Safety, Housing, Education & Homelessness Committee - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the safety, housing, education, and homelessness committee of Denver City Council. The safety, housing, education, and homelessness committee begins now.

Alright.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to safety, housing, education, and homelessness committee. I am honored to be the chair for your committee and also one of your council members at large, Serrano Gonzalez Gutierrez. We will start with introductions of our my colleagues who are sitting at the table, before we go into our agenda item today. So with that, I'll start

to my left with

my vice chair.

Good morning. Chris Hines, Denver's perfect tech.

Sarah Farrity, your other council member at large.

Jamie Torres, West Denver, District 3.

Good morning. Paul Cashman, South Denver, District 6.

Morning. Chantel Lewis, District 8.

Good morning, Darryl Watson, Fine, District 9.

Meanda Sawyer, District 5.

Interim Flynn, Southwest Denver's District 2. I'm gonna just hold you in suspense there.

Yeah. That is. That was a

little pause.

All right. Well, we have one item on our agenda today, it is an action item with a presentation and all the works as well as public comment. And it looks like we have four items on consent. So we'll get to those at the end. I do want to welcome pro tem Romero Campbell, is joining us at the table. Thank you for being here. And then we'll go ahead and turn it over to Councilman Watson and Councilwoman Lewis regarding the ordinance to amend chapter 27 of the code regarding enforcement of the housing code. So we'll let you all go ahead and drive and share your presentation. Well, I will take I will be keeping a queue for council members, but just note that we have public comment first,

and then we'll go to questions after that. Thank you. Good morning. So thank you all for joining us this morning. So we have a proposal to safeguard rental properties because Denver residents deserve safe, healthy, and dignified homes.

This policy is a joint effort between councilman Watson and I, but also the Department of Public Health and Environment. They have been incredible partners. I mean, really, an opportunity for us to maintain the highest habitability standards for every rental property in the city and county of Denver. The main the main point in this ordinance, it really helps us to ensure that our residents have the relocation assistance that they might need in the event that their units are deemed uninhabitable by the Department of Public Health and Environment, which is why we collaborated with them because they're the experts as well as collaborations with tenants rights organizations to make sure that we have that lens as well. And so as leaders in our community, we feel an obligation to maintain the highest habitability standards for every rental property, that's what we're hoping to accomplish with this ordinance.

And and I'll share also very quickly, honored to cosponsor this with council member Lewis. I think one of the things that we really wanted to make sure is that we're looking at this approach with a scalpel. We are very specific on this is, this bill will will focus on ensuring that folks aren't displaced in the situation that, their buildings become uninhabitable. We will, as you will see as we walk through this presentation, are not changing the habitability requirements for apartments, for for landlords. We are simply very much clearly focused on ensuring that that our residents are able to live in dignity and that we have laws within on the city county of Denver to make sure that occurs.

So thank you so much to our friends at DDPHE and our city attorneys for making sure that we stay on focus. So, wanted to share a an opening story, for, kind of what the genesis of the why has been for council member Lois and myself and, many others around this table have been working on tenants' rights. But this story began, in Five Points. It began in the Fine District 9, and we're encouraging our our folks who are listening and folks around the table, to imagine, living in a in in in the cold winter, and this was one of the fake snowmageddon's that we have every year, living in cold winter without running water for over a week. And it actually was for several weeks, neither cold nor hot water because a pipe burst.

The pipe burst was was not the fault of external carriers like Denver Water. This was within the building that these residents at Welton Park Apartments lived at. For several weeks, they were without cold or hot water. These are elders. These are veterans.

These are folks that we promised. I know I did as this project was being built that this will be a safe place, a place of dignity for residents to live in. Many of these residents, the alternatives provided by the property owner was for folks to go into the alley on to shower, to go into the alley to get water from a pretty dirty hose. Councilmember Lewis and I immediately met with these neighbors, heard their stories, and then met with DDPHE and our friends there and identified that this is not something that is sustainable. We built these apartments with the guarantee that these folks will live in dignity and that the city will stand by them and ensure that their places remain habitable based on the law of the state of Colorado.

And that's what this bill is focused on making sure that we can do. Next slide. Colorado law sets clear standards for safe and sanitary housing and requires landlords to maintain essential services. Senate bill twenty four zero nine four mandates that landlords provide relocation assistance when necessary. Our policy aligns local regulations with these state laws to protect our tenants and hold bad landlords or unaccountable landlords at this point accountable.

This bill closes enforcement gaps and ensures Denver rental units meet state and local housing standards. And these steps we are taking or steps that were elevated by, DDPHE, our public health, and environment department. I thought it was important. Councilman Lewis and I thought it was important for us to highlight what the current habitability requirements are within the state. We've made zero changes to what these are, but we thought for folks viewing, we thought for our fellow our colleagues, to to be able to see what uninhabitable conditions are and what impacts where DDPHE, when they go in to look at habitability, what they look for.

These standards and conditions are also included in Denver's municipal code. So once again, we made zero changes on what is expected for habitable environments for renters. And our bill gives DDPHE more authority to provide and order relocation services to keep Denver renters safe and not displaced in the case of their apartments becoming uninhabitable.

Thank you. So here are some photos. This is I know. They're horrific. Yeah.

This is from the renewal investigation at the William Penn Apartments run by the landlord CBZ Management, which you all may be familiar with. And this is in one council district, but I would imagine that all of us have something like this in our council districts, including in District 8. Under current d d p under current law, DDPHE struggles to enforce habitability regulations. Therefore, noncompliant landlords, ignore fines and wait for the courts to act, essentially. And so they can delay the repairs or whatever DDPHE might recommend, excuse me, for habitability violations and see them as just a mere cost of doing business.

And so what we we see is that folks that the inaction from the landlords leave the tenants, in trapped and unsafe environments, and sometimes deteriorating living conditions, because they are just not addressing the concerns. And so this bill really closes the loophole by strengthening DDPHE's authority to order relocation services and hold landlords accountable. So the problem here. So gaps in Denver's municipal code leave Denver renters in the cold. DDPHE can placard unsafe buildings, but not always force landlords to provide relocation.

And, again, councilman Watson talked about our ability our desire to wanna keep folks' house ultimately, which is why we focused on the relocation. And so as a result of that, tenants are forced to navigate complex state procedures independently during these emergencies, and you can imagine that's

not fun.

These gaps leave renters vulnerable and the delays and delays their support to save to stay safe. Without mandated relocation support, tenants face displacement and hardship. I will say with the Welton Park Apartments that we were dealing with, it took a very long time and a lot of advocacy to get them to provide that relocation assistance for the folks that were living in there. And so as Councilman Watson mentioned, that folks who are taking showers or not taking showers, unable to prepare meals had a huge impact. And so the focus on the relocation, I think, is an opportunity for us to close the gap in order to protect renters from that displacement.

So what do we want to do here? The solution is really to strengthen DDPHE's oversight so landlords are fully accountable for maintaining safe and habitable renter properties. Under our policy, landlords must provide relocation assistance when their properties become dangerous or uninhabitable. The policy will also empower DDPHE to impose strict fines and place liens on noncompliant landlords. And with these tools, we can protect tenants and ensure that no landlords profit from neglect, which we have seen. And so our overall comprehensive approach will protect tenants and ensure negligent behavior is not rewarded or ignored. We

wanted to thank you so much, council member Lewis. We wanted to take a second to, as always, within these bills, some of our language within our code is complex, confusing. We wanted to highlight which parts are being impacted by this. So section twenty seven twenty six would allow DDPHE to request property management records during inspections. And we have folks from the DDPHE team that can explain why that's important.

