Good evening, Rockville.

Today is July 6th, 2026, and we're convening meeting 18 26.

Please join me as you're able in the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation under God, indivisible liberty justice.

Thank you, everyone.

We'll now move on to agenda review.

We have Sarah Taylor Pharrell.

Madam Mayor and Council members, there are no changes to the agenda for this evening.

Thank you.

Mr.

City Manager, City Manager's report, Jeff Mahalek.

Mayor Ash and members of City Council, I have no report tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just wanted to uh thank staff and everyone who came out for Independence Day, uh, celebrating 250 years of America as we know it.

We know that there were indigenous people here before us, so I want to acknowledge that as well.

Um, I just want to note that staff worked very, very hard to try to um plan for a wonderful festivities amid a lot of heat and thunderstorms and lightning, uh, and we had a significant crowd that gathered at King Farm Matty Stepanic Park.

And uh just very thankful to our city staff, recreation and parks, communications, RCPD, and partnering agencies, Rockville Volunteer Fire Department.

Uh, I know I saw Montgomery County as well as others out there.

Um, and also we had summer camps going next week for children.

Uh, we had people working and doing sanitation work and the heat.

So I just want to acknowledge everyone that it was not an unusual week last week, and I commend all of their efforts.

Okay.

We'll now move on to boards and commissions.

We have a nomination for appointment by the boards of supervisors of elections.

Councilmember Kate Fulton.

I move to appoint Jim Mullinax to the Board of Supervisors of Elections to serve a four-year term until June 1st, 2030.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

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

Aye.

Thank you.

And I understand Mr.

Mullanax is here.

Welcome.

Thank you for serving.

I also want to just acknowledge the uh current members of the BSC and to that uh we noted previously rolled off Robert Koenick as well as Steve Fisher.

Uh, we had a lot of activity happening last election with a lot of hours, and I want to acknowledge their volunteer efforts.

Okay.

We'll now move to community forum.

We welcome the ideas, concerns, and suggestions of all of our residents and stakeholders.

Please address the mayor and council.

Please speak in a civil and courteous manner, and be respectful of other members of the audience as well.

Each person is allowed three minutes, and we ask that you adhere to the three minutes allowed.

There is a time clock in front of you, and you will hear an audible beep at the conclusion of your three minutes.

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

Okay, I'm gonna go with those who have signed up in advance.

Welcome, Wendy Murphy.

Hello, I'm Wendy Murphy, and I'm a resident of Rockville and a member of Rockville Renters United.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight in support of stable rents, also known as rent stabilization, and multi-year lease terms as well.

My husband and I are collecting social security a bit earlier than we had planned.

I was laid off the last quarter of 24 and have so far only found part-time work.

We do not realistically have time to rebuild what that cost us.

For years we were pretty much paycheck to paycheck, and that had just begun to ease as the last of four children became independent adults.

There is no catching up, just what we have now.

And whether it survives our next lease renewal.

Every year, our upcoming lease renewal brings worry.

Two-year lease terms could ameliorate this.

However, it appears that the decision is that there will be no cap on the rent for the second year, so which makes that tool essentially useless for renters.

This isn't just a senior renter issue.

I've watched families in the city get priced out of apartments they've lived in for years.

That left kids switching schools mid-year, as people find they must leave neighborhoods they've been part of for years.

This is happening too often here in Rockville.

Rent stabilization doesn't stop rent from going up.

It stops a kind of sudden predatory increase that pushes people like us out with little warning or time to plan.

Montgomery County already protects renters with stable rent legislation that became effective in 2024.

Whether it's perfect or not, we don't know.

But there's something there.

The city of Rockville offers nothing of the sort.

That gap in legislation is why families here in Rockville are getting displaced while neighbors only a few miles away are not.

I strongly urge the mayor and council to discuss, consider, and pass rent stabilization in the city of Rockville.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Grant Sam, followed by Libby Adams.

Thank you.

Well, good evening.

Mayor, Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I do highly value the opportunity that this is held open for any member of the community.

For the record, my name is Grant Sams.

I am a Rockville resident.

I am a renter.

I'm the president of the Reed Tenant Association, and I am currently chair of Rockville Renters United.

First and foremost, I really want to thank city staff for their hard work in preparing this update.

I know how much work went into all the feedback sessions.

And it was, you know, I'm very grateful for that.

I also want to thank all of the renters whose continuing testimony and self-advocacy spurred this update for all of us in the city.

And there's a lot of good here, to name but a few: the ban on algorithmic pricing, which, Madam Mayor, I know you've been a strong proponent of, and the ban on junk fees, which I would note is a part of the county's rent stabilization law when they pass that.

So adopting those two things are fantastic.

But even with this measure passed, there will still be a serious shortcoming in our city's laws that leaves renters vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

The removal of two-year leases as standard that would have given renters peace of mind and a measure of stability are one of those.

Another is the removal of the requirements for landlords to report rent increases to the city, which was one of the few procedural protections that renters in Rockville had to keep abusive landlords accountable.

And of course, critically the lack of rent stabilization protections at all.

And that's after the majority of this council blocked further research and discussion on the single largest issue that renters have brought forward for three years now to this body.

And that's after the majority of this council changed its own rules to prevent others of your colleagues from bringing this topic onto the agenda as been requested by the majority of renters.

And finally, last year, this body voted to censor the topic.

A move that is likely unprecedented and is a troubling reflection of our federal government's increasing use of such measures.

So all of the steps, all of these steps taken with the promise that developers would flood into the city and build more housing would be better for long-term renters.

So has that plan worked out?

And the answer is no, it hasn't.

And in that same time, we saw our evictions go up 4%.

In Rock in the rest of Montgomery County, where they had rent stabilization protections, they went down 7%.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Welcome, Libby Adams, followed by Chris Madden.

Hello, uh, my name is Libby Adams, and technically I hold a lease in Rockville City.

I grew up in Rockville City and I loved it here.

And when I used to tell people where I was from, I always heard, wow, that's a really awesome place to live.

My mom was a single mom with 10 kids in the house, and over time ran into plenty of issues where she was where she contacted the city and they were readily and eagerly willing to help.

So when I found out I was moving back here in 2024, I was excited and bragged about the city to everyone I told.

Sadly, my experience living here as adult has been grossly different.

When I found the toxic black mold on the wall of my immune compromised children's bedroom, I never thought my story would go this way.

I knew the city had many departments that could help me and had no worry at that point.

Needless to say, I contacted the city by the way of multiple departments immediately.

I contacted landlord tenant ornament about June 20th, 2025, which was within weeks of discovering the toxic black mold, and have been in regular communication with them about officially filed complaint.

Still, no investigation has been opened.

I have written communication dated April 13th, specifically asking Trevor Stevens for him to proceed with the official investigation since a year of media mediation with the complex has been unsuccessful.

Despite that, an investigation still has not been opened, and the landlord tenant department has completely ignored all of my attempts at communication since April 14th.

Additionally, I have had an active and continuous complaint with the code enforcement since June 2025 as well.

I have gone through them labeling it as a black substance and walking away, clearing my unit as habitable and free and clear of mold in December, just because the drywall had been replaced, clearing my bathroom complaint, despite slime growing in my toilet and termites coming up from the floor, releasing all violations on my unit and property repairs multiple times, and most recently refusing to find the complex in violation because they cannot see any mold.

Despite me providing professional testing results showing mold still present in my unit on April 4th.

Rockville City has failed my family in many ways and as a whole.

Tragically, I know there are more families in the complex who are still suffering, and no doubt even more across the city, due to the substandard enforcement and neglectful actions of the city.

I have kept detailed accounts of all communications in action by the city and the blatant disregard at my looking for help and answers, and I will find a way to seek accountability and retribution for my family and any others who have sought help from the city but were dismissed like I was.

My belongings are still being held hostage at Fields of Rockville.

And uh I don't think the city's doing anything to help me.

I haven't heard anything since April 14th.

Everybody's ignoring me.

Thank you guys very much.

Thank you.

Welcome, Chris Adams.

Hello, my name is Chris Madden.

Um I am uh the co-chair of Rockville Renters United, and um proud to announce that I am a new homeowner in Rockville and also a new landlord over in the Twinbrook neighborhood.

Um so now I am advocating instead of uh for renter as a as a landlord.

Um, I would like to talk about the landlord tenant code.

Um, one concern that I the biggest concern I have is that the proposals don't really deal with renters' biggest issues, which is cost.

Um with making true trees fee transparency is great, and I like banning junk fees, so I don't have to so I can't charge my tenants a lighting fee for the light bulbs I provide in their rooms.

Um, but it there's no cap on how much I could increase fees.

So I could have my trash fee be at $50, and then when it comes back around, I could increase it to 100.

I could, there's no cap.

I can increase it by 100%, and there is no law preventing me from doing that.

Um, I'd also like to talk about the two-year leases.

As a landlord, I love two-year leases, two-year leases.

I get a rental income for two years guaranteed.

I do not need to go find another tenant in a year.

I don't have to worry about that.

But the fact that there's no cap on these rental increases for the two-year leases does concern me.

Um, because other landlords could increase their uh their leases to higher amounts to have like an 8% increase in the initial and then 8% in the second year, which isn't really sustainable.

Yes, the tenant knows how much is going to go up, but it's still a dramatic increase that could not be viable for that tenant.

Um, and lastly, I like to oppose the uh getting rid of the reporting requirements for landlords.

This is a crucial resource that we could be using to attack this issue.

We could go look at these rental increases and find out where rents are going up, what properties are increasing their rents by over the recommended amount from the city, and then we could address it.

We could figure out okay that this we could go talk to that landlord and say, hey, why are you increasing this much?

Like what is the justification for this, and try to address the issue rather than just letting them increase rents and not use this crucial information.

Um the biggest thing that could help with costs is I know it's beating a dead horse at this point, rent stabilization.

Um, because rent stabilization has proven the best policy to bring down costs and to promote housing security.

It helped we've seen it in the county that the way they've implemented has helped to improve conditions, um, taking almost half of the number of troubled properties off the troubled property list by connecting.

If you're on that list, you can increase rent.

Boom, helped clear that right up.

And it has brought down evictions while all our evictions continue increase.

Um thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Welcome, Brad O.

Um, Mayor and Council, my name is Brad.

I live in Rockville.

I'm here to discuss the landlord tenant code.

There are some good things, there are some bad things.

I'm gonna use my time to focus on two of the bad things.

I am very concerned about eliminating the reporting requirement for landlords to report rent increases to the city.

This is a needed mechanism for the city of Rockville to understand what's happening to the roughly 50% of Rockville residents who rent their homes, and eliminating this requirement will make it harder for the city to advocate for renters who are being abused or neglected by developers who, in many cases, don't actually live here.

And this is a needed component of our housing policy, and as a city, we need to find a way to make this happen.

I strongly urge you to revisit this.

The other issue is rent stabilization.

This too is a needed component of our housing policy.

We cannot have stable and affordable housing without stabilized rent.

Uh the primary objection I've heard to this is that if we enact rent stabilization, developers will not build here.

Um, this theory is not being borne out by what we're seeing right now.

And furthermore, it is a remarkable coincidence if what is needed to make housing more affordable is to give the development industry a blank check.

Um, it is extraordinarily credulous to believe that they are not concerned with their multimillion dollar profits and really just want to help us out in the city.

Um we've been doing this my whole life, and it's not working.

Housing costs are going up, not down.

If developers insist that they need unlimited capacity to raise people's rents, that is not helpful.

That's not creating affordable housing.

If a new development goes up and after a year, half the residents have to leave because their rent went up by 10%.

That is not a benefit to the people of Rockville.

Moving is expensive, it's time consuming, it's stressful, and moving every year is not sustainable.

Rockville residents need to be able to depend on their rent staying within an expectable range.

This is a necessary component of our housing policy, and we as a city will not be doing right by residents who rent unless their rent is stabilized.

Otherwise, their housing will not be stable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That exhausts the list of those who have signed up.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Mahilak, there was a concern about safety raised, and I have two questions for you.

Uh, has the city staff responded to concerns that have been raised by the residents.

Uh we heard one today, and two, is the staff following the mold act?

Uh, those are two critical things to ensure safety.

Yep, mayor, thank you so much for asking those questions because it helps um put the truth out there.

Yes, we absolutely are following all um requirements of the state and local laws regarding the mold act in every single case, secondarily.

We responded to Ms.

Adams with a very detailed email on June 22nd, addressing all of her concerns.

I just want to say there's staff if we can have staff available at the back in case she does have any more questions, because we need to make sure we're helping to address any safety-related issues.

I would welcome that opportunity to just have her have an opportunity to meet with who should she meet with.

I reported a positive mold testable fourth.

I was just going to ask if we could uh have staff available to support this need.

We will.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh we're now moving on to our action item, which is adoption, potential adoption of an ordinance to amend Chapter 18 of the Rockville City Code, entitled Mayor and Council, Rental Facilities, and Landland Tenant Relations.

Welcome Jane Lyons Radio, Housing Programs Manager, Housing Community Development, as well as Trevor Stevens, housing specialized housing community developments.

I know that we also have additional support from Ryan Traut, who's a director of housing community development, as well as Christina Shakur Harris, who's the assistant city attorney from the city attorney's office.

Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and my fellow council members.

So just as a reminder, we are here for the reintroduction and potential adoption of the Chapter 18 code update for rental facilities and landlord tenant relations.

So to briefly go over the outline, the outline will be largely the same as our previous presentation, with the notable exception of our notable changes to the draft ordinance.

As a reminder for some of the background, we know that housing is one of the five focus areas for mayor and council.

And we've had a number of different work sessions as is listed here in order to address some of the concerns and targets for housing within the city.

And again, as a as a reminder for our project goals, they were to provide clarity, consider alignment, improve housing stability, require greater transparency, review local and national best practices, and to better connect to data collection with the city goals.

And again, quick reminder of the project timeline.

So this has been a little bit over a year now that we've been working on this project where we've had uh multiple different engagement section uh sections with uh the public.

We've had two different feedback sessions from both landlords and tenants before finally arriving here at summer 2026.

And then a quick reminder again for some of the work session follow-ups that we anticipate coming up here in the future, including for cooling requirements.

We had our pre-eviction financial assistance go into effect on July 1.

Um, and we also plan to move forward with educational materials to be shared with landlords and tenants, including the landlord tenant handbook.

Great.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Thank you, Trevor, and good evening.

Um, so with community engagement, we uh implemented a variety of strategies to make sure that we were hearing from all of the various stakeholders who are relevant to the landlord tenant code update.

Um, this included the virtual input meetings that we had at both the beginning and the end of the process, our engage Rockville webpage, which included multiple surveys throughout the process.

Um we interviewed stakeholder organizations, provided regular email updates throughout the process to those stakeholders, um, and also produced uh different educational materials about the code and what that was being proposed, such as the fact sheet, which is pictured here.

So, some highlights of proposed changes.

This is the same slide that you saw the last time that we were here.

Um, so this is a very, very high-level overview of the changes that are proposed from the current code to the draft ordinance that is being presented to you tonight.

