situation that somebody can receive permanent relocation assistance is if the rental license has been suspended or revoked, the landlord ceases renting.

That one, the tenant not uh allowing the landlord to make the repairs wouldn't apply.

Uh under B, the tenant elects to relinquish twent tenancy following a period of temporary relocation.

So that all of the temporary relocation things would already apply to that one.

She would have gone through the whole temporary relocation assistance process.

Under C, it also wouldn't apply because that's only in cases where the landlord is like redeveloping the property.

And then under D, is that the city manager determines the dwelling unit will not be fit for occupancy for at least six months.

So under that last reason, um, under C one D, I can see that that part about the tenant um being applicable.

So sorry, walking through this out loud, but I I uh take your point.

Thank you.

Okay, so my my suggestion to be clear would be to add because of that, it's a city something happens, the tenant is not upkeeping the property, there's there's violations there, there and the city manager determines the dwelling unit is not fit under those circumstances under two, we would we would say uh permanent relocation assistance does not apply, right?

Under two C2.

It would be one of the situations in which they would not be an entitlement to permanent relocation assistance.

Um I I do think that in order for it to apply under the permanent relocation assistance, option D, we would maybe need to include some more language, but I will touch base with that about that with Christina too.

It needs to be a notwithstanding no, I see what you're saying, and we'll make sure that it's covered in those circumstances as well.

Um I also will just say that I sort of I mentioned already, I share my colleagues' concern that we might we might want to take a closer look at the impacts of the permanent relocation on smaller landlords before we before we finalize.

On I had one more on this, guys, sorry.

Um exception to all of this where notwithstanding all of this, if the landlord and tenant agree to something that meets the criteria set by the city, then that would be okay.

Isn't this the criteria set by the city?

Like I I guess I don't know what that means.

So I am at 3D somewhere, notwithstanding the relocation assistance required under this section, a landlord and tenant may agree to an alternative arrangement which meets the criteria set forth by the city.

Are we are we proposing an administrative other set of criteria or just that there's something that could meet all of these requirements that there is something that could meet all of these requirements, but isn't necessarily exactly what we've outlined?

We wanted to provide some sort of flexibility for them to come to an agreement that isn't exactly as we've outlined, but still meets the needs of both the landlord and the tenant.

So I actually agree that we should have that, but I think the way it's written is strange because it implies that there's some separate set of criteria.

So maybe if we just changed it to an alternative agreement that the city also approves of or something, because it does imply a separate set of criteria than we already put out there.

I I see, yes.

I think that we can make some adjustments to uh speak to that.

Those are my concerns.

Thanks so much.

I love that my colleagues have gone first because I'll just say ditto on a lot of it.

Um I do have some additional commentary on this one.

Uh and I know this is a big section.

Um the notice of entry, uh, the ordinance requires 24-hour written notice in advance of any inspections or repairs, including situations where tenants request repairs.

Um this is a situation where um sometimes a tenant, like if if there's an overflowing toilet or something like that, like you you might need to get in there sooner.

And so I was concerned about the onerous nature of this one in particular for certain kinds of situations.

If a tenant's requesting it, or if there is a something that's gonna damage the property, that you gotta get in there.

That's one of the things that as long as the landlord and the tenant agree, or or if there's an emergency, I think there needs to be some flexibility in this language.

So I think the tenants might appreciate that the landlord responds more quickly, but we are putting in parameters that might prevent that.

So I'm sorry, you're referring to this section uh 146.

18 that dash 146 subsection 15 notice of entry.

Yes.

So with that, uh all of the changes that we have made there uh were updates so that we can better match state law.

And the exception to the 24 hour requirement is for emergencies.

So in an emergency landlord and maintenance team are allowed to go in without that 24-hour notice.

Understood.

But if the tenant allows someone to come in within 24 notice, if if they say get me someone as soon as you can, I'm gonna go on travel tomorrow.

Are they gonna be in violation?

So the landlord is required to provide the at least 24 hours notice.

I wouldn't think that there's anything.

Maybe it's something along with the.

Um, it also says and language the the language that remained and was there before, but as otherwise agreed to by the parties.

So the tenant can say, you need to come in here right now, and the landlord says, Yes, I can be there right now.

Um we don't need to rewait the 24 hours, and that's in there.

Uh what section is that?

What's the one?

That's in there.

Um right after Saturdays, except as otherwise maybe agreed upon by the parties in the towards the middle of the paragraph.

So that would allow them to not if the tenant agrees, then they can go in within before the 24 hours.

Yes, perfect.

Okay, and then the emergency situation is also covered here, providing that nothing in this paragraph prevents the landlord from entering the lease premises in an emergency situation.

Correct.

Okay.

And do you guys who defines what an emergency situation is?

Or is that reasonable reasonable?

Yeah, there's there's typical situations that are seen as emergencies like floods, like gas leaks.

Okay.

And it would be that would be clear.

Yes.

It's understood.

Yes, and usually um our code enforcement team has that definition as well as to what are some of those emergencies.

Okay.

Um the early lease termination.

So the landlord has to give 60 days notice for a number of reasons if they're gonna do it, but then the tenant can give 30 days.

That's that's state that there's some state law there, is that correct?

In regards to month to month leases specifically, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

So is there anything that's different from state law in the section for early lease termination?

I don't believe so, no.

The we go a little bit further than state law in saying what are the situations where a tenant can do the early lease termination with only 30 days' notice.

Can you clarify which ones are not state law that we've added?

Um I'm not sure which ones specifically go further than state law.

Um, but all of the ones B through H are new additions to city code.

Can someone get back to us just to clarify which ones are state versus not?

Sure.

That would be helpful.

Okay.

And when I was listening on one of the calls, people were saying, okay, what does that mean for payment?

But I think you're you did try to clarify here that they only pay 30 days.

Yes, so at the very end there it says that the lease may provide that in the event of termination for such cause, the tenant shall be liable for a reasonable termination charge not to exceed one month's rent.

One month's rent, okay.

Okay, yeah, I just would love to get the clarity.

I do know that it to turn something over.

We definitely want to be supportive, but to turn something over, usually we'll take 60 to 90 days.

Um, and so there will be a loss there.

We understand that, but I do there are obviously some really good reasons give, especially given some of the federal job losses that we've seen that people really do need to move, or if there's a safety issue.

Um, but I I would like the clarity if possible.

Um, the other thing was on two-year leases, and similar to my colleague, Councilman Van Grack, I've heard some questions about this as well.

Um, on both sides, and I think what we're trying to do is we would like to see that renters have the option to stay for two years, it gives them stability.

Um what I heard is that they people might charge a higher fee up front, and you have some provisions that you added since our last work session that allow an increase to happen with 90 days notice.

I'm wondering is is there a possibility that we could say yes, you can increase the rent within those two years, like after the first year, but there's some kind of clear, transparent of here's what it is in year one versus after year one, so that people know up front what their rent increase will be.

I would think we would be able to include that, yes.

I think that would be very helpful because I think this this body was trying to really increase transparency and give consumer choice, increased choice.