But it was something elevated by them as something that's essential in helping in this very targeted process. Section twenty seven twenty seven gives DDPHE the power to issue fines and require landlords to fix habitability problems until they're resolved. To be clear, DDPHE now can do fines. This just simply helps to accelerate that process. And once again, we have their team here of experts who do this work, and they can they can speak to why this bill is gonna be helpful to them on that part.

2728 enabled DDPHE to designate buildings as unfit for habitation and to order safe temporary accommodations when needed. Once again, state DDPHE can do this. One of the changes that we've made is that placarding today often requires a full displacement of residents. So if they placard and say, this building and we have many examples in the press that's happened over the last several months. They placard and said it's not habitable.

Individuals have to, no matter where what's going on with the weather, have to find accommodations on their own, which makes them most likely displaces them. This provides needed support for our public health team and, quite frankly, for the residents who trust us for providing habitable environments. If the city covers relocation costs, it may place a lien on the landlord for those costs. That is something that DDPHE can speak to. We've had very specific discussions or briefings with our Department of Finance as well on any of those impacts to them or impacts for where those costs would go.

But we'll provide some information here at a high level on that, but that is something that DDPHE felt was important to us.

Just just quickly because I do think for these different sections that DDPHE could offer some insights as to how this works in like, how it actually works in process because the request for property management records during inspections, that was a very specific request. And I'd love for you all to talk about, like, how that plays out in the field and some of these as well. That'd all right.

And Nicole, if you don't mind introducing yourself if you wanted to jump in. And the mic's above you, you don't have to worry about it. Everyone can hear it.

All right. Sounds

good. Nice to see you all. My name is Nicole Caldwell. I'm with the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. And I'm the Healthy Families, Healthy Homes section manager. So that's the section within our Public Health Investigations Division that has a number of programs, including our residential health and housing program. That program is primarily complaint based. And we are charged with protecting the living situations of all residents in Denver. So wherever it is that you call home, it needs to be safe, and it needs to be a healthy space for you to live in. When it comes to

what did you want me

to speak to? Oh, the inspection records? Yes, please. Sorry. So currently, we have the way we respond to a complaint and conduct inspection is we go out, we conduct a site visit, and we ask, can we conduct an inspection of your dwelling? Residents have the right to refuse that, and they can say, no. Absolutely. I'm not gonna let you in. If that happens, we have, the option to pursue a warrant. What we can't do currently is say, can I conduct an inspection of your dwelling?

And can I also request, for example, at a multiunit dwelling in an apartment complex, can I also request all of your work orders that have come in from your residence? Say, there's an apartment building that's had a recurring issue with heat or hot water, and we're hearing from residents that this happens all the time, but we're hearing from management maybe something We would like to have the ability to request records like that just like we have the ability to request an inspection. Again, they could refuse that, and then we would seek a warrant. But that would not differ from the process that we currently have with the physical inspection. So that's how

that would work. Thank you. And I just wanted to note that because I thought it was important when we talk about buildings deteriorating. This gives them the opportunity to be able to maybe see those in advance or see the noncompliance in advance so that we aren't getting to the point where you have to placard an entire building, and an entire building needs to be relocated. Thank you.

That that was that was very helpful. And, Alex, anything you wanted to add? If you don't mind introducing yourself as well.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Alex Hudal, the brand new legislative liaison for the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment.

How brand new are you?

About three, four weeks in. All of that at this point. No, I think you all did a fantastic job talking about that process. But I'm happy to add other context as needed.

Thank And I'll quickly thank you so much, Councilwoman Lewis. I'll speak to stakeholder because this discussion impacts people extremely personally. And the councilwoman and I wanted to make sure we took the time to listen to all folks that felt they're impacted. And then, obviously, through the city council process, there'll be plenty of opportunity, including today, for additional voices to be heard. But councilmember Lewis and I have worked on this issue for over a year.

The tragedy at at Walden Park Apartments occurred in 2024, and that was kind of the kick start for our work with community on this. Since then, we have continued to meet with renters, landlords, and other stakeholders. So the apartment association renters apartment association as well as tenant rights organizations, as well as individuals living in apartments and properties throughout our communities. We held multiple meetings with tenant advocacy groups such as the GS Coalition, East Colfax Collective, and Denver Metro Tenants Union. Our policy proposal is a community led effort.

We felt very confident in from the beginning that community members elevated this, and we are following their lead. We have been working on the issue, as I stated, for over a year, and this timeline ensures broad engagement and thorough vetting of this process.

Alright. That's it.

I was gonna say any final statements?

Thanks. Great.

All right. I need to just want to welcome some folks that joined us afterwards. I want to welcome Council President Sandoval, Councilwoman Gilmore. I couldn't remember Councilwoman Torres. Did you walk in after?

Oh my gosh. Sorry.

There's so many people around this table.

It was a very meaningful

Was it you? It was you? You're always you were behind?

Did you do it? Count Cashman.

That was Cashman.

That was Cashman.

And welcome, Councilman Cashman. I'm Cashman.

Say it blank. Again.

All right.

You were already here. You had the dramatic pause in between. All right. Well, with that said, we'll come back to order here. Okay. So with this item, we have fifteen minutes for public comment on this matter. I just wanna remind speakers that are signed up that you I would love for you to begin your remarks by telling us your names and who you are here representing. If you have signed up to just answer questions, just state your name and note that you're available for questions. Speakers will have two minutes for your remarks. We have some folks that are virtual, some folks that are in person.

We will be timing. And I have my trustee colleague here who will be helping me to to manage the time. I'm going to ask that speakers must stay on topic, so the topic that is at hand, what we are here to talk about today, and direct your comments to the committee as a whole. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech and refrain from individual or personal attacks. We do have some folks signed up both for and against, so we will be alternating starting with those in favor of the proposal.

And like I said, we have fifteen minutes, aside. We have six folks that have signed up, so we should be able to get through everyone. And so with that said, we will be starting with our virtual, with Haley Eicher.

Hi.

My name is Haley Eicher, and I live in Councilman Sawyers District 5. I'm a member of the Denver Metro Tenants Union, and I'm on the organizing committee at Cedar Run Apartments and part of the Cedar Run tenant union. I'm here to speak on behalf of my neighbors at Cedar Run. There are many examples of our landlord not complying with current legislation by failing to address issues and dwellings that threaten the health and safety of tenants. I would like to give you just one example out of many.

One of my neighbors had the ceilings in both of her bathrooms cave in. The ceilings contain asbestos and mold. So when a ceiling caves in, tenants are exposed to those materials. In that situation, she had two options. She could live in the apartment for seven days with the ceilings caked in, hoping that the landlords fix the ceilings within the seven day period required by current legislation.

And that's only if the landlord complies with current legislation. Often, this is not the case. Or she could pay out of pocket to stay somewhere else to avoid exposure to harmful materials and be able to take a shower. As I just mentioned, our landlords rarely, if ever, comply with the seven day rule. Most tenants do not have the money and resources to hire an attorney to fight this negligence in court, and this leaves tenants vulnerable to those harmful materials and to not having to inhibitable conditions.

So this is why this bill is so important. In a perfect world, this bill would never need to be utilized because the bill incentivizes landlords to fix problems before the ordinance needs to be enforced. It holds landlords accountable and protects tenants from negligent landlords. And that's why I'm urging you to pass this bill today. Thank you.

K. Thank you, Haley. Next, we will switch to, and that is Destiny Bossert, who I believe is here in person. If you are here, please, go ahead and step up to the microphone, introduce yourself, and you will have two minutes for your comments. And like I said, we will be timing, and I will cut people off at two minutes.