So this includes restrictions on certain things, such as asking about eviction history, uh, charging tenants court costs and legal fees, using algorithmic rent pricing systems, uh, various new requirements for landlords to report certain things, um, and to allow certain things, such as non-electronic payment methods, to provide relocation assistance, um, and things like allowing tenant organizations to use meeting rooms free of charge, um, increased transparency is a theme throughout the ordinance, um, more options for early lease termination, um, policies like repair and deduct, um, changes to how leases and rent increase information are provided to the city, and meaningful fines for certain code violations that will be included in the fine resolution, which will be presented to you later on, I believe in the summer or fall.

So, notable changes to the draft ordinance since the last time that we were in front of you.

So, we added definitions for written notice, tenant organization, and non-public competitor data.

Um, that last one is specifically only for the section of the code about out algorithmic rent pricing.

Then as well, we clarified sections related to the enhanced inspections program about what that baseline program is, as well as clarifications around security deposits, inspectors accessing rental units, secure storage fees, and more.

Then this is again as high level, but providing the information that we can.

This includes amending language to allow landlords to increase rents during a two-year lease, but that rent increase must be disclosed prior to entering into the lease.

We added exceptions for landlords to charge fees for credit card processing and check bounces, introducing utility cost recovery structures or ratio utility billing, and for third party websites to the disclosure of all mandatory fees whenever a price is advertised or disclosed.

We increase the number of days that landlords are prohibited from charging a fee for any charge which the landlord failed to request from the tenant from 45 days to 120 to better be in alignment with the water billing cycles.

And that was it for the notable changes to the draft ordinance.

Next is the anticipated impacts.

And tenants within the city of Rockville are disportional disproportionately black or African American.

And overall, when looking at the median income of renters compared to homeowners, renters make on average about 100,000 less than homeowners.

And as we saw at the last meeting with the housing needs assessment, over half of renters are cost burdened.

And that breaks down as well along certain lines of particularly vulnerable groups who are even more cost burdened with their rent.

Then with the economy, we anticipate a neutral impact.

There are some things with the new code and the additional requirements that might cause landlords to have to need additional capacity in order to fully implement the code.

And those compliance costs would put additional costs onto landlords.

Those costs could be passed on to renters.

But there's also the widespread economic benefits that housing stability brings to a community.

When folks are able to stay in their home for longer, they're able to invest in the community to be less worried about needing to move away and being displaced.

Their children are able to stay in the same school and have the myriad of benefits that come from that.

And then as well as having transparency measures may create a more competitive rental market, resulting in slight downward pressure on rents.

So this is a very high-level economic analysis of the way that things could go and balancing those different those different factors is how we came to the neutral impact.

And that brings us to the introduction and suggested motions, but of course, before that, more than happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Really appreciate all the work.

I know there's been a lot of work sessions, meeting with community.

I want to thank the community for sharing all the feedback that was provided.

I personally listened in on at least one of the two of the rental sessions and one of the landlord ones, and uh staff did an incredible job.

Um I also just wanted to note that we had a really strong human needs assessment uh additional to human needs, but a housing needs assessment that was shared last week would encourage people to do that.

Um, and then not part of our code, but part of a new program.

We are piloting a rental assistance program that provides support free eviction.

That was something that was mentioned.

And should we pass the algorithmic pricing?

We would be the first municipality in Maryland to do so.

Uh so just want to flag that for the public and for my colleagues.

Um, I know that some of us sent questions in advance, and I know we have a lot to discuss.

So I'm gonna start with uh Dr.

Miles and see if you have any questions first, and then we'll go down the line.

I have no urge at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fulton.

Thank you.

Um question for clarification.

We heard a lot about concerns that the city won't be collecting information about rents or rent increases.

Can I think we will be just at a different point in the process?

Can you help explain that for me?

Yes.

So right now there is the requirement the landlords are supposed to provide a notice to the city when they also provide the notice to the tenant about the increase.

This is something that has been on the books for quite a while, but to our knowledge, has not been implemented due to staff capacity challenges.

Umce we have not been able to properly enforce that, we want to streamline the process with our existing capacity and incorporate the reporting of rents into the um the annual or semi-annual rental licensing process.

So every uh every time that a landlord is renewing their rental license, whether that's every one year or every two years, they would have to provide a long list of data to the city, which would include the rental amount.

And so then the city would be able to use that information to calculate how much the rent has changed since the last time that they renewed that rental license, and with that, we would be able to uh aggregate that information, and our goal is to post it on some sort of publicly available dashboard or online map.

I appreciate that.

So just to clarify, the same information will be collected as was contemplated before.

We didn't have the capacity or system and process to do anything with it before.

Now we'd be collecting it through a regular process and be able to actually analyze and be transparent about that information with the public.

Is that the plan?

Yes.

Okay, thanks.

I just want to make sure I understood that appropriately.

That's my only question for now.

Thank you, Councilmember Valeri.

Excellent.

Um, thank you.

So right now, under the unimplemented, if that's a word, um, data collection, that was supposed to occur in theory every year.

Am I correct in that?

Uh the rent increase information was supposed to be sent to the city any time that a landlord was increasing that.

So if they're increasing the rent once a year, they would have been, they are currently required to notify the city as well as notify the tenant.

Okay, so the presumption would be upon you know, one year lease renewal, that would be every year.

Under the new collection method, there are certain properties where we would only get that data every two years.

That is correct with the single family rental license properties.

Gotcha.

So that is a little concerning to me to put it mildly.

I think that that actually allows for too much of a gap in information to the point of somebody during community forum, we need to be able to know who the bad actors are, when they are the bad actors, and maybe not a year in it later.

Um, so if we could maybe have that conversation up here or amongst staff to look at that, um look at that in a different way.

I understand the need to streamline it, but I also understand like the gap in data by some properties every two years, some every one.

Um I'm I'm as a data nerd, um, I'm challenged by that because I think it'll provide an uneven uh perspective on what is occurring uh with rents in the city.

So I did want to flag that, and I appreciate my colleague um Councilmember Fulton getting the clarification on it.

Um I think there may be other ways that we can streamline it.

Um I think we were not able to implement it due to staffing issues.

If the staffing issues are eased, um, then we should be able to implement the initial code.

So that would be kind of um I'd love to hear if that's possible.

Um but that is that is troubling to me.

Um the other thing that I noticed is that we had talked about a uh tenant bill of rights slash fee transparency that would be available to renters at the time of lease signing.

That would outline it's the flip side of outlining all the fees to the from the landlord to the city, but this would be from the landlord to a potential tenant.

Here's all the fees, here's our history on rent increases, and allow that market force or that tenant to know in advance of the lease signing.

And I believe that this came up, I know it came up during our fees conversation.

Um, I believe that there were a majority of us that supported this idea, but I didn't see that in the code.

So I would really want to include that because I think that that's another market pressure point.

Um if people have the you can either prepare or you can choose housing based on the information that you receive prior to lease signing after the lease is signed, it's too late in many ways.

So I think more information, more transparency, the better up front.

So I want to note that.

I think most telling to me, and just broadly on the code is that we are treating large multifamily um buildings the same way that we're treating small single family home uh single house uh landlords.

I don't think that that's necessarily um the best way that the code can address smaller landlords.

Um I think the administrative burden is much more significant uh for small landlords.

So I'd really like to see kind of that lens be put on this code.

One of the areas is the relocation assistance, whereas I think that uh larger property management companies, developers can absorb and should absorb those fees.

I think we want to allow for the smaller landlords to keep providing um rentals for our market, and we may not get that if there is no exception for them in the code.

I think the other thing that I heard that was distressing to me was uh hearing from a um a uh housing nonprofit that works with people in the disability community that this the relocation assistance provision uh was such a significant administrative burden that it could force them to stop providing below market housing for disabled individuals.

Um that is extremely distressing to me because already the number of properties for uh individuals with disabilities is way too low, and to lose uh any uh accessible or adapted housing would be um I think a big challenge.

I'll do one more and then Madam Mayor, I I'll I'll yield.

Um I think um I think overall that that we're headed in a better direction.

Um I think the last thing I want to add in this section is on the repair and deduct um looking at some of the language in there.

I absolutely agree with the um the policy.

I would want to ensure that um strongly suggest ensure that licensed contractors are um the ones doing the repair portion of it.

Um I think that that will prevent unintended consequences of unsafe housing.

Uh, that we I know we've seen and heard from residents of the effects of that.

So I will I will stop there, Madam Mayor, but I do have additional comments and questions.

Thank you.

I just want to see if staff has anything you want to add, or we can just keep going.

Whatever your preference.

Uh yes, I can respond to a couple of those things very quickly in regards to the information of um rent increases.

Uh wanted to flag that one of the requirements in code would be that whenever the landlord is providing the rent increase notice to the tenant, that also needs to include the information for our department, which is a more reliable way for tenants to know that they have us as a resource, since if a landlord isn't reporting to the city when a rent is being increased, we wouldn't necessarily know that unless the tenant also uh also reported that.

So there's some trickiness around ensuring that everything is enforced on that, but making sure that the tenant has our contact information would hopefully help them to know that we are there as a resource.

Um, and note that the state tenant bill of rights um is already a required uh a required document for any lease.

So we would be concerned about being redundant with a state tenant bill of rights if we had our own that had to be included.

Um I think those are those are the things I'll respond to right now, but I wanted to clarify those few points.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, and sorry, one more and the contractor does have to be licensed for repair and deduct.

That's included in the code.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you.

And I I appreciate many of the comments uh my colleagues have mentioned and and concur.

Um I did want to uh follow up on a couple of items on the reporting requirements.

Um and also speak about the rental license process.

Uh I do think that the rental license process can really be improved with right now, it's kind of more of you passed inspection versus here's what the tenant needs to be, you know, know here's the rules of for the city.

That that is not necessarily conveyed uh in a way.

So I think that just needs to be more cross-pollination between DHCD and CPDS, so that the things that you want a landlord to know and a tenant to know is really conveyed as part of that process versus relying on someone to look in on page X of our code.

Um so I just really want to see us make that a more robust opportunity to make sure that tenants know their rights and landlords know their responsibilities.

Um, in terms of the mandatory reporting, I did have several concerns, and I appreciate you responding to my questions.

Um I know that a copy of the standard lease, that's going to go into the rental license process, correct?

That is already a requirement of the rental license process.

So we're bringing code into alignment with that practice.

Excellent.

And then it's written in code in this code that they have to do that as part of rental license process.

I just want to confirm.

Correct, yes.

Okay.

And also it is already part of our process.

I know this is something some of us pushed for earlier in our term to make sure that the rental license process is collecting the data on rents now.

Yes, that is something that we are currently doing is collecting information about rents, but um, after chapter 18 is adopted, we'll be able to go in and make sure that we're really collecting the full universe of things that we want to be collecting.

Excellent.

And that again is that cross-pollination between CPDS and DHCD planning and housing.

Um so just wanted to call that attention.

Um I it's in terms of the rental change, that section was struck, but I know you put in section 18195 individual unit information, so that will it's it's being you struck it because it's going to be covered in other part of the code, correct?

Under mandatory reporting, there was some language that was struck, but it's because it's being replaced, and that that included the information about um current vacant units, the most recent monthly rent.

Yes, that information is now addressed under uh 18-195A 10.

So that says individual unit information, unit number, number of bedrooms, square footage, current, or in the case of vacant rental units, most recent monthly rent, and whether or not the unit has any restrictions on its rent increases, and with those data points, we believe that we will be able to calculate a wide variety of things, including the um aggregate year over year rent increases for a property.

Thank you.

And since we're moving to two-year leases, and um there was concern about people front-loading the whole increase and making people pay that increase over the two years versus splitting it up, and people can pay a lower amount the first year and then space that out.

Um how will the rental license form collect the rents for leases that are two years that have that split?

Well, that might require a change to the form because it's not currently filled up, it doesn't have lines that way right now, now that we're gonna have two year leases.

Certainly, so we'll have to make a number of changes to the way that the data is collected, and that's something that we'll take into consideration as we're implementing that.

Okay, I would greatly appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um there's a comment in there about a survey being and that's being struck.

Um it's the the response I got is that in the current code, the survey was included solely to collect information.

This information all be collected through rental license renewal process.

Is there not any other information?

I know the county was doing a rental survey and we were getting some of that data.

As are there not other things that DHCD would like to know from landlords.

There might be, but that's something that we don't necessarily need to have in code in order to do a survey like that.

I I just think that we want more data, not less.

So that's something I just want us to really consider and to be thoughtful about being able to look at our data and report and as well as tenants and opportunity to provide input.

Um that that gave me pause, so I just wanted to note that.

Um then uh there was also the in order to minimize reporting requirements language that um the um sorry, um moving on to the um the reporting requirement from the DHCD director to the city manager.

That we have in our code that it will be a quarterly report.

I understand that may not be technically feasible.

You don't have the time, but I do think at least an annual report.

I know there's gonna be a portal at some point.

We don't have a date on that yet.

Maybe if you do you have a date of when that that data is going to be available.

So we've already started to work on a portal, and some of that information is going to be available very soon.

Um, but we don't have a hard date on when all of the breadth of information will be included on a portal.

Okay.

I do still think I at minimum annual report to track trends and issues because the the portal is a data dump, but I think to be able to highlight what are the issues we're seeing in trends is something that could still come to report.

So I personally do not support getting rid of the report, but maybe adjusting it from quarterly to annual.

So I wanted to share that feedback.

Um I do want to note that uh you mentioned it earlier, but the cooling requirement is maybe some something in everyone's mind given this heat.

Um, and that is something that you're gonna bring as a separate work session follow-up to us this fall, I believe.

So, yes, there's a work session scheduled in September that will be led by CPDS since that will be a part of chapter five, the property maintenance code, and not a part of chapter 18.

Um, so but yes, that is on the calendar.

Okay.

Uh thank you very much.

Um I had some concerns about we had a very strong work session, and this I know I've been raising a lot of issues about quality housing and the inspections process.

We had a whole work session, we adjusted the process.

I appreciate what staff has done to increase inspections, and particularly to have an enhanced inspections program.

One of the things that we wanted to see was radical transparency.

Uh, and so I I do think that that should be a published list.

Um, that's something we talked about in our work session.

Uh and the county has a published list, other jurisdictions have a published list.

If you look at health care, there's something called hospital compare, nursing home compare, people can see which hospital is more likely to contribute to or bed source.

Same for nursing homes.

I do think that people want to be able to see what they're walking into when they're signing a contract, and housing is one of those areas when you're a renter, you don't get the full information until you're in, and you might have signed a two-year lease.

So I I just think that people should be able to see whether a property they're considered renting is on the enhanced inspections list.

In addition, I think that it might encourage more people to move faster to clear that issue so that they're not on that list.

Can you share why we're not pushing to have that list published or noting that we'll be publishing that list?

Mayor, let me try to address that.

That's again not as part of the discussion tonight as part of this code that wouldn't be part of it.

Could be could be if we put it in code.

Could expose I suppose it could.

I mean, it's a brand new program.

It's not even remember if I'm not sure it's even six months old.

Um, first getting into it.

But I'd want to hear more discussion from the council on exactly what you mean by posting someone that's um under enhanced inspection.