Um, and I just wanna don't want to inadvertently cause harm in another way.

So I I think that would be helpful to me to see what that looks like.

Sub leasing, uh, can you just clarify what's the state law is on this one and where we go farther than state law?

I'm not sure what state law is for subleasing, but our current rule around sub-leasing um is that um the landlord should not unreasonably bar the tenant from uh being able to sublease the unit.

Okay, I think I had comment questions similar to my colleagues on like what is that screening like?

Does what is what is reasonable?

Um that wasn't clear to me.

I think that the property owner should be able to clear whoever is going to be subleasing, so it's not just done without their knowledge, um, and that there may be some criteria of like the landlord can't stop a tenant from trying to cover them if you know there's something reasonable.

So I just I wanted to see if there's any clarity that we can have on that particular section.

We can consider that, absolutely.

Okay.

Um does the I think it's at the point of lease, but when the when the common ownership community laws that we're having here, and any renewal offer letter provided must include rent which matches the rent listed in the lease.

If the rental unit is located in common ownership community, the landlord shall provide prospective tenants with a copy of the common ownership communities by laws.

Is that at the point of leasing, right?

Is am I getting that right?

Or and at the renewal.

Yes, because this is under the section of additional leasing requirements.

This is something that would be required as a part of the leasing process.

Now, what I'll say is in the city of Rockville, the rental license happens, but there's not a lot of like here's what your responsibilities are, here's what you need to give the tenant.

I I think that we might have a situation where people don't know what they have to do, or that there's so many new things, state laws changing.

I just I do think that we need to leverage the rental license process to be able to use it as an education point, because I don't think we're currently doing that as well as we could be.

So I if I don't I know that's not your department, but I think the par the departments need to marry in that in that case.

Um is there something that we can say that this will happen going forward?

That's something that's already a part of our plans for improving landlord tenant education.

Excellent, thank you.

Um it says that a landlord must provide a tenant the entire rental payment history within seven days of a tenant's written request.

Is that seven business days or a seven total days?

And is it unless otherwise stated as business days, it just means days.

Okay.

Now this makes sense for a corporate landlord who has a database, but I just I I was thinking maybe, and maybe that if this is not state law, that that could be business days or something where people have time.

Because if you're saying the entire, that could be years and years and years that people have to dig up.

So I just that was something that made me think that for small landlords you might want to have a consideration there.

So is the suggestion to make it business days?

I would be fine with business.

Anything that adds a little extra time for small landlords, I think that would be helpful.

Okay, okay.

Um I appreciate the eviction history addition that we have here.

Um they can't we receive some questions about it, can't be included in the application, but it obviously someone can still do their own background research.

Do you feel like our code is clear that they can still do that, or do we need to clarify that?

The code as drafted does not explicitly say that the landlord can still use publicly available information, but it is clear that um they are prohibited from including a question on eviction history on the rental unit application.

Is there um a reason not to clarify that?

Um I would think the only reason to not further clarify it is that if it's something implied, we usually try to keep the code as as simple as possible.

Okay, all right.

But maybe there'll be a QA or something in the educational materials.

Yes, because I I expect that more landlords will hopefully be reading our landlord tenant handbook than going through that.

That was a question that kept coming up and up and up.

So it would help you guys if you get it answered someplace once and for all.

Yes.

Um, okay.

So this is one thing that I know that we don't clarify, but I have seen this situation, and it's um under that same section, but C if a dwelling unit is the Molly price and regulated under uh city code chapter 13.5, which is our Marley Price Dwelling Unit Code, and the tenant no longer meets the income requirements, the landlord may terminate the lease pursuant to that chapter.

I do appreciate that we're referring to the other chapter, but Dr.

Miles and I experienced this last term where like as soon as one missed the income, like they were no longer in the income criteria, like they were kicking people out.

And I know we worked hard to make that change, but I just I don't know if there's a better way to refer, it's like it's not as soon as a person doesn't meet that income.

There is some level of graduation that we a wiggle room that we allow for people to be able to still stay and not have to leave immediately.

We do, and in order to keep things as clear as possible.

Um, and this is what we've tried to do throughout the code.

If we're referencing a different part of the city code, we want to reference that part of code.

So that way if something changes at any point in the future, we're not trying to see all of the other parts where we talk about those specific requirements.

Um but if it's something pursuant to chapter 13.5, then we're pointing people there since we also hope to update chapter 13.5 in the future as well.

And um, who knows, maybe something around related to that could change.

We had to, we did make some changes to allow to move from three months to six months, and then I think we also made some changes to allow a little bit of flexibility.

I just know that some people have tried this and um since.

And I it just it concerns me that it's so flat here that it's like you're out, and I just want it to be humane, and maybe you'll deal with that in the education materials.

But I do think it needs to be married in one place, someplace when landlords know that they can't or shouldn't do that.

We can make that clear in education, absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

Um I agree with my colleague, Councilmember Fulton on the charges limited for 45 days.

Um the one situation that I've heard of on a number of uh comments is sometimes the water billing can be more than 45 days.

How would you handle that?

We've received that comment as well.

Um, and that's something that uh we've had preliminary conversations about changing that from 45 days to 120 days in order to uh make sure that we are allowing for situations like water billing.

Okay, and maybe the city will have monthly billing one day, and um, but yes, I appreciate that because that that was one of the key things that I kept hearing.

Um the trash service, we received a comment today about trash and valet service.

Is that a thing?

Is should we be worried about that?

This relates to fees and um so valet trash service was not something that I've really heard a ton about, is it that something you've experienced when working with tenants?

Yeah, it's become increasingly popular in the city, um just as an additional fee on top of a flat trash charge.

And so something that we would um propose to consider there is adding an exemption for valet trash service, as long as that regular trash service is still provided and still an option.

So it's like an option and not required.

I would support that, and I think that should be clear.

People should have their basic trash opportunity, and then if they, you know, someone may be senior or someone whose mobility concerns that they want some additional support, that should be okay.

Okay, all right.

Um I mentioned this last time, and uh I didn't see it fully clarified, and it relates to storage, and this is optionals, right?

But I totally agree with you all when if a storage is attached to the unit or attached to that home, that that is included.

But sometimes there's like a basement and they're like numbered and people can choose to uh it's still in the building and it has a number, and it could be construed associated.

I have a challenge with the word associated with I I fully support the do not charge if it's attached to, but associated with like they could be a numbering system that's in the building, and that should be optional.

Sorry, let me pull up that exact language.

Except section C 10 of which section?

18.

Uh I will have to look.

No worries.

I know we have a loyal guru who's scanning, so maybe she can help us.

So with the fees, so all of the language that we have, as I'm trying to find the exact language there related to fees and fee restrictions is meant to match the county.

We want to make this as simple and as streamlined as possible so that landlords um aren't necessarily confused when they're trying to when they're trying to implement the policy.

So that is why that and all of the other language around fees um is what it is, is because we are trying to match the county.

I agree.

We do have some differences with the county though.

We've been clear about that.

And I do think that if it's in the unit attached to the unit, yes, but the associated with is so broad that it could cause problems for us in the future.