Hi. I'm Destiny Bossert. I am representing the Apartment Association of Metro Denver. We participated in one stakeholder meeting. Obviously, we were not able to see draft language until recently, so we're still reviewing, but we, wanted to offer just some important protections that you could codify in the bill, so we wanted to offer some amendments.

First is notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure, and that's for even in emergency situations, basic due process. Second is just codifying that if the tenant has caused the damage that relocation assistance would not be mandatory. And then third is just to make sure that they are current on rent, which just is in state law, so codifying that in language. So thanks so much.

Alright. Thank you. Next, we will switch back to proponents, and we have Ida Ada Altman.

Hi. My name is Ada Altman, director of Denver Metro Tenants Union. I won't have much to say to add to Haley. Our members are really the voice of our organization more than I, but I want to speak to the fact that we have been stakeholder in this, that organizations such as ours and ones that we're in coalition with have spoken to council council members, who are running this bill, and that this is important. We have situations that some of you are aware of where tenants may be living for weeks or months, members of our unions, months without heat or hot water.

And as miss Eichler just explained, there are state laws that might kick in. They didn't kick in over a year ago, but now they would where if the if if there's a threat to life, health, and safety that the tenant there's a seven day presumptive time frame to actually remediate the problem, where does the tenant go for those seven days? Is is seven days should should a tenant live in with asbestos falling on them for seven days? Should they live without hot water or heat in the dead of winter for seven days? But even when you get to seven days, in order for the remedy of alternate accommodations under state law, they this is not something that landlords just do because it's required.

These are words on paper unless someone takes an action to enforce it. Right? And as Haley was just saying, tenants cannot just access an attorney who does affirmative litigation this way. There are very few. There's a few in the whole state. Right? This is not a remedy just because it's a state law that's actually available to our members, that's actually available to tenants, And this is why it's so important that this bill passes to give the city the ability to actually make these remedies real in a way that that that, like, legal aid and private attorneys currently cannot and keep people safe. Please. Yeah.

Thank

you. Next, I have Jim Lorenzen, and we were not sure if this person was in favor or opposed, but please, if you are here in person, feel free to walk up to the microphone and introduce yourself and you have two minutes for your comments.

I don't know if I'm in favor or opposed. I'm Jim Lorenzen. I'm the owner and president of Cornerstone Apartment Service. We manage about 300 apartment buildings in the urban core of Denver. We manage about 7,500 units and that represents, that means an average building size of about 20 units.

Okay, so most of my owners are mom and pop operators. First of all, this notion that one, all landlords are just kind of greedy and after the money and only don't want to fix anything is I could nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, we have a very symbiotic relationship with our residents. Matter of fact, I would say we actually serve, we have two clients, our residents and our owners. We need to keep them both happy, but there are some practical things that need to be considered.

One, a lot of our buildings here in Denver prior to this most recent building surge in the last ten years, there was nothing built here prior to about 1970. So all these buildings are old, so what does that mean? A boiler, we had this last winter, two boilers go out in a building. So what is, I mean, you don't just go to Home Depot and buy a steam boiler for 25 unit building, It needs to be ordered. That ship and turnaround time is somewhere between anywhere from thirty to sixty days.

Now, we're doing everything we can in those situations. We're going to put temporary heat into the building and we're going to give our residents space heaters, but does that is that a life safety issue? I guess my question would be back to you is if you owned a 1930 home and your boiler went out and you were faced with that, would you move to a hotel or would you just kind of manage the situation until you got through kind of that process? And so that's some of the realities. The other thing, we have an energized Denver initiative.

After 2026, I'm not going to be able to buy a gas boiler. I may have to buy an electric boiler. The lead time on those today are up to six to twelve months. How do I manage that situation? So these are real life things.

Your comments.

Thank

you. Minutes is up. All right. I know we have Jesse Paris, I think, signed up, but I'm not seeing that he is on Zoom. So next we will go to Doctor. Steven White, who I believe is joining us virtually. And this, I believe, is our last person signed up, but we will make

a last call at the end.

Yeah. Steven, you're being asked to be promoted. And we doctor, White, we need you to accept the promotion so that we can have you give your input. Steven White, if you can please accept the promotion. You keep declining it, and we need you to accept it so that we can hear from you.

He's one of our members. He is an elderly.

It looks like they said he's on the way. So I think he's getting promoted. Yeah. And I think we just need you to unmute, doctor White.

Hello. Please introduce yourself and provide your two minutes of comment. We'll be timing. I don't

think you'll see anything on your screen, and so I will just let you know when your time is up.

Thank you very much. I am doctor Steven White, and it's my pleasure to talk to you and my honor. We've lived at our location for almost eight years now along with 13 other families in the same complex. Two years ago, we didn't have any water in our home for nearly three weeks because of a sewer line break. We couldn't take a shower, couldn't use a bathroom or a faucet.

We didn't know that we were in a hazardous situation until there was a knock at the door, and the East Colfax Community Coalition or EC three, as they call themselves, told us that we had been notified by the health district that we had forty eight hours to move. Yeah. We had no idea where to go, and nobody else did either. The property manager did not offer emergency housing, but EC three put stepped in and negotiated with us. The property manager paid fourteen days of hotel stays for all residents and tenants.

They did pay the the room, but they didn't offer any food stipends, which became very expensive for us. On top of that, we have our businesses to manage also. And it's important that the city mandate that this property manager provide relocation assistance in these conditions so that everybody who finds themselves in a situation like ourselves doesn't become homeless and end up on Colfax Avenue sitting on the concrete. We strongly support this amendment that will require landlords to pay relocation assistance.

You, mister White. Okay.

Sorry. Doctor White, that is your two minutes. Thank you so much, for your comments.

I'm gonna do just a final call to make sure there wasn't anybody that didn't get a chance to sign up that wanted to provide comment that hasn't already spoken. Okay. Seeing none, we will move on to the next phase of the day. We are now gonna have council members who have questions. And please feel free to if you're asking questions for anybody that's here participating, just make sure you reference them.

We have seven members in the queue. We've got a good amount of time. But I would say at the thirty minute mark, I will just give a notice depending on how far we are down the queue to make sure that all council members are able to ask questions. So we'll kick off with councilman Hines, followed by councilman Flynn.

Thank you, committee chair. It's always weird to see your own home in a presentation or a place where I used to live. So thank you for, you know, your advocacy for for tenants. It's it's, you know, that my living room and bathroom windows were were in the slides of this presentation. Wasn't living there a few months ago, but I was there in 2007, 2008.

That was 1644 Pennsylvania. And because it's in my district, the I was wanna thank the Department of Public Health and Environment for keeping me in the loop and our city attorney's office for keeping me in the loop and and numerous other agencies. And I just wanna thank you for the just the sheer amount of work and effort that went into, you know, what ultimately the public learned about in one evening. There were numerous conversations over a span of months that that really went into the to the ultimate decision to to placard as the as the the term goes to placard 1644 Pennsylvania. And sure, it made the news, but but really, there there were so many conversations before that one press or media cycle.

And so I just I want to thank you. Do you know how many months the conversations were going on before that decision was made?

I can tell you that our investigators had been regularly inspecting that building for about a year. When they initially went out, the conditions were not as dire as as they ultimately became, but they did deteriorate. And then towards the end, they quickly deteriorated to a point where it became uninhabitable. But we had been working and attempting to get those residents what they needed for over a year.