Does it mean at the point in time they're in the enhanced inspection program if they've ever been on the enhanced inspection program?

How many of the units are in the enhanced inspection program for what violation, etc.

So there's a lot that could be posted or could not be posted.

So when we have the annual review of that program, that's when I'd recommend that you guys give me some more specific um direction, or we could bring forward some different options.

But right now the program is just so new and so young.

We'll still gathering the data.

There have been a lot of um units in the enhanced inspection program, but some of them got into it for a violation, such as on not having a battery and a smoke detector, which is an issue, but that would automatically get them in the program.

So I just want would want to hear more about um what violations you'd like to see if it's cured, etc.

Do you have a target date for that discussion?

Sometime early winter.

Okay.

I I do think that's something that I know a majority of us discuss at the time of having transparency there, and I do think that we should put it in protocol or even in code.

So that is available.

I do appreciate that you need more specificity on what qualifies as uh something that would be posted publicly.

I'm not necessarily looking at if someone ever had an issue, if they've cured the issue, great.

But if they're still on the if there's still issues in that unit and that apartment building, and we can see that there are majority of the units, then people should know that before signing a lease.

That's exactly the kind of clarity I need, and I'll make sure when we have um that um reporting of the program that we'll come up with a couple different options for you guys.

Okay, so you'll include options that we can then say this will be reported publicly.

Happy to do that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um the other thing I wanted to note was um the transparency.

We are gonna have transparency and fees, and that's now clear.

Um, in terms of the rent information, people will be able to go onto the portal at some point and see what the history of rent increases are, correct?

Yes, although that will be provided on an aggregate basis for the entire property.

Okay.

And can someone also ask is you know, can the landlord be required to also provide that information as part of the lease project process?

We don't currently have that in the draft ordinance, but if that is the will of the mayor and council, that's something that we can discuss outing.

Okay.

That's something that we discussed previously in our workshop.

So that's another thing that I'd love to hear from my colleagues on what they think about that in addition to the enhanced inspections approach.

I have many more comments, but I will pause to allow my colleagues to speak.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, uh Mayor.

Um the beauty of uh actually going um uh down the line is that many of the questions were already asked.

And I want to thank my colleagues, especially uh council member uh Fulton uh for asking the question about the reporting uh rents and um rent increases, because I think that's important for people to know that we're still collecting that uh information.

Um the proposal in front of us today goes back a long way.

I mean, we had engagement, we had feedback.

I mean, it's um you know I said it before, but you know, the engagement and uh outreach that the city does and city staff and you and um the department and the city manager should be commended for that is really extraordinary.

Um, you know, sitting up here on the on the dais and uh being privy to uh the staff, but also all the reports, um, it really makes me really thankful to live in Rockville because I think that we have a city city that cares about what residents think and goes out and does surveys, does um uh open houses, um, and collection of uh data to then inform the policies that are put before the American council.

And I think that this is a really good example of um uh such a process, this landlord tenny code.

So I just want to thank staff for an excellent job.

Um, you know, most of my questions were answered uh either before, like I said previously, or um by uh the city managers uh through an email.

So I really don't have too much, but I wanna uh just drill down on um the single uh room uh rentals if I could, because um I have people ask me all the time living in um uh HOA and um you know uh when people are required to have a rental license or not.

So could you explain single family homes or when people have like uh a room to rent without a kitchen or um to register, do they have to register as landlords or or not?

And if if not, why not if you are a landlord um who is just renting out a room and you are still living in the property, then no, you do not need to uh register with the city and receive a rental license.

And is it because we just feel like it if there's too much of a burden or I mean why would that not be something that we would uh uh regulate?

Or and I don't know we should or not just asking the question.

I believe part of the thinking behind that might be that especially if the landlord is living in the property themselves, they are going to upkeep the property in a way um that they would want to live in and be safe in, um, because the requirement there is that they don't have the rental license, meaning that they don't have to necessarily have the inspection.

Um but uh other other elements of the code I believe would do still apply to landlords, such as if they have a lease with the tenant, that's still that still apply, all of those different requirements of what needs to be in a lease still applies.

It's really just the anything that is um relevant to receiving the rental license does not apply.

So somebody the the mayor um uh reminded me.

Um so what if somebody rents a room in a basement without an ingress rent window?

Um if they're renting a room in a basement without an egress window, that would be a question that code enforcement would be better positioned to answer than I would.

But if the room cannot is not fit for to be used as a bedroom, because even if they weren't using it as a rental unit, but they just had a family member using it as a bedroom.

But I am not the authority to speak on that.

And they could still go through the normal process of reporting to either us or code enforcement in order to have an inspection done to determine whether or not there is a property code violation.

No, that's perfect.

Thank you for for that.

I really don't hear anything else, but I'm really excited about the uh algorithm rhythmic pricing um uh ban.

Uh, you know, this is something that I worked on for two years.

Uh both uh uh we talked about it at the uh council level, but then I went and testified in favor of the uh the bill uh that Julie Bill called the Octopus Car uh was sponsoring and even um uh uh testified in favor of it in front of the county council along with the mayor and Grant Stands.

So I was really really uh enthusiastic and uh hope that we finally get it done tonight.

So thank you.

Councilman Bashaw.

I also testified on that bill as well.

Um I wanted to thank staff for all of your hard work.

Um I know this has been a long time coming, and um especially want to thank the community that prompted this process, especially um the years asking for rent stabilization and the recognition of us having to do something.

So um I'm glad that we are updating our code.

Um I have lots of questions about this.

Um the reporting, um I know I have been asking about uh this section of the code since 2024.

Um currently in the code, um uh the city manager is um required by the code to report um uh quarterly uh the rent increases.

And I know at this point it's not in the code that the staff actually has to do anything except for report, but simply receive the rent increases, correct?

Yes, I believe that that is correct.

That the land the requirement is on the landlord to provide that notice to the city.

Okay.

In the absence of rent stabilization, and as we know, that is the number one thing tenants have been asking throughout the community um engagement process for several years.

Um, in the absence of not having rent stabilization, this is the number one protection for tenants to make sure that there is at least some possibility that they can have the city help to mitigate their issue.

Um currently, um, outside of that, uh the only thing I think is just uh asking the city, so it's complaint driven to help them with voluntary rent guidelines, correct?

Yes.

So a tenant, whenever they receive a rent increase, um are able to reach out to us and we can provide information to them on the voluntary rent guidelines as well as um let them know about how they might enter into that negotiation process with their landlord for what their next year's rent might be.

And I know I know this sounds pretty simple in practice up here on the dais, um, but I am someone that has a hundred-page lease with eight-point font.

Um, so it's it's not that easy for most tenants, I think, to actually find the number and have the means to call and and and even the way that it's written on the lease that this is recommended.

Um I think you know, we're we're talking here about what's happening in theory and not what's really happening in practice.

And I, you know, I think one of the ways that we can resolve that is is by rent stabilization, but in the absence of not having rent stabilization, I think it's really important just to make that language a lot clearer and add to the least that the city of Rockville does not have rent stabilization.

Um I think uh I was looking at my lease the other day, and I saw that the recommended was in bold, and um I found it on like I think page like 50 or so.

Um but just making sure that tenants at least know um in advance as well before they sign their lease that uh the city of Rockville doesn't have rent stabilization.

I know we have that, I think on one of the FAQs.

Um, but I've been to so many um leasing offices where tenants think that they have it and they start communicating with the leasing office, um, thinking that that is their right, because you know, we are in the middle of Mount Gomery County that has rent stabilization.

I know we have that, I think on one of the FAQs, um, but I've been to so many um leasing offices where tenants think that they have it and they start communicating with the leasing office, um, thinking that that is their right because you know we are in the middle of Mount Gomery County that has rent stabilization, so it's it makes sense that they think that they have it.

Um, and so I think it would be very helpful for tenants if in the absence of passing it that uh that tenants are well aware that uh it is a policy decision that we don't have rent stabilization in the city of Rockville, just so they know that in advance.

Um also in in regards to um the removal of the protection to um alert the city when they have uh a rent increase.

Um the new system that it's being replaced with, the big difference I see, and I've I shared this since 2024, and I've in fact used this myself and and and checking to see if my landlord was reporting uh the rent increase that I've received.

Um the big difference is that uh learning about the rent increase at the time it is happening is very different than months later down the line after during the renewal, I'm sorry, during the the lease during the license renewal process, right?

Because that's not a protection for the current tenant dealing with the rent increase when there's no rent stabilization.

That that's not a protection.

Um that may be good for us to have that data.

Um, but even the way that uh the data was voted in, I think it was last year, where the majority of the body voted to have the data reported in five year averages.

Is that correct?

Five year averages.

I voted against that, but um I think it was uh voted it would be five year averages.

Um that hides a lot of information.

Um my other question with that would be um there's a lot of I think offers provided to tenants, like with a new lease, they may have uh various term leases month to month, two years, 14 months, 16.

It's it's been a long time since I've seen a year lease.

Um is that also collecting all of that information?

Is it collecting the offers or just the ones that they sign?

And the reason I'm asking that is because sometimes tenants will just take the offer and then leave.

And that information of knowing the offer, because that could be the offer that depl displaces someone, that's the offer that they can't afford and they move out, and that is that being collected as well.

That is not one of the data points that we are proposed to include in code to collect.

Um, but if there are other data points that we find would be useful to collect through the rental licensing process process, uh there's nothing that would necessarily stop us from including those administratively in the rental license renewal process in that data reporting process.

Because if the point of this is stability, um and tenants are deciding to move based on the fact that they can't afford an offer, and that never gets collected, and that's then within the five-year average.

Um I mean, that we're not we're not seeing that.

That's that's it's it's data that we don't have.

Um, on top of the fact that we are removing the number one protection that tenants currently have that I've used myself.

Um, and I I think that I would amend this uh the updated code back to where tenants have that that protection, especially if we're not going to pass rent stabilization.

Um and I I had some questions about equity.

Um I know that you mentioned that this would advance equity slightly.

I think there's a small you said small, I think in the presentation.

I'm not sure if you can go to the page, the slide.

Oh, I think this was actually in a staff report that it said that there would be a small positive increase to equity or advancement of equity.

Um would you be able to share what created that calculation, especially considering that this is not tied to cost in any way?

Although we have limited the amount of fees, which is based on uh the excellent work of the rent stabilization bill in Montgomery County, I know that we have limited the amount of fees, but there's no actual cap and cost, right?

So how was that small calculation?

I'm sorry, how was that small advancement in equity calculated?

So there's as you've seen a lot of different changes that were making to the landlord tenant code, and those changes are in alignment with the goals that we set out, with the number one goal being uh tenant stability.

Um this is one of the key action items under our housing strategies work plan when looking at supply, stability, subsidy.

Um this is a key action around stability.

Um so with improving tenant stability, there are a lot of benefits that come to tenants from that.

It might, it's not all necessarily going to be in terms of cost of dollars, but um there increased benefits to having the stability that would come from the two-year lease term, having the stability and the protections that come from relocation assistance, the benefits provided through banning algorithmic rent pricing.

Um all of the things that have been included here are set with that goal.

Um, and because tenants have that um are disproportionately from historically marked marginalized and vulnerable groups, those benefits will be um will be seen more to those groups.

Um, although I understand what you're saying, that that is the this won't necessarily lower costs, it will lower costs in certain ways through banning of junk fees, um and uh algorithmic rent pricing might uh contribute to that as well, but we're not able to provide a concrete number per se.

Um and banning junk fees in the absence of rent stabilization, banning junk fees.

I mean, rent is the gonna be likely the highest cost, right?

And so just because we're banning junk fees, which is something we definitely should do, doesn't necessarily mean that the overall cost of the tenant is lower.

And also you I think noted that there could there's a potential for rent to go up, right?

There is a potential.

We cannot guarantee that it will go up to the bigger.

That would disproportionately impact who that would disproportionately impact if rents were to go up, that would disproportionately impact the um tenants from vulnerable backgrounds, like when we have the housing needs assessment presentation, all those different groups that have that higher uh rental cost burden.

And that is related to cost.

Certainly.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um my other question about algorithmic pricing.

Um, that is typically with larger landlords, right?

Using that software.

Typically, um and typically newer buildings as well.

From what I've researched, I've spoken to the other.

Buildings that um usually have more corporate landlords, right?

Because they need the economies of scale for it to make sense economically.

Um I think within the staff report, it noted that algorithm algorithmic pricing would um disproportionately benefit um, particularly.

Let me, I just want to make sure I'm saying this correctly.

Um I think it was saying that it would disproportionately benefit uh like tenants of color, correct?

Yes, and I believe that in that report as well, some of the estimates from the White House when they did the analysis show that algorithmic rent pricing is estimated in the DC region to increase rental costs by over $100 a month.

Um, so by banning that, that would be beneficial to all tenants who are impacted, but disproportionately beneficial to tenants who have that higher cost burden.

And the only thing that I would just question particularly about Rockville is that the algorithmic pricing, um, which are typically for the larger buildings, some mostly the newer buildings, um, especially the newer buildings that have a higher rent, um, just based on the average income of black residents, particularly black tenants, there's a smaller amount of tenants in buildings that are newer or the larger buildings.

Um, and so was that I'm I'm I mean, I'm that calculated into the equity impact analysis as well.

No, we haven't looked at building age or building size and broken that down by race.

So that that analysis has not been completed.

Okay, because I know it impacts 2,000 units, and it would be interesting to know because if those units are um, especially from the newer buildings, I think that it would actually disproportionately benefit just based on income within the city, it may not disproportionately benefit black renters that are that may not be in those buildings.

So I think that may like offset.

But I I would just like to get a little bit more information on how that equity analysis was done.

Um because I just want to make I I strongly strongly support Albin Riddick Pising.

I've supported it since 2024.

I felt like when we were um testifying in the state, I felt like we should have done our own a long time ago.

Um, and I'm glad that we're doing it now, but I just want to be clear with that statement about equity and how we're calculating equity.

And I saw that um, you know, there was a lot of attention to how housing stability can benefit people within the equity statement.

And I I'm well aware of that, and that's really important to share.

Um, but it it just wasn't sharing specifically um where like you were getting the data, the calculation that made that quote small positive impact.

Um, so just having a better understanding of that.

Um, the two-year leases, um, and I've shared this before.

Um, it's I think it's great that we're talking about two-year leases.

Um, I think that's really important.

Um I would say that in the absence of rent stabilization in practice, when your landlord provides you your lease renewal and provides you with month to month, 14th month, two years, one year, what they provide all at typically all at the same time, so there's less back and forth, whatever lease agreement the landlord desires will usually have a lower percentage, and then the one that they don't desire, like let's just say month to month, is usually unreasonably high.

Like I think my mine from month to month uh was like a hundred and seven percent rent increase, right?

Because they don't want me to pick that one.

So in the absence of rent stabilization, when you have a two-year lease, because we can talk about two-year leases all day long, but if in the absence of rent stabilization, they're just gonna provide a crazy percentage to make sure that you're not picking that.

So I just want to provide some like kind of a bit more reality and in practice of what is going to happen in the absence of rent stabilization.

Um, and I think that context needs to be clarified over and over again of what is going to happen in practice.