So what this section is saying is that a landlord may charge a fee for secure storage units accessible only by the tenant, and that the landlord must not assess or collect from the tenant any fee for storage located within or attached within the dwelling unit, because that would be seen as already a part of the rent.

If it's attached to or associated with, then that's a part of the rent.

But if it's um not associated with that uh with that unit in particular, then the landlord could charge a fee for it.

That's all that that section is saying.

Except that it says a landlord must not assess or collect from the tenant of a dwelling unit any fee or charge for storage located within, I agree, or attached, I agree.

The associated with is what's the challenge.

And so you're saying that the landlord should Right.

If it's in the if they have a basement and they have numbered storage opportunities, that's not necessarily a guaranteed storage, but it's how they organize, you know, so that that's where I'm saying that that the associated with is too broad.

Okay, and that a landlord should be able to assess a fee for a storage unit that is associated with a unit.

Like if you're renting a unit and it's always a part of the lease that if you're renting unit A, you get storage unit number six.

And that's that's a guarantee.

You're saying that in that situation, the landlord would be allowed to charge an additional fee for that storage unit.

Like I've been in some buildings where they are associated, there are marked parking sections, right?

And it's a choice whether you choose to actually park there and you have a vehicle, or if you want to have a designated space, then that's your choice, and that's an extra fee.

Um, so that's it, it seems to be similar to me.

The associated with, I just think is broad.

I think in that situation with parking, in those situations, you are reserving a parking space, but the parking space is not typically associated with the unit until you make that reservation, if that makes sense.

Uh yes and no.

I I I totally agree with the attached, I totally agree with the located within.

It's the associated with that is so broad that could be caught to me cause some challenges.

If we tightened up the language, I'd be fine.

Uh, but I think it's the associated with is just so broad, in my opinion.

The um tenant organizing fantastic section.

Um, how do you deal with the fact that uh it's kind of the language a little broad on like if someone I know sometimes those rooms are used for baby showers and events and things like that, like they would still have to go through the reservation process, right?

And it's not gonna knock out other uses for for residents who just want to use it for family life things.

Correct.

They just wouldn't uh the tenant or organization just wouldn't be allowed to be charged a fee, but they could still go through the typical reservation process.

And they can just is it uh unlimited per month?

Uh I do not believe we have placed any restrictions on the number of times per month.

Has this been an issue or I'm just it's great to do it, but just are there any lessons learned that we need to just anticipate?

Uh not that not that we're aware of it, hasn't particularly been an issue.

Um then I really appreciate that the fees section is going to get rid of the ability to charge for packages.

I I've only seen one building do this, and I've I'll just say I can use the word I find it obnoxious.

Like everyone should be able to receive mail.

Um and so this what we're writing will limit someone's they people will no longer be charged this package fee.

So under the ordinances drafted, the landlord would only be allowed to charge the fees that are listed, and we don't have a package fee there, so that's not something that would be allowed.

But if there's an additional service that the tenant voluntarily opts into, some sort of similarly to the ballet.

Yeah, valet trash, valet uh package delivery, uh, then there could be an optional fee for that.

So I'm aware that it's in like new app that some people use and they sign up and they want the package delivered to them.

That that makes sense.

But at a basic level, everyone should be able to get mail and packages.

Obviously, you can't receive a couch and have it stored somewhere, but reasonable packages, I think makes sense.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you so much for that.

Um, what about I really like the requirement to be able to pay that in a way that's not electronic?

Like someone wants to hand over, no, some people still use um money orders, right?

Um or they want to do a transfer.

The one question I has have is are we saying that they can't charge a fee for using credit cards?

Or like a service that charges that the it causes the landlord to lose part of the rent.

So the section reads payment of rent or other fees via either non-electronic or electronic means a landlord cannot charge a fee for that.

Um this is specifically about if you're not paying through uh so yeah, for you you can't charge a fee for paying rent.

So the way that that is worded, and I might need Christina's interpretation here.

The intention is that you would not be allowed to charge any sort of processing fees, whether it's non-electronic or electronic.

So someone pays by credit card and the landlord is charged 3% by MX, just an example, they can't recover that fee.

Because the city charges an automation fee because we're recovering credit card fees.

So how are we how we how are we saying no one can charge recover credit card fees?

So to clarify, that is how it reads, and that is what um the uh from um how I was we were told to write it to say that they can't charge any fee for payment of rent, and that would include the processing fee.

Um we could make some adjustments there, but it would be saying that the processing fee should then be um placed on the landlord, but um that one can definitely be adjusted, and I know we saw comments about that.

Yeah, I mean, I'm just saying I I was against the city charging the fees, the automation fee, but you all said you really needed it.

So I just I felt like it's slightly hypocritical where it's telling people they can't recover the credit card fee if the city's not willing to do it itself.

Um so I would appreciate any clarification there.

Um then how do we deal with clarification between normal wear and tear and not?

Um this came up.

I'm not gonna name a property, but someone was claiming I've fixed this toilet 10 times, the person is damaging it on purpose.

I'm not how do you all deal with that?

That's a good question.

And there's no, it's more of an art more than a science, I think.

There's there's some standards at Montgomery County level about the lifespan for for certain amenities or certain uh appliances that we can often go by as a best practice, but a lot of those things just vary um case to case, honestly.

Yeah, I mean, I know when I was growing up, we needed a new refrigerator and the landlord tacked on 12 extra a month for like getting new.

I think that's not that's egregious, right?

Like and then it's like it doesn't go down 12 once the fridge is paid for.

So I really appreciate what you're doing here.

But I just I that was kind of the thing is like how do we clarify where and tear versus not?

And is there any written guidance that you guys have to be equitable and fair on both sides?

Um was a general question that I had.

I had similar questions about the relocation assistance, particularly for like less so on like corporate, but like on small, someone who still needs to pay their mortgage.

Um, I felt like it would may have I I totally support the relocation systems, but I I I thought it would be more cost neutral than it is right now.

I do feel like someone could really be in a financial situation if some of the I won't repeat everything my colleagues said, but I'm just gonna echo what they commented on.

I think it needs a little bit more look, and I think Councilmember Frank Rack mentioned it as well.

I think this we struggled with this last time.

It's like we want to do this program, but we feel like what is that right amount?

And I don't think we have it yet for permanent relocation assistance?

Correct.

Are there any changes that you would suggest to bring it down or something we could consider um if the Merit Council wills it, is creating a different set of criteria for small and large landlords.

That's not something that's in the code at any point uh currently, but is something that could be done.

Small large landlord would help me a lot because I do feel like someone can absorb more than someone who's like a mom and pop just trying to cover the expenses.

But I do I think Dr.

Marles said like if someone has moved in, if they've found something new, like and they're still gonna get amounts.

I it was something that was he said that made me think about that.

I I just I don't have the exact answer.

But I I do feel like it's a little the comments of my colleagues mentioned, I think might give us a hint of how to maybe adjust a little bit, particularly on the permanent relocation.

Um do you know if we have experience or best practices from other jurisdictions who have done this work?