Yeah. And another another property in District 101399 Vine, which ended up being part of the same ownership group as 1644 Pennsylvania, there were conversations at least for a year. DDPHE would make site visits, would issue warnings. And and so I the reason why I wanna share that is to demonstrate this isn't there are things that are emergency, and I I have heard, you know, the term emergencies, but there there are a lot of lot of other tenant tenant habitability issues that go on for weeks and months or even a year or longer. And so certainly, we should have a conversation about emergencies.

But that's not the full conversation. So that, to me, demonstrates that there are, I think the vast majority of property owners, particularly as as was mentioned, mom and pop property owners, they wanna do the right thing. But there are there are property owners that exist that aren't interested as much in in just the basic tenant protection. So thank you for for all your work on that, and thanks for, you know, for laboring over over so much time. The One other question for DDPHE.

I've heard so 80% of my tenants live in multifamily buildings. I've heard numerous accounts from Denver Fire Department about homes, particularly in multifamily buildings, have no functioning elevator. And so that means that firefighters must carry individuals to their home up on another floor and back down to the street. And then, of course, the firefighters are deployed to bringing people up and down to their to their unit, not up and down stairs. They can't respond to other emergencies. So I'm just curious. Have you has DDPHE also heard concerns about lack of functioning elevators?

We have, in the past, received complaints about lack of functioning elevators. We do not currently have specific enforcement authority over, conveyance systems. We have some general authorities in the housing code and through our regulations where we've cited it in the past, but those typically go to the Denver Fire Department, like you mentioned, because I I believe they do have specific authority over elevators. But that is something that we're exploring.

Yeah. I just suggest for the sponsors that is a concern that I continue to hear time and time again. And if you haven't touched base with the fire department, I would encourage you to do so. Thank you. Thank you again, DDPHE.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up is councilman Flynn followed by councilwoman Sawyer.

Thank you, madam chair. A couple of things I remember at budget and policy, I think, that I had asked for, and I don't know if it's in the extensive FAQ that you've put online. I would like to see a side by side, and if I didn't ask for this, I apologize, the state bill 90 Senate Bill 94 requirements and this ordinance and how they differ and and how they overlap. One of the things and and Jim, whatever your name was. Lorenzen.

Lorenzen. Actually got at some of the questions that I had about has you know, Senate Bill 94 is very new, just went into effect less than a year ago. Have there been any enforcement actions based on that that we know about, either in Denver or or elsewhere in the state? Have any landlords anywhere been been required to put up relocation assistance under '94? Do we if we know. And if we don't, I'd love to find out.

I don't know the answer to your second question, but

Correct.

They may to the answer to your first question, yes, page two of the six page FAQ. Six pages.

A lot of information.

You for putting

it on

page two rather

than six. Yes. Successful.

Do we know have you made a a swag of the potential cost that the city would have to front in the event of the city having to cover the relocation costs? And I remembered I maybe that's in the FAQ too. Didn't have a chance to read it. What page is that off?

Page one.

Under Kevin Flynn. And

from where will that come from? And how long might we have to wait for reimbursement because lien on a property back in the years?

I think our experts from the PDP team will speak high level. Maybe Alex?

Madam chair, councilor Flynn. So the bill does not specifically require that the city pay for relocation assistance. So, the bill would, allow GDPHE to to, order the landlord to provide temporary relocation assistance. And then on the back end, should the city step in like they did during the Penn Street when DPD used their P Card for emergency housing to be able to recover those costs. So it doesn't require the city to provide that. So there is no requirement that the city that the city cover those costs.

But we will if the landlord doesn't because, obviously, if we relocate someone to another apartment or a hotel, someone has to pay that other location. How did that happen?

Madam chair councilor Flynn, so the the use for this for this authority would be in the most extreme situations like Penn Street, where things have been getting worse. All of a sudden, things have hit the level of it is very unsafe. There was a very significant fire risk also for Penn Street as well. And so where we've reached a level where we can, in good conscious, allow folks to continue to remain there. And as the presentation showed, by placarding those units, wouldn't be able to offer anything.

DDPHE doesn't have resources to offer for temporary relocation assistance. And so ordering the landlord to do that and then should the city step in like they did for Penn Street to be able to recover those

those cuts.

I I will add to councilman Flynn that over the past five years that they've DDPHE, and they can speak more to this,

is Yep.

Only projected that this would have applied one to two times a year at most. So we're not talking about a large is that what you were trying

to get at?

That's gonna be one of my questions.

Well, we look how

large and how often do we think this would have to be invoked.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. About one to two times per year. That's what they've seen over the past five years.

Okay. And last question, I'm sure, is I would Mr. Levinson brought this up. I would like to see does the bill allow a carve out for a habitability issue that was caused by tenant damage?

Yes. So if tenants damage and we are trying to and I thank you so much for I'm gonna make sure I say your name correctly

there. Jim?

Not Jim. Destiny. Destiny, thank you for sending the email to us. We specifically discussed the impact of tenant impacts to habitability. There is a carve out for that. So if tenants are creating the the deterioration, if tenants have made the damage to the space. Once again, very rare these things are happening. It's a a micro percent of a percent. There is a carve out in the bill, and so a tenant destruction of apartments will will not. So answer to your question, council member Flynn, and to the letter sent to us from from this.

And I will say in our stakeholder, and that came from both sides Yep. Support and oppose.

Right. Yep.

As a

Good. Thank you. Discussion.

Thank you, madam chair.

Appreciate it. And and, madam chair, may I just one quick second. I know we have a queue, but we didn't specifically council member Lewis and I didn't elevate this in our presentation, but we know that the super majority of property owners are very much abiding by the rules of creating a habitable environment for their renters. We know that they believe in that. And as a matter of fact, with the meeting with the association for renters renters association that destroyed the name of the association.

We asked for any member that owns a condo, owns a building, owns a property to raise their hand over the ten, fifteen years that they've had residents and buildings if they've had a placard or an engagement with DDPHE and no one raise their hands. And so we know that this is gonna be a very small impact as described, one or two over the last five years. This bill adds nothing onto that step. So at least wanted to affirmatively state that. And we've been communicating that along with all of our stakeholder ing that we've been doing externally.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for saying that, because very rarely do I do anything that's not from a space of love. And as someone who owns property and is a landlord, it's certainly not from a space of indicting landlords, but really figuring out how do we partner together to make sure that the conditions and folks who are residing are habitable.

That's right.

Thank you. Next up, have Councilwoman Sawyer followed by Councilwoman Torres.

Awesome. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for saying that. I think it's really important to acknowledge that the vast majority of landlords in Denver are good actors. But I will tell you, as the representative who represents Cedar Run, that is not when it gets bad, it gets incredibly awful, particularly for our residents. And it is very difficult to sit back and watch and be limited in the ability to pull levers to make things different without displacing the residents. And so this is incredibly important. And so thank you very much for doing this. Really appreciate it. A couple of questions for you.

What counts as relocation? Does it have to be a home? Can it be a hotel? Does it right? I didn't see definition in the bill, but I didn't know if maybe in roles and regs, in DDPHE, there was like, what is, quote, unquote, relocation?

That's not something that is specified in the bill currently. But, you know, I think it would just be relocating them to a residence that has those minimum standards. So what wouldn't count as relocation is putting someone in a unit that is not compliant with the housing code. Right? Or a shelter.

Or a

whatever the case may be. But a a hotel or a motel would be fine, just as long as it's in a good condition for

you.

I think I really appreciate that. To to me, I would prefer that there be a definition of what is whether it's in rules and regs under DDPG or whether it's in the bill. I'm not I'm agnostic. Anshul, please. Oh, hi. Anshul, we've been Hi. I didn't ask you to rewrite this entire quote yet, but thanks.