And yes, two-year leases can provide more stability if you can afford it.

Um let me see here.

I had some additional questions.

I had some additional questions, but um, you can we can circle back.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilman Bank Brack.

Uh thank you.

Um I first want to um commend staff because I know we've had a number of different work sessions, and there has uh uh very rarely been as detailed a comparison of what we've done, what we've asked for, the changes therein, and I looked and kind of compared with my notes what we said, almost everything that we said from the dais was put in there and put in there nicely.

So huge kudos to staff for really getting into because we've had some hours and hours long work session on this issue.

So a great job by staff.

Um thing I did want to get into because you've heard it from I think just about everyone up here so far, and that does deal with the reporting requirements.

Um I want to talk a little bit about that because I know in response to some of my colleagues, you guys have talked about how we've gotten the information regarding some of the rents uh from the landlords, and we if the question is more about how we do it ourselves and how we use those that information.

Is that basically how you're interpreting how we might use the information?

Yes, I think that that's one of the things that we've thought through with that part of the code is what is the goal?

Um, because if the goal is that any time that we receive uh notice from a landlord that they are uh proposing a rent increase above the voluntary rent guideline, if then the um the expectation is that then we are stepping in to take action and to reach out to the tenant and to uh inform about the voluntary rent guidelines.

If that's the goal, that's not something that we currently have the capacity for.

And so positioning ourselves around what is the goal, if the goal is to better understand which properties are uh having larger rent increases in the aggregate, then that's why we turn to the rental licensing process to collect that data.

Um, so that way we can see those properties, see who the actors are that are uh time after time increasing rents above the voluntary bank guidelines, so then we can still do that targeted outreach to landlords, um, but in a way that is um a little bit more streamlined.

So uh I actually agree very much with my colleague, Councilmember Shaw, in saying that this is actually one of the ways that we can provide the most transparency and market forces with regard to rental increases.

And if our issue and our concern is about staff capacity, which it's been in the past, I think we need to require more information from the landlords.

I don't want to have us having to extrapolate the data when we have the ability to have reporting requirements.

This is an 184, 18 148 and 18 149.

We're already requiring landlords to give us reporting requirements.

I think it makes sense for us to let them do the work as opposed for us to say we're gonna extrapolate the data.

And I actually think, you know, we've talked about this.

I agree that from a unit by unit or house by house information, it's important, but I think it's also when you have multi-units, a building overall, because you could see clearly have a situation where maybe one unit has only gotten incremental, but the building overall is having significant increases.

And I have to tell you, if I'm a renter looking at a building, I don't just want to know about my unit, I want to know about what the landlord's doing at the building overall.

So I think having those reporting requirements that are necessity, not just to tell the um potential tenant, and I think it should be, I know I've talked about this before, not just the unit, but the building overall increases.

I think the city should have that information as well.

Um just as you've said, and I've heard it from the city manager, I've heard it from others.

Our staff's pretty taxed when it comes to what's going on, and we really really want to have a lot of implementation.

You've heard it from my colleagues with regard to issues with regard to code enforcement.

Um, we've got issues with regard to a lot of other issues where our staff is thin.

I want to make it so that staff is having to extrapolate less and less.

Let's let the landlords do the work for us with regard to information regarding rental increases.

Again, not just for the unit, but if there is that unit that's part of a building, have that building as well.

And to the extent I know we've talked about whether it's the green, yellow, and red different notations on the website, information is king.

And you know, just as Councilmember Shaw was saying, I've heard it from you know, Councilmember Fulton, uh, Councilmember Valet, I mean, which pretty much everybody here, we've talked about these reporting requirements and wanting transparency.

And the more information we get from them, the potentially less information and work it is for us, it only makes it better.

So I know that's kind of a lot to put out there, and I don't necessarily, I think that's a lot to potentially put in there with regard to amendments here and now, but I really think we need to kind of put our thinking caps on with regard to getting the information from the landlords to the city, making sure the landlords are giving that information to the tenants, and making sure that that information is transparent as possible.

I don't know if you want to respond.

Yeah, of course.

Okay.

Um you're saying that that information about rent increases needs to be reported to the city.

Um, but you're saying that that should be included in the code differently than what we currently have in the mandatory data reporting government section.

Well, for example, we don't talk about buildings at all.

We don't we're just talking about particular units, and I think we've talked in the past about just overall as well as in the as well as in the particular units.

And quite frankly, I want to make sure that not just the individual, I mean, Councilmember Shaw has talked about this as well, putting like a two-year versus five year, what are the incremental increases could and how we're dealing with that.

I mean, Councilmember Shaw has talked about this as well, putting like a two-year versus five year.

What are the incremental increases?

Could and how we're dealing with that.

I think we really need to have that.

Again, I know you and staff have talked about, well, we're just gonna take the data that we get as we go to relate to it.

We've also got an issue is what is the penalty if they don't report?

Yeah.

Um, because that's another issue that if they report everything except for their increases, or I guess it seems that there's a little bit less of a bite, and we're putting a lot of the owners on the city as opposed to the landlords.

I know city manager sounds like you wanted to respond.

That's okay, um, Mayor.

Um I think our goals are exactly the same.

We're just amend modifying and taking out of this current code and putting more of the burden in our landlord tenant code licensing process.

I think actually think we're gonna get more data, more consistent data for it.

And I'll be honest with you, landlords are absolutely gonna want uh to give us that information because guess what?

They don't get that information, so we're not gonna give them the license.

So now we have a hook relative to the process that was before it's like, would you please send us the data?

Well, with no hook on it, right?

But that license is gonna be really important.

Then I think how we use the data is gonna be critically important.

You're absolutely right, it's gonna take us a while to develop um enough data points unit by unit, et cetera, over a course of years, but I think the portal that staff is in the process of developing is gonna be really huge, and we'll have direct access to it for anybody that wants to get in that portal and take a look at it.

I would encourage you guys to let us build, collect the data as we proposed, build out the portal, and if you're not liking what you see, or we may have things, or we need more data in a certain area, then we can come back and amend that.

Um that that's my answer.

So I don't know if Jane or Jane wants to add anything to that or not.

That was great.

Okay.

Okay, that's great.

Um, all right.

My next few are talking about um some of the areas that we've talked about in the past work sessions, maybe looking at some targeted questions that I had.

And first it goes with uh section 1811 and section G, when we're talking about the um the specific section that talks about the um let me get to it in my code section.

The authorization for the um deducting of the um rental um reducting of the rent based on repair.

Um we had talked about in the past um having some type of clause within there, and everything you have here is good, but with regard to tenant caused um damage.

And I know we were gonna potentially talk about like even with it within that first section, excluding tenant caused damages.

Now, again, tenant caused damages still there must be a repair if it's not a livable condition.

But the right to deduct rental um from that uh as an exception, do you think that's gonna be a concern if we did that?

Um, is there a reason why we didn't put it that in there?

And I just wanted to get your thoughts about that.

Um, thank you for that question.

No, I don't believe that it's going to be a concern, and the reason why is because in order for the tenant to be able to exercise the repair and deductibility, the landlord first needs to um the city would first issue an NOV and provide the landlord with time to make that repair.

And it's only after the landlord does not comply with that um uh comply with the correction within that specified period of time, that then the city would say to the tenant, you are now allowed to exercise your repair and deductibility.

But within that first clause, when we're talking about the city manager, it doesn't address that if it's a tenant caused damage.

So are we saying there's gonna be discretion within that decision?

I mean, how how is that that applied?

So the city is not making the determination as to whether it's tenant caused or landlord-caused or whoever caused who caused the damage.

Um we're just making the determination of is this a violation?

And no matter who caused it, the landlord uh at the end of the day has that responsibility to prov to comply with the property maintenance code.

Um, and so that is why we would not necessarily have that concern because the landlord is supposed to do this one way or the other.

The only thing that we're adding on to it is is that if they don't do it, a tenant can exercise for parent deduction.

So you're basically saying the reason why we don't have a um tenant caused or landlord-caused clause in there is because there's already a double-step process, and they would have already not met that.

So it's not an immediate um right to deduct, and there's already a process within there when they should have done it, whether it's tenant caused or not.

Yes, there's already that uh rigorous process, and if there is question or debate over to who caused what, that's um that's then something that could go to the landlord tenant affairs commission, and they could help to make that determination.

That's not necessarily determination that staff is making.

Excellent.

That takes care of the issue.

Um fine with it as drafted.

Um the next issue that I had, and I know we talked about it a lot during the last work session was the algorithmic price um ban, which is key.

I mean, I think uh we have specifically talked about this from the state level, and heck, if the state's gonna do it, we're gonna take care of it.

And I know that one of the things that I was very concerned about is I don't want to see their any lawsuits, and I want to make sure that we're structured.

And I want to commend staff.

You guys really went through and made sure this is as bulletproof as it can, which is exactly what we need it to be.

I want to make sure this sticks.

I want to make sure that we're uh the the renters are protected.

So I just want to give a phenomenal because I even went back to all the different complaints that I saw, and I think we're as bulletproof as we can be.

Um, so phenomenal job.

Um the only one clause I said in kind of going through some of the complaints and seeing some of the language.

I know that there were some intervening courts that talked about kind of subjective language and how we're dealing with the exception.

And one thing that I saw in ours that I didn't see in others, and I didn't know if it's something that we can just trim to get rid of, or there was a serious rational basis, and it's obviously within section 1814, but in the um, I guess it's the latter part when we're talking about um what it does not include.

And we're talking about generating a report, and it says publish not more than once a month.

Um, and I noticed that we're talking about kind of a time limit here.

Would it be viable for us just to eliminate that time period and just say generating or using a report, bam, of existing and continue there.

Do you see any concern with doing that?

Um so that it just covers all such reports and not just a report of a uh um temporal basis.

I'm gonna defer to uh uh attorney Christina Harris uh to see if she has anything that she would like to share about that question.

Um I don't necessarily see an issue with removing that.

I didn't see anything saying we had to have that.

Oh, can you hear me?

Sorry.

Yes, perfect.

We can thank you and that we had to have that provision.

Um our intention was to try to match what the county might be doing um for that provision and use their language so there wouldn't be confusion, um, especially if the um uh websites or algorithms are being used across the board.

So we wanted to make sure we tried to match, but I did not see anything in other um jurisdictions that um would make us require that.

Um we tried to look at what lawsuits had been or settled and what language was agreed to, and the ones that clearly had settlements, and um we could remove that.

All right.

So uh my proposal would just simply be to make this, I guess as strong as it can be to eliminate that one clause that uh starts with a report, get rid of published, not more than once a month, and go right to of existing, just to make again, I'm trying to make this as strong as possible.

I want to make it effective and court proof.

So that would be my only that's the only amendment that I would be proposing for the code, at least at this point, a few other things, but I'd move over.

Okay, and I'll also want to just double check to confirm that that what I've said is 100% accurate because I'm trying to remember off my notes here, so okay.

And that's all I have for now.

We can always go back.

Thank you.

Uh I'm gonna go back to Councilman Fulton.

I'll just know it might be worth checking in with the city that the county's attorneys to see if they included that for a week.

Because I know that was a lot of sensitivity on this topic, and people were trying to be very, very careful.

Uh so that would be helpful to check.

Councilmember Fulton.

Okay.

David.

I got you.

Sorry.

Um, I actually have really benefited from the uh conversation here for my colleagues, and I wanted to circle back on a couple things.

One, um, we've all talked about this reporting requirements, and and I think about it in three ways.

Like, what do we need to collect?

How do we collect it?

And then what are we gonna do with it, right?

Uh the prior code didn't really say what we're gonna do with it, so we didn't really do anything with it.

Um I do think that collecting it during the rental license renewal makes a lot of sense to the point the city manager made, like there's a hook, like we're gonna get it.

Uh, and I think that helps.

Um, I do also think that council member Shaw and others made a point.

There's things that we're the code doesn't say that we're collecting that we might as well.

Um, you know, I think it says most recent rent.

Why don't we just add to that section?

I think it's an easy amendment.

Uh 1895 A10, where it says most recent monthly rent.

We should talk about what my colleagues think.

Any offers for rental increases, whether accepted or not, I think Councilmember Shaw made a good point there.

Um, for these two-year uh leases, like any increases that happened between, like I think we can just build on that to collect all of the information that would be useful.

Umers and any rent increases that occurred between licensed renewals are two that I offer.

Um then, and then the question of what do we do with it.

Um I do hear I think the portal's great.

I think that'll be serve the transparency need, it's why we collect it.

And I understand why we're not talking about a portal in the code.

I get that.

Um, but I do wonder if in order to have something in our code uh this sort of makes it a requirement that we're transparent.

We do add back in, like that we do it a report, like that we publish a report on it.

Um I think as I was listening to my colleagues, I think those so I'm proposing those two amendments.

One, we add stuff into 18-95 A10 to cover whatever we think it might be useful to collect, and we do commit to at a minimum annually reporting on that information.

18-195.

1950 so that was the one thought I had.

Thank you to my colleagues for like raising some of those issues.

Um, so I propose that.

The other thing that I wanted to um bring up was some of my colleagues mentioned um there's a there's burden on the landlords for a lot of costs of the in the in the relocation in a lot of places, and yes, large corporate landlords can probably carry that burden in individual small uh you know, single unit landlords probably can't.

And I know we've talked a lot about how to make that distinction, and I think it is a good idea to make that distinction, but I also think it's like the inverse is true, right?

Like there ends up being less protections for tenants of small landlords if we make a distinction there.

So it's not just that larger landlords can take the eat the cost, it's that tenants are then on an imbalanced level of protections provided by the city.

I'm struggling with that.

Uh so and I think you all struggled with that for a while.

Um can you help me get comfortable with not making that distinction?

Yes.

So in terms of um, you mentioned relocation assistance specifically.

Um, I think in that instance, and that cost to landlords, which certainly could be a significant cost burden.

Um all of those situations in which that relocation assistance requirement is triggered, are situations in which the landlord has neglected their responsibilities in a pretty significant way.

So that so to the degree that the unit is no longer habitable, something that luckily we don't see very often in Rockfell, but we want to be prepared for situations when that does happen.

Um, and so to us, because it's such a high standard of um neglecting that responsibility, we feel more comfortable placing that burden um onto landlords in that situation.

Yep, that helped.

Thanks.

I don't have any other questions.

Just clarify on that point.

Um, what about if someone is doing a substantial renovation on the property?

Because they're that is one of the relocation assistance items, so it's not necessarily neglect, but you have to the property needs a lot more work.

Yes, so that's why I neglected to say that all of the reasons would trigger that because I do think that that is the one exception that if you're doing substantial demolition renovation onto a property, um with that situation, that's really if they're interrupting the tenant's lease term.

If not, then they have the decision to not renew the tenant's lease.

Um, and so in that situation, the tenant's lease wouldn't renew and they are not responsible for providing the permanent relocation assistance.

Um, and then there is also the option um to just relocate the tenant within a property.

Um so if you're doing substantial renovation on a part of the building or just that one unit, but you have another unit that you um own as a landlord that is comparable, that the landlord and the tenant both agreed to that lease uh um lease transfer, uh then in that type of situation, there's no permanent relocation fee that the landlord would have to provide.