Yes, all of these uh recommendations, including those for uh permanent relocation assistance are based on best practices from other jurisdictions.

How many how many jurisdictions are doing this now?

Do you have?

Is it is it a lot?

I do have a list, it's not a lot.

Um there's really a handful across the country that are doing a few uh permanent relocation assistance policies.

Um it's more statewide in California with temporary and permanent uh because state law speaks to it as well.

Um, but outside of California, there's a handful of jurisdictions that have such types of policies.

Yeah, I mean, I really felt like the moving expenses, the storage expenses, but then you tack on three months on top of that.

I just that was I was trying to like cover the expenses and be more cost neutral so that we're helping the tenant get into a safe locate, safe place.

But I if we're covering storage and reload and moving expenses and other things, I just I that some of that seemed a little high.

I don't have the exact answer, but I do think we should analyze this a bit more in particular, but particularly the permanent one for me.

Um I do appreciate the um the temporary.

Um and I think you clarified also that this isn't this isn't qualify in play in the time of natural disaster, correct?

Correct.

Because I know that like I'm thinking of Plymouth Woods was one of the properties that it's technically condos and people own them, but they're like small micro folks, and there was a significant issue.

I think with the fire and then with the flood, that was really beyond their control, and you know, people were really struggling because they were paying the mortgage and not able to get in, and then they would have had to also pay real, you know, a have a hefty sum.

So that's just want to give a real life example of of a situation like that.

Um I have heard this on the sessions that you have when we have some of the lease requirements.

It's my understanding that city previously said that we wouldn't give any sample leases, but the county provides a sample lease.

Can we revisit this?

That was an opinion of the former city attorney.

So it's something that we could revisit.

Um, but uh that was the direction that we were given by the city attorney's office.

And so that is why we created a lease addendum.

Um that uh that was the recommendation, and so that that would provide all of the specific points of Rockville City Code and ensure that those were incorporated into the lease.

I would appreciate if we revisit that, uh, just because we have so many micro requirements that you could really get tripped up.

Again, if you have corporate corporate person, you you have big time lawyers, but you may not if you're a small um so I just that's one of the things that would be a helpful resource, just so that we can people can do the right thing faster.

The lease receipt, it doesn't clarify um can they send an email version?

Or does it have to be print or is it agnostic on purpose?

So the lease receipt, yes, reduced amount of time the landlord must provide the tenant with an executed copy of the lease 10 from 10 days to three days.

And this time you did put business days.

Yes, the lease can be provided electronically.

Okay, thank you for that addition.

Um I support the um giving tenants more time to review the lease prior to execution, that was fantastic.

Um I also uh I wanted to understand for rent increases.

One of the things this body talked about is trying to see if there's transparency so that lens let tenants could see what's the history of rent increases by that property owner.

How have we addressed that in this code?

So in the data collection section, um, one of the things that we would be collecting on the basis of the rental license renewal is the current uh monthly rent charge.

And with that data, we would be able to uh calculate the year-over-year change in rent and have the information about those rent creases increases over time.

That helps you, but how would the tenant get that information?

So we would like to put that information on some sort of it's not spoken to in the code, but putting it on a public dashboard where folks can look at the rental property and see um the average history of rent increases.

Okay, that's helpful.

I was particularly like wanting to highlight those who go above VRG.

There's like a red flag or something.

I think that that would be um that's where I would focus my energy.

Um because I know that's probably a lot of work, but I appreciate that it's not it, it's not addressed yet, but it's coming.

That's something we can certainly talk about more as we get into providing that data in the portal.

Okay and what it would look like and how it would be presented.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh repair and deduct.

Um you guys have criteria for yourself on what you're gonna allow for repair and deduct in terms of what types of repairs.

Um, so it would need to be, let me go to the section with repair and deduct.

I guess my broader question is how do we not incentivize landlords to just be like, okay, you fix it.

We really are they should be taking care of the property.

And I I I like the I like the provision.

I'll just say this.

My mother has done this uh when she was alive.

When she couldn't get something done, she would repair and deduct.

Um what is the range of of what can be done?

And is that clear is that going to be clear someplace?

Um so that's something if we need to establish administrative protocol and we can establish internal standard operating procedures around it as well administratively in terms of encouraging landlords to not have tenants rely on repair and deduct.

Um, based on the response that we've received from landlords, I would be surprised if if that began to happen since landlords are seem to be a little bit nervous about having tenants uh be in charge of making those uh repairs rather than they themselves being in charge of making those repairs.

Um so we do have all the requirements set forth in code.

Um there aren't any um there wouldn't necessarily be anything to stop a tenant other than the landlord not making that uh making the repair within the notice of violation period because this only applies once the landlord has already failed to address the uh maintenance issue uh within that reasonable amount of time.

And it's something that you all would have to approve.

There have been issues where there's like he said she said that I've seen you guys deal with.

Um, but it would be something that you have to approve.

They don't just don't do it.

Insofar as it would have to go through the code enforcement process of going and receiving a notice of violation and having the compliance period come and go, and then we would work to ensure that the tenant was using a licensed contractor on top of it, but that would probably likely be the nature of our involvement.

And we have we have staffing to help with that to do that.

Yeah, so that would that would be uh it does say the the city manager may authorize a tenant to use the right of repair and deduct.

So, yes, we would be authorizing the tenant to move forward with that.

Um, and we do have the staff to make that type of authorization.

That's gonna so how does staff do cost recovery on that work?

Cost recovery.

Yeah, like when we went through all the fees, it was a discussion about we need to be cost recovery.

Uh, how do we how how is it that after this goes into effect you're gonna need a new position because it's not covered, the fees are not covering it or the time is not covering it?

So this is part of the um part of the code that is generally administered by our landlord tenant affairs program.

So it would be one of the many responsibilities that our landlord tenant affairs specialist is um is providing one of the many services.

Okay, so you anticipate that you can do that with current level of staffing.

Uh that is our plan, and we are not um planning to charge any fees in order to provide those services.

Okay.

Uh, and then in terms of the cost of like I know that there was a concern about are people using licensed contractors.

If something traditionally costs 250 dollars, could someone charge 800 and deduct that?

Like, how do you deal with the reasonable reasonable cost issue?

It would have to be a reasonable cost.

Um, and if it's something that the landlord wants to dispute as not being a reasonable cost, that's an issue that we would first attempt to conciliate, and then if unable to conciliate, could take to the landlord tenant affairs commission.

I would just say, is there anything we need to tighten the language to clarify reasonable cost?

Um that reasonable cost is another thing that we could create internal standard operating procedures around.

Okay.

I just see you guys could see you guys getting a lot of questions about this one for sure.

And just needs to have criteria so that you're fair on both sides.

Okay.

Councilmember Jackson.

There's a benefit to go in last.

And then that that is that they um my colleagues have uh covered much of what uh I actually uh had to discuss.

But I would just say um going through it uh what uh I wanted to address.

Uh I agree with the mayor and with uh council member Ben Grac um about the two-year lease, and uh I I do think that there needs to be some more flexibility and um uh options for the landlord and um uh the the renters.