Correct. Anshul Baghas is the city attorney. What Nicole said is accurate. So the the bill leaves up all the discretion in terms of what goes into the order for relocation systems. All of that is up to the discretion of DDPHE, including what constitutes comparable relocation. The reason we did that is because every situation is different. Facts on the grounds can change. So we felt that that was a a thing better left to DDPHE to determine in the moment to fit the circumstance. To your point about whether it needs to be in the ordinance versus rule and reg, there's no legal requirement either way. DDPHE has the ability to do rules and regs under this chapter. So I'll let that to the sponsors of DDPHE to figure out.

Thank you. I'm going to leave that to you guys to sort out. But I do I would like to request that there be a clear expectation set because I think clear is kind. Right? As council president Sandoval always says. So let's just set a clear expectation wherever that is of what the definition of relocation is.

Okay. You got it.

Thank you. Next

question, again, under the clearest kind bucket, is what are life safety issues? Is there case law associated with this at the state or city level? Like, as an attorney, I can tell you that is a very amorphous term. And I think I would love to know, are there clear guidelines under rules and regs? Are there just talk to me. It is a violation of either the state housing code or our city habitability requirements. Does that immediately constitute a life safety issue? Talk to me a little bit more about that. Yeah.

That's a great question. So we don't enforce the state code, the warranty of habitability, anything like that. But we enforce specifically the housing code, which is chapter 27 of the DRMC. And there are a number of minimum habitability standards within that chapter. So when it comes to deeming something as uninhabitable, it's really it's a situation that we have to look at holistically.

Because just because there are electrical requirements under the housing code doesn't mean that I'm gonna placard a home because one of their outlets isn't working. Right. It's a violation of the housing code. They have to fix it, but it's not creating a condition where we need to get you out of the house. If there's a broken window, it but if we if we get to a residence and none of their outlets are working, they have makeshift wiring Right. Throughout the home that's creating a fire hazard, and they don't have heat, and it's freezing cold outside. Well, we're gonna look at that one a little bit differently. Those are multiple violations of the housing code and it's creating a life safety concern because of the imminent fire hazard, for example. I'm just using that as an example.

No. That's great. I appreciate it.

Yeah. Perfect. So it's really just a case by case situation the code gives the manager of DDPHE authority to deem a property uninhabitable if conditions create imminent health and safety hazards. So that's something that we assess.

Okay. So the next question that is attached to that one a little bit is how this dovetails with our rental registry and excise and license inspections because we have experienced that there are multiple agencies that can do multiple things, but they're all very limited in scope. So I'm just wondering, is there is there language in here? Or sort of how does it work to ensure that there's dovetailing? Because these are these are rental licenses, or they should be rental licensed properties. And so excise and license has a stake in this as well.

That's also a great question. So the residential rental licensing program, as you know, is run out of the Department of Excise and Licenses. And the inspections that are required for a a rental license are done by an independent third party inspector. So those are not inspections that my team conducts. However, whether you are a rental property or whether you are an owner occupied property, a shelter, whatever it may be, all of those types of residential settings fall under our housing code.

So we would respond to a situation in any type of environment. If that residence happens to be one that needs to be licensed and we find out that it's not, we would notify excise and licenses and ensure that they follow-up on that. Or if we go out and we see that they do have a license, but we have major concerns, we're also notifying Excise and Licenses and saying, not sure how this one passed their inspection. Maybe this is something we need to look into. But also recognizing that conditions can deteriorate over time.

So we do work with excise and licenses. We do share information. All of our inspections go into the same platform, which is called Acela. And so they're able to see any inspections and investigations that we conduct on any rental that they have issued a license to.

Okay. Appreciate that. And then last question. So what we have seen in experience is that a landlord might be cited or placarded and makes fixes to a property that are what I refer to as Band Aids. They're not real fixes.

They're the minimal cost potential fix. Usually, they don't last. So how might this change and law address that challenge? Because at some point, they're fixing it for a limited period of time, but they're following law.

For me, I feel like this is an additional tool in our toolbox that helps us keep residents safe and helps keep them housed. It's a tool that we don't currently have. We have a limited amount set of tools. We utilize them as best as we can. But as you know, sometimes they don't work. So for me, this is an additional tool that we could have that we could enforce if needed. Okay.

And and I'll add council I'm sorry.

Go go ahead.

I was gonna say, council council member Sawyer was, I think in section twenty seven twenty six, the application for DDPHE to be able to pull inspection records. So so from property management Okay. That is going to provide a new opportunity. So they will have the records of, you know, four months ago, the same power outlets wiring was a concern, maybe was fixed for a half second, and now three months later, they will have the history of of poor performance. And I think that would also inform the inspection. And I don't wanna speak for you, but

That's exactly right. It it allows us to have a more holistic picture of the issue. Right? If we're able to look at records and see how long it's been persisting. Also, allows us to better utilize the enforcement tools that we currently have, like administrative citations, because we can say, have failed to comply with this. You did a Band Aid fix, but the issue persists. And so therefore, we're gonna issue you a citation for failing to comply with our order. Okay. So it does strengthen those things.

Sorry to interrupt. Just one quick follow-up question to that. What if they're not keeping records?

That's a great question.

Dang. I

don't know. That's a good question.

Mean, been there. Is there a potential language we could write in that might address a requirement that records be

kept? That's a great question.

Andre Boggess is his agent. It's a good question, councilwoman. We would need to do some research if we were to apply that record keeping requirement to all dwelling units in the city because the housing code applies to dwelling units generally, whereas the residential licensing code applies to specific residential rental licenses. We can we can establish record keeping requirements for licensees. If we go beyond that, we'll have to have more discussion.

Okay. Appreciate that. Thanks. So flagging that, worth Yeah. Follow-up conversation.

Awesome. Thanks. Great. Thank you. Anyone tuning in, this is what committee is all about. Yes. Having these kinds of conversations and possible ideas. All right. Next is Councilwoman Torres, followed by Councilman Cashman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilman Flynn, I think, covered my question on DDPHE's capacity to cover. But it sounds like it is rare occasions. You're able to do that knowing it's rare occasions. It sounds like if it's an apartment complex, that might be a bit more of a stretch. But was a similar question to that. I feel like that's been answered. How does DBPHP currently consider good faith efforts to fix in the process to clean a unit or property uninhabitable?

So we are always in communication with landlords, with residents. Whoever will speak to us, we will talk to them. We'll take everything into consideration. But ultimately, if the environment that someone is living in is so unsafe and unhealthy that it presents an imminent hazard to their safety, it's our job to get them out despite how hard someone is working to address the issue. I do think that would inform, you know, escalated enforcement penalties.

Right? Maybe we wouldn't feel like an administrative citation was necessary because we know that this person is putting a good faith effort into it. But if the environment itself is is an imminent health or safety hazard, we do have to do our jobs immediately.

Great. Thank you. One of the questions I raised during my briefing and this may dovetail onto Councilman Sawyer's question about defining what relocation means is whether or not the city has or can draw upon best practices when it comes to relocating children. And if you're relocating a multi bedroom, older kids, younger kids, step parents, etcetera, into a single motel room, for example, do we lean on any guidance around child protection?

So we are mandated reporters. So we do involve child protection and APS whenever there is a situation that meets that criteria, we'll we'll make that call and

that

referral. At that point, it they take over, and that information isn't necessarily shared back with us. It's confidential. But we do involve CPS and APS when necessary. In terms of relocation and what that would look like, you know, I think a lot of this is our our details that we need to work out through policies and procedures. We would wanna have input from other city agencies that are more well versed in this type of thing, probably host and department of finance and mayor's office. You know, we would wanna make sure that we're bringing everyone to the table to get to craft a good policy around this from experts.