That's if you're not a single family property, correct.

Yeah, councilmember Fulton.

No, this is helpful.

So you've helped me understand that it is a pretty narrow uh, at least with respect to relocation.

So to play out that specific situation, there's a landlord that um wants to do substantial renovation.

Uh if it is a you know, a small landlord, uh, it it is a like the relocation, it's uh it is a lot.

Um it would be a burden on a non-corporate landlord.

But if we don't have that requirement, then that tenant of the non-corporate landlord doesn't have the same protections as the tenant of the corporate landlord.

Okay, thanks.

It's hard.

Councilman Valeri.

Uh as a connecting to rejoinder, I don't know if I'm using that word correctly.

I think actually in the examples that I heard, um, that we heard in the getting the the feedback, there was a distinction.

It wasn't small versus large, it was corporate versus nonprofit.

So we do have nonprofit partners that um are have entered into agreements and they are the the primary property manager.

Maybe that's the distinction.

Um, because I think I think I I can hear both sides, but I think that um I think there are other ways, there are grant avenues and other sort of things that nonprofits actually have greater access to than corporate landlords, uh property managers.

So I'm just throwing that out there.

I'm spitballing from up here because I'm I I agree that this is uh this is all very tricky.

Okay, I'm gonna try to in summation.

Um I think I struggled, and I have several notes in here on where is the teeth of enforcement?

Um, because it it you know, everything sounds great until what happens.

Um, I understand connecting uh a lot of the reporting to the license uh uh renewal process.

What happens if they don't report?

Do they not get a rental license?

Correct.

Okay.

Um are they notified that at the time of the license renewal, I presume?

Like what is the window of time that they have to come into compliance?

I'm not sure I know that number off the top of my head, but um, they would be required to come into compliance in order to receive that rental license, and also because the data reporting is included in the city code, if they don't uh if they don't and provide that data within a certain period of time, we could issue a municipal infraction.

And really the as we all got a deep dive into municipal infractions when that does go forward, it's really about resolving the issue and not a punitive.

So we're not we're still kind of not looking at you know, um a punitive and two things, the actual teeth, right?

Like if it a music municipal attraction basically delays the process to the point where finally somebody complies because that means basically we've done the city has taken on all that work to get it to this point of they should have been doing this from the get.

So what is the stronger hook there then?

Um I I would I think we should talk about those sort of um, you know, the uh uh including a specific time period um of compliance.

And honestly, if you're a larger corporate landlord, um you could just do that every year and just keep delaying.

Because there would be nothing in our code that says, okay, um, they have not complied, it goes through the municipal infraction process, send a uh a lawyer, no, no offense to lawyers that are up here, send a lawyer, get it dealt with, oh, are gonna comply, rinse and repeat.

Like it in theory, there's nothing that could prevent it in our code.

So unless I'm missing something, I don't like repeat offenders.

I hate that phrase, but really um there's nothing that that prevents that.

Mr.

Mahillick.

Yeah, for the rental um the rental license, they have to do that every year.

They have to go through the inspection process.

But now we're adding this extra layer, which we think is a very good layer based on comments we've heard from the community and council that they have to provide this data.

That data is gonna have just as much impact as someone who doesn't um pass all the property maintenance inspections.

We'll give them a reasonable time to give us the data, just like we give people reasonable time to correct a code violation.

But if they don't give us that information, council member, they will not get a rental license.

Which um, and apologies, I'm I'm struggling a little bit to to hear you, Mr.

Mahillon.

Um, you know, yeah, up late watching the world cup.

Anyways, um, but no, and I I hear I hear what you're saying.

I'm I'm trying to see what's in the actual code.

That would be the the hook, right?

Like I get what you're saying.

I think we need to outline what the actual penalty is.

I see um, I think that that's also the challenge of the algorithmic pricing component as well, right?

Like, what is if somebody let's see uh I'm looking for my my question.

Um here, what is the penalty for a landlord found using prohibited algorithmic pricing software?

It's not in the code right now.

So the fine resolution that is attached to chapter 18 will be coming to you later when the fine resolution for the full city comes to the mayor and council.

Okay, right now, any infraction of uh chapter 18 is 100, although every day that that, which we understand is not a meaningful fine, and which is why we want to update it.

Um every time that that um citation is issued, we can issue that citation as many times as they are in found to not be in compliance.

Um, and the other note about if uh rental licenses is that if you do not have an active rental license, you cannot collect rent.

So that is a the the real kicker when it comes to rental licenses.

And thank you for that.

That um that is helpful.

Um I I understand, but I think it is that how much time do they have to get that if they do not have it at the time of the rental license renewal?

Is there like, you know, are we providing um uh uh a grace period?

Or is it am I making sense?

I hopefully I'm making sense.

I may not have had enough caffeine today, and hopefully I'm making sense.

But um, you know, you I hopefully you somebody, Mr.

Mahalik.

Yeah, it comes from you're making perfect sense.

We would we would apply a reasonable standard, right?

And that's 30 days.

If it's for data, it's 30 days.

Okay.

Um I hate that word, the reasonable.

I understand it's a lawyer word, I get it, but it always seems to be my idea of reasonable, it's probably not like everybody's identified identification of reasonable.

Okay.

Um I appreciate that, and I appreciate that we're gonna I think probably strap hole some stuff that we've all been talking about, or there should be.

Um I have just a couple things.

Um, and perhaps this is for uh Madam Acting City Attorney.

Um or or anybody, honestly, um, in the in the uh city attorney office under section 18-115, the rental facility inspections.

Um in clause F.

It says the city manager may require the rental facility to be reinspected to verify the violation has been abated.

Is there a reason that we don't have should language there?

It says may require the rental facility to be reinspected to verify the violation has been abated.

Is that one of those weird main should things?

I'm gonna have to defer to um Christina Shakur Harris, who actually wrote this.

Um I'm trying to recall back.

Um, so we were working with CPDS on that, and I think there were certain situations um in which reinspection wasn't occurring.

Um, but I do believe it happens almost 100% of the time that we go back out.

We won't issue the license if they fail the um inspection um until we have gone out and reinspected.

So we can change that to should.

I'm not I cannot recall why it was made, because I do believe it happens near 100% of the time, if not 100% of the time.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Mahalich.

Sorry.

The only time it could actually happen is with there's such a minor repair in terms of actually physically getting it done, but it's still a violation of our code that someone could make the let's just say we're going to three or four units and you know, three of them pass, one doesn't, but the first one is a battery and a smoke detector, which really is a uh one that happens quite a bit.

If they pop in a battery and and we look at it again, it's good to go.

We won't go out and reinspect it because they've cured it.

Okay.

Yep.

Um, and that that makes sense.

I think um just wherever you know there are May words, I tend to look up these things that we should be doing.

Um, and I can never remember uh off the top of my head the should versus could language.

Um going to section 18-129 on ADUs.

Um, I think that it might have been an extra word here that got uh crossed out.

I think it still needs to be clear that we're looking at a ADU rental license because not every ADU will be a rental.

So I think in the interest of clarity there, we refer previously to rental licenses can be obtained by XXX.

Um and ADUs are under that, but I just think for clarity purpose in section 18-129 that we include language that were only looking at ADU rental licenses.

Okay, bear with me, Madam Mayor and colleagues.

Oh here we go.

All right.

Section 18-14 miscellaneous letter A.

A landlord must provide a tenant with the tenant's entire rental payment history within seven business days of the tenant's written request.

I think if there's a significant history, I think a kindness would be to increase that to 40 14 to 30 days, especially if there is it is a smaller landlord that is not using a tenant portal or other um electronic record keeping.

I think that that could take more time.

It's similar to uh medical record copy requests.

It's one thing if you um have uh older records that are paper, you're given more time under state law as opposed to electronic records.

So I just want to make sure that where we can uh be kind.

Madam Mayor, the last one that I'll end on, and then I of course um oh last two, I promise.

Okay.

Um trying not to, I'm trying to go in order, but my brain doesn't work that way.

Under section 18-194, the voluntary rent guidelines and notice requirements of rent increases, um, I would put forward to my colleagues and um to staff.

I think the intent is that landlords are strongly encouraged to hold rent increases, not just encouraged.

I like stronger language whenever we can use it.

Um, I don't know if that has legal weight, but if you look at our code, I think it definitely indicates an intent.

So uh strongly encouraged, I'd like to do that.

Um I am I understand what you were saying about um not having the staff to follow up on VRG um out of um basically being out of compliance with the VRG.

I think if um, and and thank you to Councilmember Van Greg for talking about through this issue.

I think that that is what the VRG is for.

So I'm not quite sure why would we even have it if we're not actually going to create the infrastructure to follow up on violations of the VRG.

Um that is I think those are uh questions that need to be asked.

I think that if this body is sincere about housing as a strategic priority, which I believe that we are, um, that we would want to investigate every outlier and see, you know, what are the the instances and and again going to the uh the listing of uh you know facilities and and buildings and so forth with the problems that I think it would be good for residents to know um before they sign a lease that this individual has um last rent increase was outside of the limits of the VRG.

I don't know why we wouldn't share that.

Um to the point, sorry, on the public posting of the enhanced inspection list.

This is akin if this is helpful for anyone else, it's been helpful for me.

I like to think of it as that list that they used to have in the Washington Post of all the health code violations.

Like that was a quick list that was always there that kind of told you, eh, I'm gonna avoid that to go place or restaurant for a little while until they got their health inspection uh violation mitigated.

Why would we not do that for housing?

Is kind of my intent.

So lastly, and I defer to my colleague council member, uh actually just about all my colleagues.

Um I I am I struggle with creating under division three tenant rights and obligations.

I could absolutely see where it would be possible for um HOAs or co-ops to not adhere to these tenant rights and obligations.

And what protections?

Um I could absolutely I mean as part of uh a shared agreement, what if there is an hoa covenant that includes anti-organizing language and you you know it is it's a process, the legal process to go through that.

We don't have as uh council member Jackson and I have talked about, we don't have a really good uh program in place where somebody could um you know dispute these sort of uh problems or get it mediated.

Basically, long story short, looking at all the tenant rights and obligations, how can we protect tenants in rentals that are covered by HOA and co-op rules and covenant?

So any tenant that is in a HOA or a co-op situation, chapter 18 does apply to them.

Um, I think we would have to research a little bit more into that specific question around if an HOA um banned tenant organizing activities, how that would um impact us.

Yeah, I'll add to it that I mean HOAs can have more restrictive language, they can't have least restrictive language.

So if the city changes its codes to say that HOAs can't um ban organization from organizing and have a meeting, that's what it is.

They can't over the top and just say, oh wait, there's HOA guidelines on this.

They can't do that.

So I guess sorry, um my binder did that.

So I guess my my question then would be do we need to um above and beyond um let's see, I don't see it explicitly in the tenant rights and obligations part, except for complying with all covenants rules requirements and like um I don't see specifically like language that would say that this section applies to um uh tenants, uh rental facilities covered by HOA or co-op rules and regulations.

So just for consistency and as um our colleague says, clarity is kindness.

Would it be helpful to oh I'm sorry, everybody, yeah, just everybody's hopping on the clarity is kindness.

Um would it be uh something that we could add to specifically to the the enumeration of rights in section 18-161?

I actually think it's better in the educational materials, candidly.

But it has no weight of enforcement if it's in educational materials, it has the weight of enforcement under our code.

Right?

Unless I think as a general principle, HOAs can't again make something legal through their association that's illegal in the city.

I think it's implied overall.

Sorry if I'm not speaking wrong enough.

So that's why I think it's better in the educational materials than calling that specifically out because that's generally implied throughout all the city's ordinances and codes.

I don't know, I don't think that that's necessarily the case though, like across the board that um and again I defer to my colleagues up here on the day is that uh fall under HOA covenants, but there are here's a great example of one.

We just um whatchamacallit, we just allowed for uh more than four freestanding temporary signs in someone's yard.

And I know that that there are HOA restrictions that allow much less than that, or no signs.

Or no signs, exactly.

So I think um I I while I appreciate uh uh the idea of putting it in educational materials to have the weight of of something that tenants can use as this is my right as enshrined in the city code that it has to live there, otherwise it can be ignored, and that is where I will end for now, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh I appreciate the comments of all of my colleagues very thorough.

Um I wanted to specifically go to the reporting, because I think almost every one of us spoke about the annual reporting.

I mentioned maybe the annual councilman Fulton also named a particular frequency of annual.

I wanted to just see among my colleagues if you would support keeping the reporting requirement and doing annual sure.

Go ahead.

Or you're talking about updating it with the removing that protection that they have right now.

So right now there is a reporting requirement where the this there's a number of mandatory reporting items.

Let me just clarify that.

But specifically, there is a report that the DHCD director must give to the city manager.

And that has been stricken.

My suggestion, and I know Councilman Fulton said a specific frequency, is that that be done at least annually.

And I saw four hands.

So just so I understand just so I understand.

Um so you're saying that we are up, we are removing that current protection that we that's not what I'm saying.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Staff is supposed to strike the section.

And we are wanting to put it back in.

Yeah, do you want to read it?

Sure.

Uh the current code language is the director of housing and community development shall provide a quarterly report to the city manager, summarizing the information accumulated from the required reports submitted by each landlord of licensed rental facilities in the city.

So what I'm hearing you say is that we would bring back that language, but instead of a quarterly report, it would be an annual report.

Right, because it was being struggled again.

And this is not speaking to the other items of mandatory reporting of what landlords have to provide.

That is totally separate, and we'll get to that later.

But at least I my goal is to get the language back in so that there is some level of reporting from the DHC director to the city manager, and we would get that report.

Thank you.

When you're talking about the language, you're talking about before the red line, um, before the proposed changes to make to remove the protection of the um the landlord being required to report every single rent increase to the portal.

So councilman show that's a totally different issue.

I just want to do the we did a poll on just what the frequency.

This is not related to what a landlord has to provide.

This is what the DHC director has to provide to the city manager.

And I just want to, and that is a separate issue from the reporting requirements of the landlord.

So I just want to let's let's deal with that first.

And then I saw council member um Valeria just left, but she had her hands up.

I didn't see if everyone had a chance to have their hands up.

I'll I'll call up in a second, but let me just finish this role.

This before I vote on it, I wanted to make sure that I was clear.

Yes, and we clarified.

Well, no, I I had a question because part of the requirement currently with that before the red line was that um the city manager or sorry, the the director of housing should be reporting the rent increases uh uh quarterly uh to the city manager, and the city manager then can report that because that was that was a part of uh the code originally.

Okay, last question, thank you, and then we'll have staff respond.

So um, Councilmember Shaw, the section that you're referring to, I believe, is 18-194B, and the section that Mayor Ashton is referring to is 18195 D.

So two different sections which have language that in the draft ordinance we have struck from the current ordinance.

Um yes, two separate issues, 1954 B, 195D.

Okay, but both sections do have that the um the director of housing should be reporting to the city manager.

Um 194 B does not have a requirement for the department to report to the city manager.

The city manager, there was some reporting from the city manager for the the rent increases.

Would it be helpful if I read that section?

Please do it.