Uh I don't think a two two-year lease uh necessarily works for um uh every everyone.

Um so then let's see here.

I'm gonna be jumping around a little bit.

Uh fortunately some of my colleagues have done the same, so I don't feel too bad.

Um 18146 number 15.

Uh the mayor made a great great point on that.

Uh I mean, if a uh uh uh renter has a problem and calls and the the landlord goes out and fix it, um I don't think that's a big problem, and I think you address that.

Um I did want to dig in a little bit on uh item 16 because I'm just not sure.

Like, what do we mean with the landlord's written permission?

Which prevention must not be unreasonably withheld.

What is that?

Unreasonably withheld uh like what does that encompass?

Is it just you know when you see it?

I've had an opportunity to do uh quick research.

I will need a little bit more time to address that um from a legal standpoint, but um from Maryland state law that's on a case law level, um, and they also use the term unreasonably withheld, so I can um get back to you on what that actually is in the case law once I uh read the case.

All right, no, that thank you.

And I I mean I think the broader point it uh I think many of us up here uh made the point is just being kind of precise with our definitions.

Um I think that there's a wonderful document, but the devils, as I say, in the details, and I think the definitions are really uh important.

So let me see here.

I like the uh 90 day notice of uh a rental increase.

Um the price coordination and algorithm algorithmic devices.

Um I think uh customer Van Gregg's point.

Um I think that we should be very careful in uh writing uh our uh uh code so as to prohibit collusion, but not um uh using data that's uh publicly uh available.

Um if I uh understood his point correctly.

And I think I mean I think that we'll be smart to just double check that and make sure that we're not uh putting ourselves at risk a lawsuit.

Um or at least if we are that we're uh bulletproof when it comes to that.

But I just have to say, I mean, I like the uh Alvacoburithic uh pricing um uh the ban.

I think it's something that's sorely needed uh for residents and for uh landlords that want to compete.

Um and uh I I think that it's uh unfair advantage uh with people that uh use uh that kind of uh pricing.

On the uh section of tenant rights and obligations, so just to pull on that thread a little bit.

Um how do how does somebody know?

How does management know that somebody who says that they're a tenant organization is actually a tenant organization?

So we don't currently have any sort of registration systems for tenant organizations, um, but a tenant organization um would be an organization that is bringing folks together in order to represent the tenants of the building.

Yeah, and I mean uh maybe we should just tighten that up or have some sort of um uh I don't uh I don't I has hesitate to use a word.

But it just seems like you could have a uh uh uh an apartment building where people are uh approaching them all the time saying we want to have a meeting because we have a new organization when people get the word out that um they require to open up the rooms, some people might try to take advantage of that.

I don't think very often, but it could could happen.

So I think some sort of uh uh registration would be uh you know uh advisable.

Um I want to ask a question about the um organizations have the right to distribute freely and post in essentially located uh areas of a rental facility.

So what do we mean by um freely distribute and post like what with what sort of materials or posters or what are we talking about?

Typically flyers and posters.

Okay.

Like, you know, did the is it okay to uh put it up with tape, with staples, with wheat paste.

I mean, I think you should you it's a slippery slope, uh I think.

And I mean if nobody else is is really uh allowed to do that.

Uh we just we should just be careful in in terms of like what it is that um they're allowed to do um in a common area.

So let me see here.

I agree with the uh with my uh uh colleague council member uh Fulton on the uh 45 days and uh I think I mean especially on the water, um that people need to have at least 120 days.

Um common ownership penalties and somebody missioned it, I can't remember which one of the uh which one of my colleagues mentioned it, but I know that common ownership properties the landlords are not the best at um giving copies of the bylaws to uh renters, and so we have here common ownership community penalties that says that if a renter isn't violation of a bylaw, that they're responsible for uh paying the the violation fee.

And I just wonder about that because at we've already discussed many times they're not aware of what the violence are.

So how do we uh guard against uh them having uh violations that they don't know anything about?

Um so we've included elsewhere in the code uh that if a tenant is in a common ownership community that the landlord is required to provide them with those bylaws.

Okay, so it if they have a violation of the bylaws, and I guess they go to a landlord tenant and say I was never given the the bylaws.

That's likely what would happen, yes.

All right, perfect.

And I believe that I am done.

Thank you, Councilmember Shah.

Um, I I have a few points.

Um I think my colleagues covered some of them.

Um it's um it's an interesting experience, I think listening to a lot of these questions and points, being a tenant.

Um, because some of these things are just kind of like uh just regular day-to-day things.

Um so I wanted to go back to the two-year lease.

Um and so to be clear, the two lear two-year lease was proposed to provide tenant stability, right?

To provide housing stability.

Correct.

Okay.

And in the county, as far as I'm aware, when this originally came up, there wasn't actually an increase between the two years.

So that was something that we needed to seek additional clarification on, and then the clarification that we received is that um as written, if there was that two-year lease term, um, that the landlord, as long as it's in the lease, um, would be allowed to provide the 90-day notice to issue a rent increase within a two-year lease term.

So a tenant would sign two years and then be under contract to then pay whatever the landlord is providing in that 90-day that is my understanding, yes.

Even if they can't afford it.

Yes.

Okay.

And so I think originally when we talked about this, there wouldn't be an increase.

And I know that in the context or in the abstract absence of rent stabilization, where there's, you know, you you don't really have any idea what you're going to be charged next lease renewal.

I'm not sure if this somewhat applies, or there's a desire to do that because there's no there's no stability with the two-year lease.

Um and so I I would just wonder, like within that different context, since Rockville doesn't have the same amount of tenant protections as Montgomery County, um if that it makes sense in the fact that we don't have rent stabilization.

Um and then my other question would be unless unless we're actually providing real security where we can have the two years without without an increase or two years um with a very clearly defined how much the the rent increase would be in advance.

Um and so that's I know that a number of tenants were asking this question because in a city where we have such acute housing instability, um, that would provide a lot more stability for tenants to be able to stay in the I mean that's like almost unfathomable to stay in your place for like two years.

Um I think it's something that we just have to be considerate of considering the context of Rockville having l far, far, far, far less protections than Montgomery County.

Um and then the other thing I was gonna share, um, just about like the tenant organizing.

Um I think we just want to be careful that we're not infringing on First Amendment rights when we're trying to dictate how tenants should be organizing and sharing their voice.

Um and usually this is, you know, if you think about it, tenants do not have the same amount of power as their landlord does.

Um, and so a lot of this comes up in a very organic way, or the need to try to um be able to have some housing stability or for most cases that I've seen in Rockville uh tenant associations start because they're trying to have some um ability to have power over their cost, over their conditions.

And so I just want to be super super careful that we're not infringing on First Amendment rights, even down to how people should post in their building uh flyers or information.

I think as long as I think that comes from a state law anyhow, and I think that as long as it uh the flyer or whatever material shares where it's coming from, um, I think that that that's fine.

Um, but I just want to make sure that we're not uh harming our residents um and and making it harder for them already.

Um I also wanted to ask just like in the spirit of transparency, um, a major thing that I'm hearing um is that tenants would not have moved to Rockville if there wasn't rent stable, if they had known there wasn't rent stabilization.