So put on your list to connect with Denver Housing Authority as well as potentially refugee resettlement agencies because they've established pretty clear protocols depending on the age of children for when separate bedrooms are required as opposed to who can share bedrooms based on age and gender. So I would just ask for that to be pursued so you know what you're following.

Yep. So Denver Housing Authority. And what was the second one?

Our refugee resettlement agencies. And I can follow-up with the names of who those are.

Okay.

Did was there or is there a consideration about any protection against retaliation for reporting? In

this bill, I don't believe so. But, I mean, that's something that we we face currently. You know, that residents are fearful to report to us sometimes for fear of retaliation. And that could be any any violation. It doesn't rise to the level of, you know, an imminent health hazard.

What we do is we do everything in our power to protect the anonymity of complainants. We have the ability to, like I said, fine individuals and even issue GV summonses, which are criminal summonses to appear in court, for anyone who is inhibiting an inspection or providing false and misleading information. So if you if if we were to find out that a resident wasn't allowed to speak to us because a property manager threatened them, that would be inhibiting our work and our inspection. So we could go we could follow-up with enforcement actions for that.

Okay. That, I think, might just start to come up, particularly if it's a home, right, and you know exactly who the tenant is that might have reported it Yeah. That's true. Or that it got reported, right, by maybe a site visitor, welfare check, or something like that by an agent. Two things really quickly to clear up in the FAQ.

To Councilman Flynn's question, number 14 speaks to tenants caused the damage. It's not as clear in that response as it was in Councilman Watson's response that there's a carve out. In the FAQ, it says, it's case by case determination. So is there language that carves it out, or is it a case by case determination by DDPAG? It might just be helpful to clarify which of those it is.

And then I just want to offer an anecdote to losing heat because that was mentioned in one of the FAQ questions. We have had a situation during the winter when Xcel Energy was actually the reason why an entire swath of community lost heat for a night. And so I just want to add that in terms of it's not always just the property itself, but there could be an external factor that's creating that just to keep on the table.

Absolutely.

Yeah. And I don't know if this would help clarify, but nothing about this changes the way we currently do our jobs and the way we currently assess situations. And so we see that all the time. We work for units because of the condition of it, but what caused that could be an Excel outage. It could be the resident. It could be a vacant home that's continually being breached and becoming a safety hazard for the neighborhood. Or it could be by landlord negligence. There are a number of reasons. And so that goes into our assessment and our investigation as well currently.

And finally, I'll just say I think this is really helpful as we take on, I think, the percentage of a percentage of properties that become just abhorrent in condition. And I know and you know really great landlords out there. This is not about punishing them. It doesn't change the circumstances under which they rent out their property. It is those folks.

And I've had a one on one with somebody who calls themselves a slumlord and has justified it to themselves that they are helping the city keep properties affordable. It is wild. And so this is not a rebuke against all properties owners who rent. This is absolutely, I think, a surgical approach at who is doing the worst job of it, right, and how we try to address that. And so just want to thank you for taking, I think,

that

approach and really grateful for all the work that's been done in a number of different bills to help lead to, I think, what feels like a much safer space for renters. So thank you very much. Thank you, council members.

Thank you. Next is Councilman Cachman followed by Pro Tem Romeo Campbell.

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you to my colleagues for bringing this forward. I agree with some of the details that need to get ironed out, but way to go. Most important. Most important. For DDPHE, I'm wondering how often you're you're stymied trying to do an inspection. Tenants won't let you in or you can't get the records you need. Is that a problem or or do you find your way around it generally?

That's a great question. Generally, don't have a problem getting in because the majority of our program is complaint based. And so if someone's calling us to file a complaint, it's because they want us out there and they want our help. So typically that is not an issue, although we do run into it sometimes. And if we do, there's a warrant process that we work through.

The records piece is a little more difficult because we don't currently have authority to request records. We have tried to do so in the past and have have had some success, but it's not something it's not a tool that we widely use because we don't have specific authority k. Currently. But I would envision it would work the same as an inspection where if the records were not given to us, then we could pursue a warrant.

And remind me, I think I might have missed it earlier. As far as not having that ability to demand records, is is their legislation possible and process?

So this is something that was added to this bill specifically Right. An authority for us to request records, which is not currently specific authority that we have. Stronger authority. Exactly.

Okay. Gotcha. I will just echo more specificity on on the relocation costs. Is that my pets? Is that valuables that I think need to go into storage because the lack of safety is threatening them and that stuff? The other thing, is there currently pro bono legal help available when tenants get into these situations where they can't on their own hire in a private attorney? Anybody able to comment on that?

Anshul has a sense. I'm seeing that heads of folks who lead community process saying no in the audience, but

Literally gonna call on that. Yep.

Anshul Vargas, assistant city attorney. What what I'll say is, councilman, there is an article in chapter 27 for tenant legal services that council set up at some point in time. I have not reviewed that article in-depth. But, yeah, we do have a code that provides for tenant legal services, and the city provides some funding for it.

Okay. Thank you

very only in case of eviction.

Yeah. No.

Only in case

of eviction.

So no.

Madam chairman, may

I ask One second. About the

rental license.

There's

a Hold on one second.

Tenants rights and resources.

I wanna make sure we captured that. Yeah.

And can

you guys just restate that piece and make sure that it's people can hear it? Thank you.

Sure. Councilman Sawyer said that it's only for eviction resources, which from my memory is accurate. But, yeah, the members at the table may have more knowledge, frankly, on that specific ordinance because some

of them helped run it.

Gilmore. You wanna speak to that? Yeah.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Just wanted to remind folks that as a requirement of the rental license legislation that upon the signature of the lease, it's required for the property owner to share a tenant's rights and resources document that is listed on denvergov under the rental license. And so it gives access to resources that are provided in community. And so if there needs to be something additionally done, it would probably be within that tenants rights and resources with rental license to mandate that more fully.

And Madam Chair, I know Ida Altman has some experience in this. May I ask for her to

Yeah. Ada? Yeah.

Yeah. Really quickly, I mean, I think the question was answered on what's in section 27 that it's related to evictions specifically that does not account for all legal aid that deals with tenants rights through whether it's through grant funding or through state funds. However, the reality is that 99.9% of any legal support for lower income tenants is directed at evictions. It's a triage situation, and and so that's where the those resources are focused. In addition, a lot of the tenant protection laws are very, very new.

So there's a pipeline issue as far as attorneys who are able to take the cases, which means that there's really just a handful of attorneys in the state, who could do something like that and rely on fee shifting or something like along those lines. That's why I was stating it's really important that the city have authority to do this enforcement. It's not realistic that a tenant would get a private attorney to do this.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that, Anita. One of our speakers asked or just made a comment that I think it was from Cornerstone that they do their best, like if heat is out, to provide temporary heat. I'm assuming that if that effort is made, DDPHE would look at is that temporary source safe, sustainable, etcetera. Am I in the ballpark there?

Correct.

Yes, absolutely. Is rare that we would placard a residence solely for lack of heat. However, again, case by case basis, if it's subzero temperatures outside and they've been without heat for an extended period of time, that might change that that that search that circumstance. Sorry. So if there weren't alternate heat sources provided and it became an imminent health hazard, then yes, we would take action. But typically, you know, a couple days without heat is not something that we placard over.

Okay. Thank

you. Thank you. I'm just thinking about that.