I know this is these are I just want to clarify that is a as you said as you said, um Ms.

Jane Lyons Raider, this is a separate issue, and I just want to deal with uh the fact that there it has been stricken to do an annual report uh from the DHE director to the city manager that would then get to the mayor and council that would be able to share information with us like trends and issues that we may have concerns about.

Um, and the separate issue that council member Shah is referring to relates to what the landlord has to provide.

So if you could please read that section separate section and know that that is a separate topic for us to discuss.

I just I mean I just wanted to let's Jane Jane Lions Rader, please.

Sure.

So section 18194 says 90 days prior to the effective date of any rent increase, the landlord must provide to the tenant and the director of housing and community development, the information set forth below, except that landlords of single dwelling units need not provide this information to the director of housing and community development.

And that information is the recommended voluntary rent guidelines and the current language is information prepared by the city and furnished to the landlord with respect to rent subsidy programs, which might be available to the tenants.

Councilman Show, did you have a follow-up question?

Yes.

So that section originally had in there the rent increases.

That section, no, the language that's currently in there now says the recommended guidelines.

The original.

Yeah, that section doesn't have it.

Let me see if there's another section that does.

No, I see.

I know.

Okay.

I'm gonna continue on with my um section, and then I'll come back and I'll call on you again, uh, Councilmember Shaw, but I think there was at least a majority to at least have that section reinstated with at minimum an annual report that would then come to the mayor and council.

And I'll come down.

So if you have additional questions for clarifying, we'll we'll get to you and make sure we get through all those.

Okay.

Mr.

City Manager, is that clear?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um, so uh I did want to pull the the the thread on what councilmember Jackson was also asking about, which was relating to the um if someone is renting um out rooms in their home, and there are people who are renting out three rooms in their home, which that's you know, that's people are it's helping them to afford to live there.

Um, and that is we have a provision for that.

My only concern is that uh in our comprehensive planning goal six of the housing section, it says ensure safety of rental units.

And so if we're not inspecting the rental units, we don't know that that's safe for tenants.

Um there could be basement apartments, there could be other code violations that we just don't know.

So I just I that's something that gave me pause.

And the other thing that was interesting is that um someone may have an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit, and they're required to get a license, even though it's on the same property, or could be even in within the same house.

So why is it treated differently?

If you have an ADU in your house, an attached ADU, um, and now you're required to get a rental license.

But if you just rent a room in your basement, that doesn't, and it's not officially labeled an ADU, that doesn't require rental license.

Can you just help us understand what why that is?

So an ADU is its own separate dwelling unit, and because of that has to adhere to a more stringent set of requirements for what needs to be included in a full standalone dwelling unit.

Um and so that is why there are those different requirements for a room in a house versus a ADU.

And an ADU can be in a basement, correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

So I just that that to me is just it's it's uh odd differentiator.

I just I want to make sure all renters are in safe places.

That's the bottom line of this, and it just seems like there's a loophole to me.

Uh, and I'm aware of certain situations.

Actually, prior to this, the current uh housing director, there were units, uh, and I won't name particular names of some of the houses that have been given where people were being charged excessive fees, they there were issues with um, you know, uh code compliance, and they just would say, This is my house, I'm living here.

You know, they they were just all kinds of things that were happening, and it was an issue uh from 2019 till about 2023.

I don't know if it still is, but I'm concerned that we are abdicating our responsibility to ensure that there's a safe rental unit for every tenant.

So that I just I'm curious as to how we reconcile that.

Um, if I may, um Madam Mayor, the um we do have um issues or cases um as dealing with municipal infractions coming from code enforcement, where we get reports um as to um people being in um uninhabitable dwellings or uh units or um you know in a garage or in a basement.

And when we do get that report, um whether it's from the neighbor or from the unhappy tenant, um then code is sent out, and we have very recently taken them to court and required them to um evict that tenant um because of the unsafe um and unlicensed um facility, um, whether it doesn't have an ingress or egress.

Um so that's for clarifications on to um what we do regarding if the unit is um not safe um and we rely on reporting um but uh CPDS would know that more than I do.

Yeah, I will just note that uh particularly some of the units I'm talking about, they were vulnerable residents and they knew that they either did not have papers or they were workers.

There was a range of situations where tenants were in concerning situation and they would not feel comfortable to report.

And so I just I maybe I I'm happy to stand alone here with some of my colleagues, but I this is a concern, and I just don't think we've solved it here.

Um, and I just raise that for the rest of the body as well.

Um so I'll I'll leave that there.

Um I did also want to go to the break of lease provisions.

Um I do really appreciate that we've added a number of uh opportunities to people because of situations beyond their control to be able to break their lease.

Um to some of the things I've just been struggling with, as councilman Fulton noted in terms of the um single family homeowner who has a mortgage to pay.

What happens if someone breaks the lease and I think we're requiring now a 30-day notice?

And does that mean that once that 30-day notice is given, there's one final payment because it's up to one month?

Like how does how does that small landlord deal with the fact that shoot, I don't have time to get this place advertised, and it it could take 90 days um, you know, on a surprise like that to get it re-rented.

So how how has staff contemplated that issue?

So tenants are required to provide a 60-day notice to vacate.

Um if they break their lease for certain provisions, it says 30 days in the code.

Yes, but so there's the discrete list of situations in which we're saying that tenants can uh terminate the lease with 30 days written notice.

Um, and so with that, we are balancing wanting to give tenants the flexibility because of those unique situations that we've outlined here versus balancing giving the landlord enough time to turn over the unit and to find somebody else with that situation.

Um, if a tenant provides the 30-day notice for one of the listed uh listed reasons or other reasonable costs beyond the tenant's control, um, the lease may provide that in the event of that termination for such cause, the tenant is liable for a reasonable termination charge not to exceed one month's rent.

So they would be responsible for the next 30 days of rent and then potentially an additional termination charge of one month's rent.

Okay.

Yeah, I was just thinking of, for example, I do know of federal workers who do who have rented out homes that they have previously lived in, and they are also affected by loss of a job and they have mortgage to pay, uh, and they would be in a tough situation in that in that regard.

So that that's where I was struggling.

I I totally agree with it with multifamily.

Um, but if if someone's allowed to break their break their lease for loss of a job, pay 30 days and get out, but what happens to that small landlord who may also be in a similar situation?

Would the city be willing or is there to use the rental assistance or is there a way to make the situation whole?

I'm just trying to, you know, put in real situations of who we know, because I I think that we don't solve the problem fully for those unique small mom and pop shops.

That's something that we would deal with on a case-by-case basis and talk with the landlord and tenant about um what may make the most sense for both parties and we would consider whether it makes sense for us to provide city resources in that situation.

Um but I will note that the cause for um with employment that there's not necessarily a cause for unemployment, it's involuntary change of employment from the DC metro area.

So there is no cause listed here for unemployment specifically.

But if they're moved, their their job is moved, correct?

If their job is moved and voluntarily, yes.

Okay.

That is one of the reasons.

And so you would, as a as city staff, it's not in code, but you would be open to in that situation, federal workers renting out their space, work with the small landlord, mom and pop shop with and the tenant to find a reasonable solution so that neither parties harmed.

Yes, that that's what that's what we would be able to do as staff is to work with them and see what options might be out there.

And people change, I always say this almost every session, we you know, we'll change you.

You the teammate change.

We've seen a lot of change in the Department of Housing Q and Development.

Would you be putting that in a protocol just to align with this because it's not written in code?

Yes, something like that would be able to be included in our protocols.

Okay, that would be uh very helpful.

Um then I raised the issue about um the landlord requiring the history.

Is that something you need us to pull the the the increase history directly to the tenant?

Is that so just to make sure I understand uh the landlord in the lease providing the previous rent increases to the prospective tenant of both that unit and the full property?

Yeah, at the time.

Um yes, I would love uh to know to know if there's a majority on that one.

Okay.

Uh so just to uh describe, we have the city putting, and I this is also speaks to some of the comments I already for my colleagues, that the city is planning to put out a report that has the five-year averaging, and some of us have raised we need to also get to the unit, but one of the clearest things that we can do to put the onus on the landlord is I started mentioning during my previous comments is that they could add they we they could be required to provide um the tenant with the increase history as well for that unit or building.

Um so I just wanted to propose that among my colleagues.

That is a requirement that the landlord would have to provide that history.

Councilmember Fulton.

Just a clarifying question.

Do we were to do that?

Do we know where like it helps me to look at like where we're making a change?

Like, is there a specific place that we would be wanting to insert that or I think it could go in the section that talks about increases or needles?

Or even like the lease requirements.

Okay.

I got a lot.

But I would we've we've had a number of uh proposals up here, so I just want to allow staff so we might need to take a break at some point.

Yes, we can look to see where it would make the most sense to put that in.

And is there a time period for how long you would propose they provide that history for?

I would maybe suggest the last three years.

That's fair.

Yeah.

Is that that number fair?

Yes.

Councilmember Valeri.

Yeah.

Um thank you for raising that.

I just want to also flag that um when I uh raise this during one of my go-rounds, um, that we're also including um, you know, these should be occurring before lease signing, so not just embedded in the lease, and that it should also have reflect the the list of of fees as well.

Because I think that's where we started on all of our our fee discussion was in like listing that out.

So I just want to flag that in addition to the rent increases.

Agreed.

And that with these came out of some of our comments and previous work sessions as well.

So I just want to make sure we're you, you know, leveraging the will of the body.

So colleagues, are you good with this?

Oh, councilmember Shaw.

So this would be the average of three years over three years.

So I don't because there's different lease terms.

There's there's a lot of different lease terms, and we were also talking about including offers.

So for this one, this one in particular, it's it is um I'm gonna separate out because I think we're gonna come when I when we get back to you of what the city is provided in our surveying tools with the rental licensing on offers, et cetera.

This is literally what has the increase history been.

And we could either do an average or just people provide here.

It was in the last three years, year one, year two, year three.

I mean, that that's I'm open to either.

Did you have a question?

The only the only complication I see with that is similar to the the po the portal idea where there's so many different lease terms.

Um I mean, yes, I agree with this in conceptually, um, but I think there's some um just some nuances that I think should be worked out.

I think it's a good point.

I mean, they could just say we had a one-year lease or a two-year lease, here was the increase.

It's it's literally what was the lease term, what was the increase?

Comes from Van Gregg.

Well, what uh uh I know specifically, I don't think it should be averages.

I think if there's been any increase over the past three years, whether it's through a two-year lease or one year lease, we want the history, and again, I think it should be units and buildings, and I don't think aggregate, I think they need to know what the increases have been, period.

And we go three years, and whatever information is in there for the building and the unit.

So this would be the past three years.

If someone signed a one-year lease or a two-year lease within that three-year period, the landlord would be providing to the tenant pre-lease, and this lease, we had this level of increase, and here was a term.

And this lease we had what this level of increase and here was a term.

Okay, so for the uh for the individual unit information, it would be for the past three years, the lease term and any associated rent increases at the end of that lease term.

Um and then property wide, um, what would you like to see there?

Because for the the property, that would have to be an average across the property.

That's correct.

Okay, over year to year or over a three year to year average over a three-year period.

Yeah, I was just gonna say again, we've got a one year, I mean, what we're trying to get at is what happens at the at the end of a year or whether it's a two year.

So I don't think it should be average of three years.

We should find out over the course of the terms that happen with that building, what is the average increase over that period of the three years?

So I don't think it's an average of three years.

If they're getting one year leases, what is the what is the average increase?

If they're getting two-year leases, what is the average increase?

That's what we're we're trying to give as much information, and that's why I think aggregate numbers over the course of the three years.

The reason we're we're elongating it over three years is to catch the outliers, not to streamline it over the course of the three years.

Does that make sense?

That's exactly what we discussed previously.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fulton.

Yeah, clarification slash proposal.

Because I think I think what what you're asking on right now is what is provided prior to signing the lease to the pro to the prospective tenant.

Correct.

We're we are we're also talking about making sure we the city are collecting the right information along with the um license renewal.

So yes, I do support what you're saying, but I would also add on to that.

Whatever we put in whatever provision we're saying here on what goes to the tenant should also be added to that 18 195 A10 on what we collect at license renewal.

Agreed.

Exactly.

Councilmember Shah.

Um, and so just to clarify, I I think what I'm hearing from my colleagues that there is a majority to change what to change uh, which I think is 18-195 to change that um landlords would no longer be required to share the rent increase at the time of the of that rent increase.

That's not what we're addressing.

I know I understand I understand the the first piece, but I think this segues into that that second piece of um the portal information.

I I would love to have you raise that when it's when we come to because I'm almost done.

But uh I would like to separate that out because I think that may have a more of a.

No, I was just following up with council member Fulton's uh comment because that that is connected to um the portal information.

So that's what I that's why I was raising that because I I don't agree that we should be collecting information after a rent increase happens.

I think that we should be collecting it at the time, and I understand that you're speaking about something different.

I'm just responding to council member Fulton's comment.

Okay, let's deal with this issue and then we'll come back to that other issue.

But team, do you understand what we're trying to address in terms of what the landlord has to provide the tenant pre-lease?

I feel clear about the information about the individual unit.

I think there's still additional considerations with the property-wide average information.

Um I think the main thing that I'm thinking through now is when saying the year-to-year increase, when are we defining the year?

Is it lease term from the month?

What do you recommend?

Annual annual, yes.

That's post-star tracks annual, right?

But how do we define annual?

Is it from June to June?

Is it from January to January?

Um, I think that would be one of the considerations.

How does post our track?

What's up?

What how does post our track it?

Uh co-star, you can ask it whatever you would like to ask it.

When you did the housing needs assessment and you that we were told that rents were flattening and were going down, what what term were you using?

I'll have to look into that and double check, but we can put that together while we're going to be able to do that.

Whatever your current practice is, I want to leverage that.

I'm just trying to make sure that tenants before they sign a lease that they know what the average increase is and they can make informed decisions about the pricing history, how this landlord tends to price, as well as eventually the inspections and whether that's quality housing.

That's the kind of consumer information we're trying to give to people.

Based on the comments, I think that we have four on this, but just to confirm.

Okay, and Dr.

Miles, yes.

Okay.

And we'll come back to the more complicated issue.

All right.

Um the attorney fees, uh, just to confirm this one.

I know I'm just there have been some situations on family friends and uh the the attorney fees would be a licensed attorney in Maryland.

Yes, if they're representing a tenant in court, then in order to legally do so, they would need to be uh barred and licensed in Maryland.

Okay, because we specifically say licensed contractor, why wouldn't we want to say licensed or barred attorney just to be clear?

There have been some issues on the immigration case where people are being taken advantage of with attorney.

So I'm just trying to be very clear.

For being clear on must be a licensed contractor.

Should we also be clear?

In that situation, we would be applying that part of the code after the representation has already occurred, and the representation would not be able to have occurred if that lawyer was not in good standing.

So if someone doesn't go to court but is just asking advice of an attorney, that wouldn't apply.

It's just within court fees, correct?

Um I believe it would just be the court fees because the court needs to make a decision in that case.

They need to um they need to clarify that it's related to the court specific court case.