Um, because the county law is something that was publicized, and so people think, you know, I'm moving to Mount Gomery County or I'm moving to this part of the county.

So naturally they're gonna think that they're you know going to have the same type of level of protections.

Um have we thought about like including that in the lease so that tenants know up front?

Because if we're talking about choice, if we're talking about transparency, um, and I have seen so many tenants in leasing offices arguing with um with the leasing office, like sharing that they have a right to rent stabilization, they have a right to the 6%.

Um, and it's like it's they just don't know.

Um and so it could be something where we can include, I know it's in some of our materials, and it's like some somewhat hidden, but um, to actually share that with um with the tenant when they're signing their lease, just so they know so they can have that choice that we're talking about.

Especially since the county is just like so close by.

And then I do think, you know, I throughout this conversation, we've talked about smaller landlords and larger landlords.

And last week, I think we also talked about how we can define that.

But I think this just keeps coming up.

So I think that's something that we can figure out just to define and to make sure it's consistent throughout the code.

Um, I was just gonna just note with the repair and deduct.

Um, I've just agreeing with you that usually that that is an incentive to landlords to not want to have repair and deduct.

So that's an incentive to fix something.

Um so I think that in itself, just to consider that that it's already an incentive.

Um, so just considering that, how we how we shape that.

Um thank you.

Thank you very much.

I wanted to just also go on the record saying I appreciate the work on uh the alpha algorithmic pricing.

I was hoping that we could pass that tonight, but it sounds like there's some edits that are gonna be coming back to us.

I don't know if we could pull that out separately, but it sounds like that also may be something that you're looking to edit slightly.

Um I do appreciate that um the team will look at, and to my I did ask this question.

There hasn't been a search on what are the lessons learned from the cities or counties that have been sued and the settlements they've made.

I think that would be useful information.

We have we have been researching that, yes.

Okay, I did receive something that said we don't have it just yet.

So um appreciate maybe that could be shared with us so that we are aware of you know, as you put that as you incorporate that.

But I I do want to see that go through in Rockville.

I was hopeful we'll be the first jurisdiction to do that.

So I we'll see when when this comes back to us.

Um I did wanna just clarify in the two-year lease.

What I heard from my colleagues is the stabilization and the transparency would happen at the beginning of the two-year lease.

I don't think it's fair to have someone change their lease after agree to conditions of a term after they've already signed the contract.

So I just want to clarify that it was up front.

The landlord could say, here's what your lease is in year one and year two, and that's an option that the tenant has to sign that two-year lease versus after 90 days, after a year, it's just a random.

So my understanding of how we've currently written it is that uh with the two-year lease term, an increase could happen at any time in that lease term as long as there's that 90-day notice of increase.

Um, and we'll have to talk internally about uh to consider language if it's the will of the mayor and council to put more guardrails on what that increase within the two-year lease term could be.

Um so it would be helpful to have clarification if that's something that the mayor and council would like to see.

Yeah, from what I heard from last session and this session from the majority, or the or many, so a couple of voices was that they would be upfront knowledge before they signed a two-year lease of what they would be appearing in year one and year two, and not a change after a contract is signed.

That was the intention of the policy, and I think there's based on the discussion tonight, there's certainly more that we can do to make that clear in the code itself.

Yeah, so it's just the random ability to do a 90-day, you know, give nine a day notice, and then you know, I've already signed the contracting and telling me what the it's just the person signs a contract up front.

I'm told here year one, this is my rent will be, year two of this is my rent will be.

And then there's transparency and clarity and additional potential stability where the person can make a choice if they want that two-year lease versus after waiting for a year and having a random increase, that's you know, which can happen if they just they sign a one-year lease.

But the there's a there's a pro for both renter and landlord to do a two-year lease.

And we're trying not to do it in a way that causes a large increase up front, but is spread out.

So that's that's I think what I heard the intent was.

I'm seeing some head shaking.

Yes, okay.

All right.

Um, and then the one thing I'll say is I I agree on protecting First Amendment rights.

I I would do I do think that there are some things that the city has done so that property does not get damaged, like wheat pasting is not allowed in the city uh in terms of the the damage it could be done.

I think that's a something that the city manager has shared with us, but I would assume that no one would wheat paste in a building.

But it's happened around the city, so it's possible.

So I just it's as long as it doesn't cause damage to the property.

Yes, if a tenant is causing damage to the property, then they would likely be in violation of their lease with the building, and again, the breach of lease process could be followed.

I just say that because it was weak pasting around the city.

It's just you can put something on a bulletin board.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

Well, I appreciate all of my comments, the comments of my colleagues.

Councilmember Shaw, go ahead.

There's another article.

We have one other article, so Silco.

So um just wanted to circle back to the two-year lease.

Um, with when a tenant's right, um they receive um like all types of my apologies.

When a tenant receives a lease, they typically receive um various types of um terms that they can sign the lease.

And so what we're saying is when we're requiring a two-year lease, um, that the two year will be in, and usually like to prevent the back and forth, uh, the landlord will provide two year, one year, 14 months, and usually the um just just some background knowledge, usually the the amount or the term that the landlord wants that tenant to stay, so it's typically like 13 months or 14 months, like usually trying to get them closer to the summertime where they can charge a little bit more, um, or all types of reasons.

Um that percentage is usually cheaper than the other ones.

Um when we have the two-year lease, and again, in in the absence of rent stabilization where you can charge whatever you want, and that so that requirement of when we're thinking about providing stability, they can charge that tenant 150% increase.

They can charge that tenant 75% increase if they don't want them to have that two-year lease in the absence of rent stabilization.

So it's it's almost like we are we are focusing on this, but I think still since they can charge them whatever they want, it it may not even be relevant to most tenants to even be able to take that option because it we're still not providing guardrails on the percentages.

And that's every lease that I see, like for example, um, month to month um leases are typically very, very high.

And typically the landlord does not want the tenant to take that one.

So uh my last lease, for example, it was a hundred and fifty percent for month to month, right?

So, like clearly my landlord does not want me to take that.

So I I just want to share, like in practice, when you don't have something like rent stabilization and we're we're focusing on stability and this two-year lease option, um, still landlords can be able to charge a really high amount so that tenants cannot even fathom of uh picking that selection.

That's correct.

Thank you very much.

I know we've had a very long couple work sessions on that topic and appreciate the the feedback of uh with the full context of all of the information and considerations that the body has had, um, and I appreciate you looking at adjustments to the two-year lease so that people are not paying more up front or getting the random increase in between the two-year lease, but where this two-year lease might move us to having something that might be helpful.

Okay, so we have another article.

And Councilmember Shaw, you are it's your chance to go first, if you would like.

Um I just have one question, then I'll circle back.

Um I just have one question, then I'm gonna circle um and listen to my colleagues.

Um this article covers data collection.

Um, can you share or remind us what we agreed upon or the direction we provided previously with the data collection?

Because I think it was something like five years.

Um there was a and we were taking the average of the five years.

Yes.