Yeah.

Think I have faith in DDPHE to

Thank you.

Have have an empathic approach towards that borderline.

Absolutely. And I and I think you know this. You know, the the regulations, while they're black and white, the situations that we're applying them to are very gray.

Sure.

So I would never wanna say, yes. Absolutely. 100% of the time, if this thing happens

You bet.

We're gonna do this. Wouldn't be a a good way to operate. It wouldn't be taking into account all sides of the story or the situation holistically. So that is why we take them on a case by case basis. And then we apply these black and white regulations as appropriate.

I'll give you my contact information. In case Tahit goes out, you can bring me a furry blanket. Question for the gentleman from Cornerstone. I believe that's you, sir, if you could come up. First of all, think the comment about mom and pop.

I kinda have a hard time thinking of a 20 or 30 unit building being a mom and pop operation. If it is mom and pop, we're doing pretty good with a a valuable asset. I do understand the difference between that and a 400 unit building for sure. But a friend of mine contacted me, apparently rents a cornerstone building or an apartment in a cornerstone building and said that he's being charged like, a $116 a month above his rent for apartment fees that don't get detailed. And I'm wondering and and his comment was, hopefully, that's going into a fund to help prevent the type of outages that require the type of action that we're we're discussing with this bill.

Do you have any idea what those where that $116 might be going?

I'd have to know the specific circumstances, but we do not have. I know there are op I mean, in the legislature, frankly, is addressing the situation in terms of full disclosure of fees. We don't. That's not our practice. So I'm sure it has to do with his utility bill.

I'm gonna get a nod because this

I'd be happy to talk to you, you know, after the meeting.

Yeah. I'm well, I'll get

some But I'm say it's

a matter of policy. We don't we don't

Yeah.

Have, you know. Yeah. Well, this is being done.

I'll I'll get you offline. Sure. Thank you very much. That's all my questions.

Great. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. We are at 11:42, so we have just under twenty minutes left of the committee just as a time check for everyone. And I know we want to allow our council members and sponsors to be able to wrap up. Next, I'll go to Pro Tem Romero Campbell and then Councilwoman Gilmore. And then we do have a round two with Councilwoman Sawyer in the queue, just so everybody knows.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the sponsors for bringing this forward. I think it's I like how you've done your carve out. Some of the questions have already been asked about the records and being able to I know we ran into a situation in D4 where records weren't maintained and the onus was on the residents to do that. So anything that we can do to kind of further dive into that, I'd appreciate.

One of the other questions that I had, and it was brought up during public comment around or public testimony. And I think, Destiny, this was your communication for reasonable timelines. I know we've kind of touched on it. Have we fallen on what would be a reasonable timeline to cure? I know that there's the seven days, but that's still an outstanding question for me.

And she can they'll

engage. So

the seven days is not a standard that we apply. It sounds like that's a state standard, so I can't speak to that. But I can speak to our standards, which is if something is imminent, that means right away. So the actions that we have to take have to be immediate. But those situations are rare, and we do everything in our power not to get to that place through actions and interventions before things get to that point, if we're aware of them.

So typically, if it's just a violation of some other provision in the housing code, Depending on what the violation is, they do have time to cure. And then on top of that, they can also request an extension request for things like shipping. Someone brought up, you know, if if something goes out and you order a part, realistically, it's not gonna be here overnight. So we do take those things into account. We can provide extension requests for reasonable requests, and every violation comes with a different timeline just depending on the severity.

Okay. And I I just just wanna remind us to to move away from the punitive versus partnership. Because I think in the spirit of when we were drafting this ordinance, it's all about partnership. How are we partnering with landlords to make sure that the conditions that folks are living in are habitable? And that's ultimately what we've been discussing with DDPHE, which is why I think she keeps speaking about the case by case basis because we don't just want to come in heavy. We want to maintain that unit for folks to be able to continue to live in while also maintaining the relationship with landlords to provide those units to folks.

Yeah. I appreciate that. I guess that my last one would then be to you, Destin. Destin? Yes. And maybe that would is that then in the spirit of your comments as well with what you've heard, is that also where you're at in seeing this as a partnership and within your comments? Does that make sense? Because you talked specifically about the Right to Cure. I'm hearing reasonable having those conversations in the spirit of collaboration.

Well, I think it's my understanding how the ordinance would be written is that there's no requirement for a notice or hearing if it's imminent. Is that correct?

We always issue a notice of violation

Okay. If a violation is found. So you would always know. Right? We wouldn't just take an action and not tell anybody.

Okay. Yep. As far as reasonable time, I think Jim hit on it, you know, during situations whether it's water, heater, you know, that timeline could look different. So I know, you know, that's why we just wanted that language reasonable time because it could differ. Yeah.

Yeah. So Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

So it sounds like to me and I thank you for coming up. So it sounds like to me that the concerns that were raised are all addressed and we're all good. Okay. I just had two other quick pieces. One council member Torres had talked about best practices for children.

My question was specifically to, in those best practices, to also think about the relocation of close to the proximity of where the current apartment or unit is so that we don't have relocation across town. Kids need to be able to get to school. So it's kind of I'm thinking in continuity for families being able to get their kids to school reasonably. And then the last one and during the briefing, I appreciate it we had talked a little bit about the posting. So if you have a placard and a placard is placed up on a unit, is there something that correlates or that gets placed online so that a property owner is not advertising something that doesn't currently exist.

That is a great idea and actually something that we very recently just implemented through Acela. We were not previously in that database, so we weren't able to share information as easily. So currently, we do post notices of violation. What we don't post are internal investigation notes and details about complainants and things like that because we want to keep those things anonymous. But our notices of violation, these are public record. They don't name people's names. They are just very much, these are the violations that were observed at this property at this time. Those are currently being posted. So you can now find those online. Okay. That would be great.

I know that we had a situation in District 4 where that was the case. And what was happening on the ground and what was being posted online were two totally different things. And so I would just want to make sure that that was covered in this piece as long as we have placards up. Let's do it online as well. So I appreciate that. I don't have any other questions. Just again, thank you for bringing this forward.

Thank you. Thank

you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. We have Councilwoman Gilmore. And then I will probably jump in, and then we'll go into the second round.

Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Chair, I wanted to understand where in this process will a show cause hearing come forward? Or could you be simultaneously going through this process and a show cause hearing happening at the same time?

That's a great question. And I'm assuming you're referring to excise and licenses, show cause. So that is something that could happen absolutely simultaneously. It's not something that needs to happen before or after. Typically, when we're at an escalated situation like Penn, we will take every avenue we can to get something to happen. So we could do a show cause hearing. We could also placard. We could also issue fines. We could also go the GB summons route, and it could all happen at the same time. Or maybe there's an option that's more appropriate for the situation. But, yes, it could

happen

simultaneously. And Alex was previously with excise and licenses, so I don't know if he has anything to add.

That was a great answer. I have nothing to add. I'm sure.

Okay. Alright. That that sounds good. I would also say that the length of housing someone, whatever, a hotel, whatever, I think it should be comparable to the lease that was signed or a half of the lease duration because folks are expecting that they're gonna have housing for six months. If something goes with the boiler, can we get them into a three month situation at least to help them?