So in that section, which is 146, it uh the obligation for the landlord to pay the tenant's attorney fees is if the tenant is the prevailing party in the legal action and fees are awarded by a court.

So the uh there must be a a a court hearing in which the tenant is the prevailing party.

Correct.

So it'll only be the attorney fees associated with litigating that case, not I asked other attorneys to correct.

So but do we need to clarify that or do you think it's clear enough from the attorney's.

I believe it's clear enough.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I'm just looking at my other list here.

I did also um ask about the sample lease issue.

Uh Montgomery County does provide a sample lease, and I wanted to re-raise the idea of including a sample lease.

If I know the city attorney's office had to take some time to evaluate that, but we'll we can we get an answer on that in the future.

Yes, we will come back to you with that.

Okay.

Um, and then lastly, um, the county has and other jurisdictions have checked, have clear delineations on enhanced inspections.

I just want to flag.

So they they literally talk about a troubled party property is one where there's rodent or insect infestation affecting 20% or more units, extensive visible mole growth, windows that do not permit safe means of emergency escape, pervasive recurring water leaks, lack of one or more utilities that are not shut off due to tenants non-payment.

So I we have a uh a nice framework here that we can leverage to be able to delineate my goal is to get the enhanced property list published along with the portal so that people can see and make informed choices before they sign a lease.

So I just wanted to clarify this reference point because there was some discussion on during my last go round is what qualifies as an issue.

Mr.

City Manager.

Are you asking us to define that right now?

No, I'm just asking to say let's look at this.

We don't have to wait six months.

We'll we'll we'll look at it.

Okay, uh, and then see how we can implement along with the portal, posting something, leveraging already approved or already vetted kind of parameters for what needs to be published and made available to tenants.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I have a few others, but I'm sure my colleagues will catch it.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

So first I want to say uh you're not alone.

Um, so I I really um I I think that it's important that the single um uh landlord who's uh renting on a room or rooms, um I could definitely see some uh cases where uh there would be uh issues, whether it's access, egress, uh whatever.

Uh I struggle with that because I know that the regulatory um burden uh both from the city standpoint is high, and it would recall it were uh cause uh you know additional staff time.

Uh I struggle with that because I know that the regulatory um burden uh both from the city standpoint is high and it would recall it were uh cause uh you know additional staff time, but I do see the mayor's point in that you know we would have tenants uh potentially um you know staying um in uh places that are uh substandard.

So I I I struggle with that.

Uh struggle with that that that uh greatly.

I want to ask a question though, um just for my own edification, but when we were talking about um these rooms that are rent rented, and there's a code violation, and whether they're um brought up by the the tenant or uh by neighbors, but um I forget who was speaking, I'm sorry.

Um you said that the the would typically find them in violate uh the the landlord and violation and then evict the tenant is that correct?

There might be a situation where we have um and we have had a situation where someone was living in an uninhabitable um part of a property um where we got a court order that they needed to um stop having people living where it wasn't safe.

Um and the person's it actually was a family situation, the person wasn't able what refused to move out, so they did have to go to court um to regain access to the property um to the part of their property.

Um so yes.

But if they're living in a room, and I I realize this is in the sack situation, but bear with me.

So if they're living in a room and they have a leash, and then they're evicted because it's uh unsafe.

I mean, don't we talk about the same thing uh in the landlord tenant code?

And uh we pay for we require the landlord to pay for a relocation, but in this case the tenant is evicted and there's no recourse.

So the situation would depend whether there's a lease or not, um whether you know there's just outstanding um situational uh things that might go into um to play, and it's once we have the relocation assistance in place, then they might be able to have that recourse.

Um but as of you know, when we were dealing with this in uh court a couple months ago, we did not have that.

So I mean my thing is I don't want to belabel the point, but I do agree with the mayor.

I think you know uh we have a a large portion, not a large, but uh uh portion of of uh uh housing that the owner is living there uh and renting out rooms.

And I think most of the time it works out fine.

But there's some substandard places uh like we've mentioned that we have problems with.

And so um we should just investigate whether or not we should have some uh requirement for um those uh those arrangements, those those leases.

Um I'm not sure w we could solve it right now, but just put a pin in it because I think that uh definitely that that's one thing that we've discovered.

Um in terms of the enhanced enforcement, I definitely agree with the mayor on on on that.

Um the common ownership uh uh uh ki uh community.

So 18163 uh C3, um I was reading it and reading it, and I had a uh uh issue, I don't think I I found a fix, but just to back up for a second, um with the tenants uh organism.

Um I agree that we have some education.

If we pass this, uh we have some education to do because I don't think that uh HOAs and um uh maybe condos uh would uh uh realize that they're under um uh what we've uh what we've now gonna uh have as uh an ordinance.

Um that's one thing.

But to your point, Mr.

City Manager, about the you know, if the city passes it, uh then uh it's is law and the HOAs have to follow it.

Um it may be true sometimes, but I know in uh such certain cases, uh as uh council member Vallee was was uh saying in um one case the state HOA law uh applies and uh trumps the uh city's uh ordinance.

So a signs, political signs, per for instance.

So they can regulate those signs up to one month before an election.

And the city obviously has no no uh ordinance.

So there is you know a state law that maybe trumps what we're trying to do.

I don't know, we should uh uh uh look into it, but for that instance, there is uh a law that trumps uh what the city is trying to do.

Now do you want to ask a question?

It's it's constitutional case, it's not a state law.

No, it's it's it's also a law as well.

But anyway.

Um so 18163 C3.

Um common ownership community penalties.

A landlord may pass on a penalty issued by a common ownership community if the tenant is found in violation of the ballows of a common ownership community for which the uh dwelling unit is located.

Now, I have been struggling with this because it's not really written uh as clear clearly um uh as I might want it to be.

And I think basically what we're saying is if the tenant did something to violate the um the bylaws of the common ownership community, so maybe to have uh that section changed uh to say that the tenant uh has caused a violation, because what I found uh when I realized that with this a second time, third time, and it was really confused.

Um when uh when they find a violation of the uh the bylaw, or when the HOA uh finds a violation of the bylaw, they typically find the violation to the homeowner.

So I think that you know, then if it's something that the tenant caused, that's they pass it on to uh the tenant.

But we should be just be clear, um, because the the finding of a violation actually goes toward this the homeowner, not the tenant that is correct, um, which is why then we would allow the land the homeowner to pass that on to the tenant, but only in those cases where the tenant is found in violation.

Um so it's not whether the rental unit is found in violation or the property is found in violation, it it's if the tenant is found in violation.

Yeah, and so I think maybe just to clarify, maybe this is my own uh uh problem, is you know, to say that the that the tenant uh is found to have caused a violation of the bylaws, because uh that to me just kind of clears it up.

Uh otherwise it's just it's unclear, it's uh it's just maybe a wording, maybe I'm thinking too much about it, but it just struck me as uh as um uh problematic thank you.

Can can staff confirm whether just to council member Jackson and Councilmember Valeria's question about um the HOA who trumps who because when it comes to planning authority, we don't always trump HOAs.

But are you saying when it comes to the rent to license requirements that we will trump HOAs?

Just to be safe, let us research that piece of it.

Okay, I think that's important because when the state did trump HOAs related to ADUs, they actually put it in the language that said we would trump HOAs.

So I just I think it's an important distinction.

Yeah, and then the the one thing I would just reiterate, um, you know, this is new, this landlord tenant um uh code, and some provisions of it uh are are new, uh they're needed, but they're new, and especially the uh tenant organizations, and so we really have to do some outreach to HOAs and other uh uh organizations to let them know that they have this requirements now to let the tenants organize and and have a space to organize if they so choose thank you very much.

Councilmember Shaw, I know you have some clarifying questions about the reporting.

Um well actually first I just wanted to, I was looking back at the the counties racial equity and social justice impact statement for the algorithms, and it it confirms that it says it's indeterminate.

Um and I think for ours, or that it's non-conclusive, um if it either advances equity or not.

Um and I think for ours, we're saying it does, and so just at another time, I would just like to have some more detail on why there's a difference with our statement versus the counties.

Sure, we can provide that.

Okay.

Um I found that to be very interesting.

Um and then the thing that I am just most concerned with of all of the code is just removing the requirement for landlords to provide the rent increase.

Um because of that being such a strong protection, and um I think that overall that I think that also may uh impact equity as well.

Um, but that is the thing that I am most concerned with because considering it's the strongest protection.

Um, and I know that currently in the code, it does say that um that information when they before they make the increase, before or while the tenant receives it, that information should also be shared with the director of housing.

Yes, and if I could provide a clarification from earlier when I read the language, I was reading from the ordinance, and because of the way that that's formatted was a little bit um a little bit different, but it is section 18194, and that is what says the 90 days prior to the effective rent increase, landlord must provide the tenant and the director of DHCD, the information set forth below.

That information includes old rent, new rent, effective date of the increase, percentage of the increase, the recommended guidelines, um, information about subsidy programs and such other information that's useful to explain the rent increase.

So that is what the code currently says.

And and just just noting that there is, I think a preventative measure if landlords do want to increase rent or gouge rent or any of that, um, or provide an unreasonable increase.

The fact that currently the landlord must report that increase, I think is an overall preventative measure.

Um if it's not being enforced, that's a different conversation, but I think that um that's a pretty powerful protection in the absence of not having any anti-rent gouging.

Um I would also just not now, but just like to just understand why this hasn't been enforced just like around the capacity of staff, um, because I think it is a pretty powerful um measure for tenants.

Sorry, did you want me to address that now?

I mean, you can, but uh yeah, I was I don't know if you needed more time.

Sure.

Um I mean, with that again, I think it goes back to what the goal is and forcing um enforcing that part of the code uh and making sure that the landlords are sending us that information for every single rent increase that they are providing to a tenant.

That means um that we would need to be reaching out to all of the landlords across the city to ensure that they are doing that and then checking back in with them to see uh, hey, are you renewing that lease?

If you are, make sure you send this to us, and if they don't, following up with them, doing that follow-up work.

We have um thousands of landlords in the city.

Um, so doing that and thousands more rental units that that would apply to.

So doing that level of enforcement to make sure that not just each landlord, but for each tenant in the city that um that that is happening would require a significant portion of step time.

Madam Mayor, please proceed.

Okay.

Um, I think one of the I think the biggest difference between what we're what's currently in the code 18-194 and what is being proposed with um reporting this information at renewal of the license, is that it's happening after the fact, and so there's less of a protection there.

So it's not they're not equal.

Um and so I think that is if there was another way that we could do this, um, but providing that same type of protection.

So the protection comes into or sorry.

Um I I and I understand that you're not going to be able to follow up with everybody.

Um, but I think what's what we're asking in the code is that we're not following up with everybody, but we are just requiring landlords to provide that information, just so we have it.

It's up to staff if they want to follow up or if they need to follow up.

We can certainly do that in that case.

I think the the protection comes in when we come in.

And so if we're not able to do that, then we're not able to provide the level of protection that you're talking about here.

And with that with that route of having the online portal that has that information readily available, even further expanding on that with the information in the lease beforehand.

So I think the question to us was like where does that protection come in?

And are there other ways that we can provide it if we're not able to intervene in every situation where a tenant receives a prospective rent increase that's above the VRG?

Just go ahead.

So I I don't I still see we're talking about two different types of tenants here, because we're talking about folks that haven't signed their lease yet.

And then we're talking about folks that are living there, right?

So and we're we're most more so serving those that are current residents right now.

And so I I see that that's that's a big difference in who we're protecting.

Um and so I I want to make sure that we're reconciling that.

Um I think removing the fact that I was just sharing that like forcing a like if a landlord wants to rent gouge their tenant and they are then required to share that increase with the city, I think that is helpful and in and somewhat preventative.

Um so I I there's a difference between what is be there's a huge difference between what is being proposed and what we currently have, as well as who we are choosing to protect and who we're less protecting.

Um and so it looks like more the changes that we're making, it looks like the new tenants that don't yet live here almost have a level of more protection in the way that we're changing this.

I think that with this, it still comes into that question of how do we best protect tenants who are renewing their lease.

I think that's that's the goal that we all want to achieve there.

Um and for us, we just want to make sure that we're best positioned to actually provide that protection for them.

But it's after the fact that they've renewed their lease, right?

Because at the timing, it's and the annual right, so it's after the fact that they renewed their lease.

Yes, for the information that they would be able to look at.

Although if they are negotiating their rent increase, they would then be able to look at the portal that we have with that real-time information, um, providing those averages to say, hey, the whole building's aggregate increase over this time period has only been 3%.

Why are you trying to increase my rent by 10%?

Or they could look at other nearby buildings and say normal increases in this comparable building just across the street has been 2%.

Why are you trying to raise it 12%?

Um so that information would be useful to a prospective tenant, but it could also better equip tenants who are renewing their lease with the information to enter into that that negotiation process.

Because at the end of the day, um we can come in and say, hey, that's a pretty big increase.

That's above the voluntary rent guidelines.

But at the end of the day, it's gonna have to be that negotiation between the landlord and the tenant coming to a decision together.

Yeah, especially since I mean the voluntary rent guidelines are not that that helpful in in practice.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Councilman Van Greg.

Um, only have one other thing that um we haven't uh discussed before.

And there was um when we discussed the last work session, section 18 146 16 regarding the requirement of allowing for subleasing, and you guys did a great job explaining the definition of unreasonably withheld and kind of the staff report basing it on case law.

Um the one thing that I note was a concern to me that I don't know that it would be included under our definition is not allowing subleasing for short-term rental and transient occupancy.

We potentially could have a situation where someone is by our law here allowed to sublease for short-term rentals.

And I can see why we might want to allow someone to say, hey, no, you can't sublease on short-term rentals.

Is that something we could potentially add here by using unreasonably withheld per the definition as you said in case law, but also adding um short-term rental rental or transient occupancy, which could be another reason that allows someone to not have a sub lease?

That's something we could consider including.

Um although with the language currently there, we are placing the onus to decide whether they want to allow that on the landlord.

Um, but including that in the code would be the city saying that that is never allowed.

Whereas right now a landlord could decide that they are okay with that, um, as well as other subleasing situations.

So if I'm looking at section, containing a permission permitting the tenant to sublease with the landlord's permission, which permission must not be unreasonably withheld, but on the same vein, can't they say that it can be withheld on the basis of sub uh short-term rentals or transient occupancy?

Not saying that it can never be allowed, but saying that the landlord has the right to withhold it for that reason, which under this law they wouldn't be allowed to.

Oh, I'm sorry, so you're saying to add into which permission must not be unreasonably withheld, like allowing them to use that as a reasonable reason to withhold the ability, saying that a landlord might say, I don't want to allow them to sublease if it's going to be a short-term rentals or transient occupancy.

Um we can discuss that.

I can discuss that with um with Christina.

I know that we want to make sure that we are staying in the lane of what is allowed or what is precedent from case law.

Um, and I know that she did the research into that case law.

So I would want to, and Christina, if you have anything to add to that.

I don't know um if it specifically addresses your direct question, but um, like for generally in the case law, what cannot be unreasonably withheld um is if the prospective subtenant doesn't uh meet the landlord's reasonable rental qualifications.