So in the previous work session, we talked a little bit about how the data that's collected would be displayed.

We ended up not wanting to enshrine that in code to allow us to have a little bit more flexibility about exactly how things are being displayed.

But yes, I believe the direction that we went for how to display rent increases was the is either three or five-year average increase across the entire property.

Okay.

And then my other question is since most tenants, you know, in Rockville having acute housing instability.

Umce most tenants don't stay for two years, three years, or in one building.

Um, and also there's different um lease agreements.

Like typically it's been a while since I've seen someone have a year lease.

Um, most people take like the 13, 12 month or whatever.

Um, and I think this was based on like the annual increase.

Can you share how you would collect the data if there's gonna be so many different types of it's hard to compare the terms of the lease because there's so many different um different types of lengths of term for leases.

Yes, we would be specifically looking at the average year over year monthly rent increase for all units in the past five years.

I know that's that's a little bit confusing.

But it we would be looking at specifically, we wouldn't be looking at 14 month or 16 month leases.

We'd be looking at annual leases and the or be looking at the landlord submits a data point to us um in March, and then the rental license is up again in March.

We'd be receiving at both of those points the amount that the landlord is charging for the unit.

Um, and then we could calculate what that change is in the unit for all of the units in the building in order to get the average increase of those units from March of 2025 to March of 2026.

There, I mean, there's there's such stark differences.

Uh I've I would just be concerned about the accuracy using that process and all the different situations and all the different lease agreements.

I mean, if you're putting month to month in the same pot as like a 13th month lease, um, there's there's some huge differences there.

Um I would just I think we may have to think through that a little bit.

Um or maybe there could be like different go ahead, sorry.

Sorry.

Yeah.

So the goal of that would be that taking the average across the entire property would be able to iron out some of those differences.

If there's a very unique situation with a month-to-month lease or a very unique situation where a unit needed significant improvements and the landlord upped the rent for that unit because of that, whatever the reason might be, by collecting it for the entire property, we would be able to um take the average and thus those outlier situations would not be as reflected in the data.

I mean, I I understand, um, but I I still think within especially a lot of the multifamily buildings where there's a lot of unit units, there are stark differences.

Um, and there's a lot of folks that are doing month to month.

There's, you know, there's there's just a lot of there's just so many variables to say and to give someone an average and say, you know, um this is this is the average month.

I mean, this is the average rent, and there's just so many different variables that go into that.

Um I just think that maybe there could be some other ways we can organize that.

Thank you, Councilman Van Gregg.

Thanks.

I I actually think that um how you laid it out is uh pretty you've done a pretty good job.

Um, and I think that the variation of what has to happen and when there can be requests from the city as well, um, is a good job.

One other thing that I think uh ahead of my notes with regard to kind of overall, we're talking about definitions.

The only thing I want to clarify, I know that within state law in the real property article, they do make a difference between um squatters and those who don't have a valid lease and a tenant.

And I just want to make sure that within our definition there isn't any protections that we're giving to folks that have squat that might be there, but not necessarily have a formal lease with those protections.

No, not in our code.

Okay, just just something to think about, because I know in the real property article, there have been some bills um to address that.

But that the only overall article or uh the overall incident overall article uh five, how you played it out.

Did a nice job.

Thank you.

Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I have no comments on this portion, section five.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fulton.

Okay, actually, just to have one comment.

Uh, this is is as far as I can tell, the only part of this code that actually references the Department of Housing and Community Development as being able to make a determination after determination has been made by the director of housing and community development.

We actually do define city manager up front as city manager and anybody whose delegate is already there.

So for consistency's sake, you might want to just change that to city manager.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I that's kind of why I was like, it's down here, but not in other places.

What should we do?

So I I agree with the just make it clear and consistent.

I support that.

Um I did have um, I will just say overall I felt like this section was done very well.

Um I mentioned earlier about my desire to have some more of that transparency data so people can see when which buildings are gonna be um having rents higher than the VRG.

I think that will be very helpful that you guys are collecting that data.

There's one section that I was uh one that's a flag, which is section 18195 mandatory reporting requirements.

It says each landlord may maintain records for each project on the arrogate basis containing the following information which shall be made available to the city upon request.

If it's someone who just has owns one property, like how does I assume it's just for that one property, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Um, because not everyone has it's you know, and some people are smaller than a big corporate organization.

So I just wanted to confirm how you interpreting that.

Yes, it would be for anyone, including those who only own one property.

Okay.

Um and when you say data in the arrogate, what do you what how are you how how would you apply that to a small entity?

For which reference to data in the aggregate?

Uh the mandatory reporting requirements for 18195.

Um, so with that if they if there is a property that has more than one unit, we would be able to then take the information in the aggregate.

Um all of this information would be reported either property wide or based on the unit specifically.

So if someone has a individual property and they're not arrogating things like utilities, like some larger multifamily, they're able to see, okay, here's the total utility cost, and then they find some way and they're divide it up.

But if someone has a single family home that they're renting and they've had a renter before, how would they know what the average monthly utility costs are um they would if they're a single family home, they would be able to look at the utility bills for the past um for the past period of time and make that determination.

So they could require their current tenant to give that information to them.

That's a good question.

We can think more on that and get back to you.

Okay, that was the one I was just like there was something about the smaller like case situation that I'm not sure that they would have access to that data.

We'll confirm that.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

That's super helpful.

Um I had the overarching comments, a few, just a few small ones.

Um I mentioned the short-term rentals already.

I think that's something that's gonna keep that's gonna pop up.

I know we didn't want to deal with it initially because things were changing all over the laws, but if if if that is a if we are seeing a growing number of them and they're taking away from housing opportunity and or they're not being regulated at all, I think we may need to see what that is.

I will say Gaithersburg has a short-term rental policy, but they don't collect any tax revenue from it, which is very strange.

So it's just it's a Pandora's box that I still don't we still haven't fully felt figured out, and I think the county's still grappling with that as well.

Um the squat of laws, that was something that I saw came up in comments.

How are we dealing with?

I know they may be a state law question, but what happens in the case of squatters?

Yeah, everything related to squatters is currently dealt with in state law.

Okay.

So we would defer to that.

That's what I thought.

Okay.

We're gonna touch the we're gonna address the cooling requirement later.

We're gonna come back to us on the rent increased transparency approach.

Um, I did mention the lease template from the county.

Um the fee for return checks.

Uh, that was a comment that I read in in one of the comments we received.

Can they, if someone bounces a check, you can't recover a fee for that if if you're charged a fee.

So I think that's a question similar to the credit card processing fee.

So we'll look at both of those things together and make sure that we have um clarity in the language around that.

Okay.

I mean, if if people are not being charged and don't charge, but if if there is a charge that you incur, I think it's something like $25 or something that banks charge.

I don't remember what it is.

I haven't fortunately haven't had to deal with that.

But um that could be an issue that we have to anticipate.

Um I know we'll get to seeing the what the costs are for not having a license.

And that will come to us later.

Um I saw that there were comments on maintenance response times.

I think we'll uh what you guys have put together are gonna help address that, right?