And then that brings me to my final question. When we were doing the rental license legislation, I had wanted us to also be asking about the date of appliances, if there was air conditioning, ADA accessibility, and we weren't able to fully get there. I'm just curious, could we roll in something that if a boiler keeps going out or there's some issue that is a notice to the property owner that you need to show the city through your rental license or ddphe that you're starting to price out and get estimates for heat pumps to transition out and not just limp along. And so I just would like to put that on there. So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right. So I just have at least one or maybe two questions. So I know we've talked a lot about the placarding and kind of what comes out of that. Would there be any situations where a unit would be placarded or a building but the relocation would not be covered. Are there any situations in which

that would occur? The way the bill is drafted is that it the relocation is not tied to placarding, but the conditions that exist have to be the same. So we would only placard for imminent health hazards. We would only require relocation if there are imminent health hazards. So I think typically they will work in tandem. However, like I mentioned before, there are some situations where relocation isn't necessary. Maybe the building is empty and it's just continually being breached. Maybe it's an owner occupied home, so maybe the the tenant is the one that caused the issue. So there are a number of situations where the relocation assistance would not be required.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you for that. And I may continue to have some conversation with sponsors and with you all going forward on that.

Let me see.

I'm just looking to see if I had any other notes here. Sorry. That's what happens when you're cheering. You're like

I'm not all the things.

That's not the streets. Okay.

I think for now, I think that's it. But I just want to say that I want to thank you for working on this and for all the work and all the folks that have been engaged in the process. It's been just great to see how far you all have come, and I remember those initial conversations. So I appreciate the amount of work that has gotten into this. I'm gonna go back to round two and go over to

councilwoman Sawyer. Thanks. I actually

don't have

any additional questions. I just wanted to ask ask you, in terms of timeline, there were several things that we talked through today that need to be looked at. Do you feel like you have enough time to get those done if we move this out of committee today? Or would you prefer that we hold it in committee and put it on consent in a week or two or something like that? I'm just curious in terms of some of the outstanding issues, what you guys want us to do as a committee.

Because for the public watching at home, the thresholds for moving something out of committee is this ready to be considered by the full council. And just there are a number of outstanding questions that you guys are going to look into. So it is not that the bill language cannot change after moving out of committee. I'm just saying that for the public. But also, we're borderline on whether we meet that threshold right now. So I'm just curious what you guys wanna wanna do on that. Okay.

Go ahead.

I honestly, councilman Soria, I think some of the time lining stuff and the clarifications from the DPHE's perspective and maybe any input from CAO is not to the size or material that they don't have the current practice. As Nicole stated, sometimes the the case by case scenario ing provides kind of the flexibility, the agility that their team needs in order to to actually execute based on by case. But the time lining, don't think it's gonna be a difficulty for them to provide best in practice what they're doing and what those timelines are, whether it's for communication to folks that are being notified for real

No. I meant timeline in terms of, like, if this leaves committee, you have three weeks before the final vote on the floor. So is the like, is there enough time for you to get these Yes. Question outstanding questions researched, any language updated, and get it to us within a week because you have the week that it goes to mayor council. And then once that language goes to the floor, it has to be amended on the floor if you're gonna make any changes. So you have ten days from now. Is ten days enough time, or do we need to hold this over for a couple weeks?

This what I'm asking. We could get it

done. Yeah. We feel we feel pretty confident.

We can

get it done. Yep.

Okay. Sorry. Dude, was there something else you wanted to say? Thanks. Okay. Councilman Hines, did

you have some

Thank you. I did mention the fire department and conveyance devices in our briefing. Have you talked to the fire department? I don't know if

the fire department was part of that, the large the city agency discussion that we had last week.

Is there anything in particular that you want us to pull from a conversation with the fire department? I think that would probably be

Whether The elevator. A building without any conveyance devices consider is considered a matter of life and safety? I would I would say the answer is yes, but but I don't wanna speak for the sponsors. Currently,

from the DEPHE's perspective, I mean, that is not something currently within your habit habitability requirements. That was our intention, council member Hines, and I I agree with you. Think that is an important piece. Our intention was not to expand the existing requirements that DDPHE has for this specific bill. This does not deter DDPHE from doing the holistic review that they are currently doing on all of the matters.

I think that's specific discussion, and adding that to what they are looking at is a much longer discussion and not one specific in this bill, but it doesn't stop them from having that discussion and ensuring that if elevators are are are there and I don't wanna speak on behalf of you all, but we try to be very specific to what's currently in the code, not adding anything else new because we wanted this to be surgical. So I've I've we've had I think fire has been in dialogues with us, but it was not to add, but simply to to request are the current requirements within code that they have, or or does this have any impact on those current requirements? I don't know, Nicole, if you wanted to to share anything on your thoughts on on that from council member Hines.

That's absolutely right. And, actually, council member Hines, we're in the process of working working with the MDU and EC three and other stakeholders on just residential health discussions in general and regulations. And so we're working through a a larger stakeholder in process to review all of the current rules and regs that we have. So I will absolutely add that to our list. We're hoping to revise the regs and the code. I don't know if it'll happen this year, but maybe by the end of this year or next year, it we're it's in the works, and we're we're stakeholdering now. So, absolutely, I will add that.

Yeah. I I just hear it way too often from Yeah. From people in District 10. And maybe it's because we have a lot of high rise buildings. We just I would just hear way too often.

So Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, councilor. Okay.

Alright. Is there anyone else that wanna chime in? Council president?

Yes. So what I'm hearing is around the table. I'm just gonna ask the sponsors one more time. Mhmm. Do you think we could just wait and just have not file it? So what happens is what we're filing it this third tomorrow.

Yeah.

Then it

goes to mayor council, and then we have to have discussion. That's a quick turnaround for us to all gather around from today to Thursday. So I would just say if we postpone a week and then the come if the committee felt like it could go on consent, if you didn't feel like it could go on consent, that gives you a whole week to answer some of the questions. Then it would be filed, and then that gives us one more week to go have a public conversation about it with at the mayor at mayor council. And if need if needed, you can always skip mayor council.

It's it doesn't really have to go. So if you really are on a timeline that you need to get in front of city council, right, it's better just to feel like it's in my opinion. This is just my opinion. It's more smooth on the back end to do committee work in committee. It's we're all supportive of it, but it doesn't have to be substantial or not. But there are still several questions, in

my opinion. We'll go with that.

We'll with that.

Okay. Yeah.

So so where do we have to have a postponed for a date certain or

How does that work?

One week. One week? One week. I'm

city attorney. You so you do need a motion to postpone to a date certain if you wanna postpone for one week. If you're comfortable with one week, you could also do two weeks or additional time depending on whether the schedule allows it for future weeks. But, yeah, you need a motion to postpone to a date certain.

Can I ask Can

we get two weeks? Can

we and then does it have to come back for an action item, can it be put on consent?

It can be put on consent.

Okay. Okay. All right.

Is that clear for everyone? Councilwoman Lewis? If we could get I mean, Alyssa's telling

me two weeks. And I listen to her when she tells

me Two weeks. So

I moved to delay this to a date certain of April 25. Twenty third. Twenty third. Is that Wednesday? Twenty third. April 23.

Alright. Yeah.

So the motion is on the table to postpone this until April 20 Wednesday, April 23.

Cool.

And we have a a motion from councilwoman Sawyer and a second from councilwoman Gilmore. Right? Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Sorry. I I heard her. Whatever. Oh, and then and

I just have two seconds.

I just wanna be clear that it it's fine to go on consent

Yeah.

On the twenty third. So we're hearing from council members, just for everyone's clarity is that there is a desire to have it put on consent. This is just to wrap up any final questions that may have come up from this committee. And I appreciate everybody's participation. With that said, is there a need for a roll call vote for that postponement? Okay. And No. You're good? Okay. Okay. So with that said, this will be postponed until April 23. We have four items that were on consent. Those will move forward as those were not called up, by anyone, and those will move forward to the full council, and we are adjourned.