So if the landlord, you know, that's based on the landlord's rental qualifications uh that they require for regular tenants.

Um I don't know if that answers your question or not.

If you have further um clarification, I would need to do more research on that.

So are we saying that if the landlord in their own lease says no short-term rental, that can be a basis to withhold under on the unreasonably withheld standard?

Um yes, if they're saying that they're they're using the same uh rental qualifications or not just qualifications but also standards.

Because it's one thing to have a I qualify you as a renter, X, Y, and Z, but also the terms and how it's applied if they're saying no short-term rental in their own lease.

That would be my understanding.

I I I was just gonna can I add a question?

Short-term rentals don't have a legal framework in the city of Rockville, so it shouldn't be allowed, isn't that correct?

To Councilman Van Grack's point.

Uh I I I well, if we're doing the code, I want to make sure that that's something that is protected.

But if we're saying that the lease can withhold it, I I guess I'm just I don't want a situation where we're forcing someone into be able to have their tenant sub-lease on short-term rental or transient occupancy.

Mr.

Mahalik.

Or you maybe want to phone an attorney.

I mean, short-term there, there is no short-term rental framework in the uh in the city.

So they are patently illegal.

Yeah.

Um, I don't know if it helps us to add the language, but also understand the concern.

But my bigger concern, I'm just curious if others here at the DIS or even Councilmember Van Girack have a concern.

Being as consistent as we can with current case law is what we've really strived with this code.

So making modifications would make them a little nervous, but we can certainly consider it.

Well, why don't we just say this?

If we end up making, let's maybe flag this area, if we end up making any future laws related to that, we'll work to be able to potentially flag this and address it as a potential sublease issue.

That makes a ton of things.

That works to me.

Yes, sir.

Okay, all right.

That addresses the concern then as long as we're flagging it and we can come back to it if we ever address it in another way.

That addresses my concern.

Thank you.

Dr.

Miles just checking.

Dr.

Miles to see if you have anything.

It's your turn.

If you don't, it's okay.

No, I I'm good.

I think the staff for answering questions in advance.

Um I have nothing at this time.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Councilmember Fulton was talking about uh some of the specifics of the rental license process, and I know we tabled the discussion, but just wanted to get back to that.

Councilmember Fulton.

Thank you.

Um hopefully I can be crisp in this.

What I'd like to propose and see what my colleagues to we want to collect as much information as possible is in section 18 195 on page 53.

Keep all of the existing enumerated collections.

So we would keep the distribution of units, we would keep the vacancy rates, we would keep the rent charge for each unit, so we would keep all of it.

And we would add any offers that were not accepted for council member Shaw's good point.

We would add any rental increase that occurred between lease renewals that should catch some of the stuff we would have to extrapolate and add information about evictions that have occurred in that unit or others.

If we do that, we've collected all of the information we currently collect plus more at a time when it's got teeth and it can be standard.

So to my colleagues, does that work or any questions on my proposal, or can you tell me what you all think?

Listening to the body.

So I want to respect and acknowledge that.

But from the rest of the body, I was hearing that captures it, but let's just double check.

Okay.

Councilmember Shaw.

So I do agree with the portal idea as I shared before, um, also including the offers.

Um but I was just I I agree with adding that, but I was just concerned about taking away 18 194.

Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying.

Excellent.

Councilmember Valeri.

Last thing I promise.

Um section 18 195.

Um actually I want to make sure I have it correct.

Yeah, it's the page 35 of 35 in the red line version.

Um under section B, the each landlord must maintain records, etc.

Um, I I I think that obviously um I'm this is in no way um uh questioning uh Mr.

Mahalik on this, but I think that to codify that the city manager in coordination with the director of HCD um working together, the information is relevant and necessary to carry out the purposes of this article to me makes sense.

Um it is kind of a shared uh responsibility, and the director of HCD is is very close to the staff working on this, and then um in that same section B number three, if we're going to uh have an uh enumerated list of certain amenities, um, I would add in gym and or fitness facility.

I feel like a lot of uh multifamily buildings do have um a weight or or gym equivalent, so to include that there as well.

Um yes, that that is my last actual edit, and I think an overarching comment, no matter where things end up, I think it's always helpful to have a series of community education webinars.

They can be recorded just as a way to outline level set, all these new processes and rights and what's coming up on the horizon, and as much as we can get kind of in front of things um to keep people up to speed.

There's gonna be a lot of new avenues.

So um I'm very excited about this, but just wanted to flag that.

Thank you.

Um have two last comments.

One is not necessarily some to be solved today, but just an observation given some of the I sent this question to staff, but um, I just note that we haven't specifically noted in this draft that short-term leases, short-term rentals are not allowed, and they are.

I just want to acknowledge there are at least 150 in Rockville, and it appears that there are real estate companies buying up properties, particularly in East Rockville and marketing them, which is taking them off the rental market, taking them off of the homeownership opportunities.

So I do think this is something that we may need to revisit in the future to see how extensive the problem is to decide whether we want to put a policy proposal to it.

I know we don't address it here, but I just wanted to raise the issue because it does have an impact on long term rental opportunities.

Is for um we know that at least two different large nonprofits who need to seriously upgrade their properties, and they're planning to move tenants from one unit to another, renovate the units and then move them back.

Um and I just want to clarify how our relocation program works in these.

There's one senior housing facility that may be doing this, and there's one that is for um low income.

So I just wanted to make sure we're thinking through those issues.

Could a tenants say I'm not gonna participate in this?

You have to send me to a hotel or send me to an out outside of this property.

How does that work?

We do want to incentivize and encourage these nonprofits to upgrade their properties.

It's needed desperately, but I just want to make sure we're not creating any issues that are gonna keep that property, those properties in the in a situation that we don't want to see in terms of quality housing.

Sure.

So in that situation, um, if they are able to do a lease transfer, then there's no requirement for permanent relocation assistance.

Um, and the landlord would also have the option if they don't think that it's gonna be possible to do a lease transfer to wait to the end of the tenant's lease term and then to not renew that lease.

Okay, so from your perspective, I see something else in the panel.

So your perspective, this will not be an issue.

Mike.

From your perspective, this will not be an issue.

No, we don't anticipate that to be an issue.

Definitely want to see these properties get renovated.

We do as well.

Everyone in this room does.

Very much so.

Okay.

All right.

Um, I wanted to just I see I'm looking, I'm not seeing any additional hands, but um, do you need us to take a break?

Would you like to come back with this?

Just wanna see what what you all as staff want to do.

So I think I we received when you guys poll, that's always extremely helpful.

So we know those areas where you wanted specific edits that you polled that will come up with some language.

I saw Jane taking some diligent notes, but to make sure that staff is consistent with the city attorney's office, I think it would be good because what we would what we'd recommend, Mayor, if it's okay, is to come back and just see if there is an appetite to uh move forward tonight, and then if so, um, we throw up some recommended um motions tonight with some edits that we heard.

So you guys could vote on those one by one to make sure everybody knows exactly what we're approving tonight, if that's what you choose to do.

But I don't think we need more than 15 minutes or so, 20 minutes, 20 minutes if that works for everybody.

Councilman Van Greg.

I was just gonna say uh presuming the city of uh the city attorney staff were okay with it.

I'd still like to propose that amendment of removing of the published not more than once a month in 1814 to the extent.

Yes, that was on the list.

Thank you for flagging it.

It's on there.

Okay.

Yep.

If that works, Mayor, that works for us.

Okay, so you need 20 minutes.

20 minutes.

And I'll come get you guys when we're ready if that works for you guys.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Mayor.

So listening public, we'll take a brief break for about 20 minutes and come back.

Thank you.

Good evening, Rockville.

Welcome back.

We are reconvening meeting 18-26, and today is still July 6th, 2026.

We are moving forward with the conclusion of our action item related to potential adoption of an ordinance to amend chapter 18 of the Rockville City Code entitled Rental Facilities and Landlord Tenant Relations.

We had a robust discussion on what is being proposed over a number of work sessions, and we had some final tweaks that staff worked on during the break.

And I'm gonna turn it back to Jane Lyons Rader to give an overview.

Great, thank you, madam mayor.

Um, so here we have the introduction and suggested motions.

Um, and with uh with the move to adopt that would be with an effective date of January 1st, 2027, with the following amendments.

So, first we have an amendment to section 18-195D, and that's adding back in that language about the director of housing and community development providing a report to the city manager uh in the current code.

Um, I believe it was quarterly, but adding back in that language, we would amend quarterly to annual.

Amendment two is section 18-195B3.

And this is just adding in with that list of different amenities that we can ask the landlord to provide information on whether they have right before a swimming pool, we've added in gym or fitness facility.

Amendment three, section 18-195A 10.

With this, we have added in any, and this is the information that the list of mandatory data reporting that all landlords must do.

This is the list of individual unit information.

And so with that, we have added any offers of rent increases, whether accepted or not, between lease renewals, any rental increases between lease renewals and any evictions which have occurred.

So that is the new language that has been added to that list.

Amendment number four, 1880 D, the landlord must disclose over the previous three years.

Rent increases for the dwelling unit and the length of lease terms and average year over year rent increases for all dwelling units within a rental facility.

And that is that prior to lease signing, the landlord must disclose that information.

And then amendment 5, 18149A.

This is changing a landlord must provide a tenant, the tenant's entire rental payment history.

Right now, the draft ordinance has seven business days.

We have changed this to 14 days of the tenant's written request.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, do you have any questions about this?

Councilmember Fulton.

Sorry, I do have one question.

It may be fine.

And then when we capture it again.

Do we mean lease or do we mean license?

I think it's any offers of rent increases, whether accepted or not, between I believe I do see what you're saying.

I believe it should be licensed renewal.

I think it should be licensed.

It's it there, it's in two places there.

Uh any rental inquiries between license renewals and offers between license renewals.

Cool.

Yes, I'm not able to live edit the slideshow that you're seeing, but we will capture that.

I'll say it on the fly when I read it.

Oh, you're already excellent.

And I just want to acknowledge that we had a discussion about uh a potential amendment on algorithmic pricing.

Staff has requested additional time.

Uh so we'll potentially move forward with that, and uh then staff will come back.

Councilmember Van Crack.

Well, I mean, and I understand what staff's saying coming back, but since we're looking to pass it now, and every single algorithmic pricing that I saw passed that had passed muster did not have the clause.

Unless there's a reason that I understand behind it, I'd still ask for it just to be removed because I don't understand why we're having that time period there when it covers everything.

I have a strong desire to pass this and to get it right.

I do hear my colleague.

I just do have concern that staff is asking us for time.

Uh Mr.

Mahalik.

I think we're gonna be okay.

Um I think we're gonna be okay.

Colleagues, what do you think?

Councilman Fulton.

Go ahead.

Oh I think in either case, so there's a just make sure I understand.

Right, there is a question over whether this clause is appropriate or not.

And either it's six and one half dozen of another.

We either pass it with it in and we change it if we need to, or we pass it with it out and then add it if we need to.

It's if if that's if what I just said is true, then I'm okay with not adding the amendment as long as we as long as there's something.

Hold on, Councilman Vancrack.

As long as some clarification is just if the only rationale is the county included it in their proposed law.

I mean, that and if that remains the only justification, I don't see it as valid.

Um, especially because everything that I've read in similar languages across the country didn't have it.

So if the if if the only rationale remains just because the county had it, then I'd ask that it if we do pass it this way that it'd be removed just because I'm not comfortable with that rationale.

I I think that's fair, although I just I want to hear from the attorneys as well.

Just because I do respect the fact that you may need to read more research, although I would love to get it perfect tonight.

I know that it may not be possible if you could just share your your opinion on this.

I'm sorry.

Um I I do believe candidly that was the only reason you know the county put it in.

Um I think we wanted to check with them to see what the rationale was.

Uh I agree with uh council member Fulton.

You know, either way we do it.

We can either amend it one way and add it or take it out.

So whatever is the pleasure of the body tonight, I think we could do.

And if there's some um valid reason to change it, we would amend it later.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Do we have a motion?

Can we go back to one slide?

Let's do the introduction first.

Councilmember Valeri.

I introduce the ordinance, amending in City Code Chapter 18, rental facilities and landlord tenant relations.

Do we have a motion to move the whale waiver?

Councilmember Jackson.

I move to waive to lay or period.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Councilman Van Grack seconds.

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

Aye.

All right.

It is unanimous.

Do we have a motion to adopt the ordinance?

Councilmember Fulton.

I'm happy to help.

Uh I move to adopt the ordinance amending City Code Chapter 18 rental facilities and landlord tenant relations with an effective date of January 1st, 2027, with the following amendments.

Amendment one, section 18-195D.

The director of housing and community development shall provide an annual report to the city manager summarizing the information accumulated from the required reports submitted by each landlord of licensed rental facilities in the city.

Certain data points collected under section 18-195A will be made available online and by request.

Amendment 2, Section 18-195B3.

The availability of certain amenities, including air conditioning, wall-to-wall carpeting, dishwasher, garbage disposal, washer dryer in apartment unit or on-site, patio, balcony, gym or fitness facility, swimming pool, and tennis courts.

Amendment three, section 18-195A 10.

Individual unit information, including unit number, number of bedrooms, square footage, current or in the case of vacant units, most recent monthly rent in monthly rent, any offers of rent increases, whether accepted or not, between license renewals, any rental increases between license renewals, any evictions which have occurred, and whether or not the unit has any restrictions on its rent increases.

Amendment number four, section 18-180D.

Landlord must disclose over the previous three years, one rent increases for the dwelling unit and length of lease terms, and two, average year-over-year rent increases for all dwelling units within a rental facility.

Amendment 5, Section 18-149A.

A landlord must provide a tenant the tenant's entire rental payment history within 14 days of the tenant's written request.

Councilmember Valeri.

I second.

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

Aye.

Excellent.

Wow team, thank you so much.

We've kept the housing team very busy, and we appreciate you.

There's a lot in here, and uh we'll see how it all goes.

And I just would like to say if you're hearing issues, uh please raise with the city manager so that we can address policy considerations.

Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

We'll now move on to mock agenda.

We had a leadership planning team meeting this morning.

It will be posted online.

And we went through six-month planning calendar.

So I'm gonna assume we're good here.

Old new business.

I have just quick announcements.

Uh we're very proud in Rockville to be hosting the U.S.

adaptive open.

It is at Woodmont.

There are many people with eight different categories of disabilities and top athletes all across the country.

Over 90 athletes from over 30 states from and nine countries are competing in Rockville this week.

So it just really shows people we can all do anything, and I just appreciate the spirit of these athletes and what they're bringing to the table.

Very inspiring.

Feel free to check it out.

I think it's going to be covered on Wednesday live as well.

And I also wanted to acknowledge Peace Day in a world where there's so much hate, we need peace.

And we're gathering together with the Maddie JT Stepanic Foundation at World to Beer on July 11th from 2 to 5, and wanted to support that.

And I think that's all I have.

I won't talk about the World Cup tonight.

All right, do we have a motion to adjourn?

Councilmember Valeri, do we have a second?

No one wants to leave.

Councilmember Jackson, seconds.

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

Aye.

Excellent.

Thank you all.

Have a good night.

Next meet.