Um it was interesting that there was commentary on challenging challenges with responsiveness of city staff and lack of clear points of contact.

Did you get any more information about what people meant by that?

Um, with that, I mean, I think people had a range of different experiences.

Um, and with the differentiation between rental licensing code and code enforcement, and then landlord tenant affairs, that's something that people are frequently confused about.

Um, and that we're trying to make sure that there's we're we're working together as closely as possible to make sure that if somebody comes to landlord tenant for a code enforcement issue, then there's a warm handoff made and they're given all the information that they're need that they need in order to then uh work with code enforcement to solve that problem and vice versa.

Um, but we own that there's definitely ways that we can do better there.

So I would say that's not us to figure out that's a city manager to figure out, right?

And you all will feed him information and work with him to figure that out so that operationally we're as effective and efficient as possible.

Yep, already working on that.

Okay, excellent.

Um there was a question about responsibility of paying water bill when a tenant moves out.

That was a comment that came up.

Is that a common issue?

It's certainly something we've seen, we see relatively recent or relatively frequently in cases where a tenant moves out and they aren't moving into a unit that has the same uh water system, uh, then the water bill goes to the landlord.

If they're like if somebody is on Rockville water um in their current unit, and then they move out and they haven't paid their bill at apartment one, when they try to go to apartment two, um it won't let them establish water uh water account for apartment two until they paid for apartment one.

Um but in the case that they're moving to a service area for WSSC, for example, or they're they bought a house, you know, for whatever reason they're not trying to reopen their account, um, then that responsibility is left with the landlord.

Did I cover that correctly?

Are are you all or able to help address that by using the security deposit generally speaking?

Is that is that resolved or is there is there a bigger issue that we have to figure out here?

Not necessarily.

Sometimes there can be some awkward interplay between the security deposit requirement of 45 days and the billing cycles for water.

Um but it's not always common.

That's a good point.

You do have to return security deposits, but the water bill comes late.

How do we fix that?

We don't have any brilliant ideas necessarily in the proposed code at this time for that issue specifically.

Um, but it is an issue that has gone before the landlord tenant affairs commission before.

Um, and so if there are cases going forward into the future where we can't conciliate that type of dispute, I imagine that's something that would continue to go back to the landlord tenant commission.

Can the landlord call the water company in the case of us or WCC and say has the bill been paid within the 45 days before they issue the check?

That's something that could happen, right?

You could, whether or not they would have the information to provide it at that point is is another question.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Well, it sounds like we don't have an exact solve.

Unfortunately not.

We have to keep working on that.

Okay.

All right.

And then um the other comment that I saw looking just scrolling through all the feedback, the HVAC inspections.

Um tenants provide access for HVAC inspections, correct?

And I would imagine that's only like in a smaller duplex or a single family or town home.

You said tenants provide access for if the landlord can request access for HVAC inspection.

Yes.

Right now, there's no so I I don't know why there was it seems to be like an issue that came up in the comments that we received, but I'm not sure.

Okay, we don't know.

All right.

I think those are all the things that I picked up from the comments and the feedback.

I appreciate all the work on this.

I was hopeful to pass algorithmic devices, but it sounds like the whole code's gonna come back to us and you'll let us know, Mrs.

City Manager, what the timing would look like.

Yeah, we'll um well, a couple things if it's okay.

If you guys have specific comments that you want us to look at, whether it's definitions, et cetera, getting that um uh information to us sooner rather than later will be greatly appreciated.

Number one.

Number two is we're not gonna slow roll this at all.

We're gonna we really want to get this adopted as soon as practical.

We want to do the MPDU next.

I think you guys kind of foreshadowed that earlier this evening.

So we'll get all the information.

We'll take a look at um what we need to tweak and then I'll put on six months as soon as practical.

I just don't have a recommended date tonight.

That's totally understandable.

I I want to thank you so much for your time uh and appreciate all the work that you put into this, it's been fantastic.

And I know that you guys have really stretched your brains and work together to make this possible, so thank you for that.

I think uh we'll have a much better code after this and we'll have more protections for residents.

Thank you.

Okay, so um I it is now 10 o'clock.

Uh and I want to discuss the fact that we do have a meeting that's coming up on the next meeting, is slated to end early by nine.

We have one major item on there, which is Jedi.

Just want to see with my colleagues if you would like to propose that we do ZOR then, or if you want to start cracking that open now.

Um, if you look at the next agenda, it looks like we do have some flexibility if Mr.

City Manager is amenable.

Um Dr.

Miles, so we'll go down the line.

I'm okay with moving back to June 1st.

Okay.

I'll go with the majority on this one.

Okay.

Same.

I think that we should do it.

Um at the next meeting.

Councilmember Jackson, you're saying same as whatever everyone else is saying.

Thank you.

Councilman Shaw.

I just don't want to move Jedi.

We wouldn't.

I think it's it ends at nine o'clock next week, so we could we could accommodate that.

I mean, I'm I'm fine going forward.

I don't know if we're gonna need much, but if the body, if everybody else wants to move it, I don't have an objection, but I'm fine either way.

Councilman Fulton.

I do just want to uh maybe ask the city manager or make a comment.

Like, yes, it's our time on Monday nights, and I don't my brain shuts down, but there's a whole behind the scenes thing that happens here, and things need to get moved around and people so it makes sense if we're only looking at Monday nights and schedules.

Yeah, I don't I would love to not go ahead, but I do want to know what the impacts are to everything else going on when we do this all the time.

Um I mean staff's here, right?

They're prepared, they're ready to roll.

They made adjustments with their family, et cetera.

But we understand if we don't want to get there tonight.

Um I guess what I would request is that if we move to June 1st, I think that's a nice beefy meeting.

I think we can get through Jedi.

I think we can get to the ZOR for sure.

Um my request would be that we'd still keep adoption on June 29th for the zoning text amendment.

Okay.

We just have to turn it around.

I agree with that.

Councilman Van Grask.

I would just like to note, I mean, we now have Zor and the Jedi.

We haven't really touched Jedi before.

I think that's going to be beefy to the extent we can maybe do some of our questions ahead of time and sending them to staff so that we can make sure that we get to both those items.

I don't want to postpone any more.

Um, but to the extent that we can try to get as much stuff answered with staff before ahead of time.

I think that'd be good because I don't want to keep pushing things off.

I agree.

Uh colleagues, councilmember Fulton.

No, I do just want to emphasize that.

We should be able to do that, particularly because we were ready to do it tonight.

So we should hopefully with the extra week be able to get questions answered and be able to do it faster.

That's a good point you made.

So, Mayor, I'll go ahead and adjust uh six months, and you guys will all see it on Friday to show Zor final work session June 1st.

Everything else stays the same.

June 29th will still show adoption.

I think we'll be good to go.

Okay, thank you.

And we received some comments from College Ground Civic Association.

Can you just share a staff opinion on that?

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Well, I think we covered mock agenda.

Uh any old new business.

Okay.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

You guys want to stay.

Councilmember Fulton.

I move to adjourn.

All right.

Do we have a second?

Councilman Jackson seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

I think I see this move.

I I can't show you.