Mayor and Council - Regular Meeting

Rockville. Today is 05/18/2026, and we are convening meeting fourteen dash twenty six. I'd like to begin by welcoming Girl Scout cadet troop three three one four zero, and they'll be leading us in the pledge of allegiance. Please join as you're able.

I

pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Can we give them a clap out? Thank you so much. We love to welcome young people into this room. Well, all people, but they are learning about leadership and civic engagement and getting a strong start.

Okay. We're going to begin with agenda review. Ms. Sarah Taylor Farrell. Madam Mayor and council members, we did add in a late agenda item on consent, item D, approval of FY '26 f year 51 community development block grant contract with Montgomery County and authorization for the city manager to sign the contract. And that has been updated online and is available for those who wish to read it. Thank you. Can you share why it was added, just in case people looking at different versions? It was added before noon today. Okay. Thank you very much. Mister city manager, Jeff Mihalik.

Mayor Ashland, members of city council, ladies and gentlemen, good evening. Some really good news to report. The Metro Washington Council of Governments have provided the city of Rockville with a sizable grant of $80,000 to do a new project. It's called a bench for every bus stop, and it's exactly what it sounds like. We're gonna do a feasibility study to see what it would take to provide seating for all bus stops in Rockville, which would be a bunch, including all accessibility requirements.

So it hits a lot of our key goals, and we're excited to receive that grant from NCOG. Also excited to, say that we have hometown holidays this weekend. Unfortunately, the forecast, I don't know, we're gonna have to do some prayers to get the rain from coming. But we're all excited to get together to celebrate, this weekend with a lot of fun and music and food, etcetera. And then also, wanna put this on, save the date. It's, the Rockville Human Rights Commission's tenth annual Pride Festival from two to 5PM at the Rockville Town Center on June 10. Really excited about those events. That's all I have to report, Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. We're now going to move on to community forum. This is a dedicated time to hear from our residents and stakeholders the community. We welcome your feedback. We're going to take those who have signed up in advance, then I will check to see if anyone else would like to speak. All persons, please address the mayor and council. Please speak in a civil and courteous manner. Be respectful to each other. Each person is allowed three minutes, and you will see that there is a time clock in front

of you. Please stick to the time clock

the time allowed. We don't wanna use the gavel today. Please state your name and whether you live in the city of Rockville for the record. Okay. We now have David Fields. Welcome.

Good evening, mayor, council members. I'm a recent relatively recent member of Rockville as a resident. I moved a year ago into a new building called the Milton at the Twinbrook Metro Stop. And it's my understanding that there's some discussion about finalizing landlord tenant regulations and I thought I would give some feedback. I can see better without things now.

I liked everything in the summary in terms of the existing code adjustments. I did have certain questions. I don't expect answers. These are rhetorical questions. Under the auspices of early lease termination, a property maintenance violation affecting health and safety failed to be corrected.

This is hypothetical. What is health? Define health. What constitutes a health risk? I've noticed that somehow all jurisdictions have judiciously avoided cigarette smoke or pot smoke, any kind of smoke, as being a health hazard.

It's something that can't be enforced. And that's one of the reasons why I'm here. I'll get into that in a bit. Under lease review, I was curious because it said require landlords to provide prospective tenants with a copy of their proposed lease at least two days prior. Although I'm retired, some people have jobs or could be out of town.

And I'm wondering whether two days is enough time. Again, just a question. Under a tenant organizing, prohibit landlords from charging tenant organizations fees for the use of meeting rooms or common areas. In my building, my building, for the sake of younger people here, it's owned by an ARIT, which stands for real estate investment trust, which is a stock owned corporation. And the purpose of it is to benefit the shareholders.

Therefore, I'm not a human. I'm a revenue center. I recently started feeling that way. Prior to moving into this building, I specifically said I was moving because I wanted to be in a smoke free environment because my lungs are awful. I've asthma, you name it. I'm not the only one in my building. As you're facing the building, there's a large brass plaque to the side of the door. No smoking within 25 feet of this building. Well, file that away. Someone put up notices they wanted to form a tennis association.

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

Thank you so much. I that is the three minutes. But if you have things that are written, we would be willing to take it to the city clerk and we'd love to read all of your comments. Or if you wanna send us an email that, we welcome that feedback.

She's got it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. We welcome, Mark Pichela representing the College Garden Civic Association.

Thank you, madam mayor. As you can see, I'm accompanied by quite a few people today. You can hold up your sign, stand up. So, I have some prepared remarks. College Gardens asked for several items as 03/24/2026 special meeting on the zoning ordinance.

I want to further emphasize that the materials provided by city staff, it is still impossible for any neighborhood association to determine what differences there are between the current zoning and the proposed zoning. Only because I have the expertise was I able to go into the text of the current zoning and compare it with the proposed zoning and only then for a few key issues. The Collin Gardens Civic Association recognizes that a one key issue, the city has moved in the direction of our request for MXCD zones. For us, this means access on to Rutgers Street from College Plaza. This is in section 25.8.2.2B, limitations on vehicular access.

In the MXCD zone, vehicular access to a secondary residential street is prohibited unless determined by the director of public works, chief of inspection services, or file marshal to be necessary. This helps. Thank you. But we request now that one sentence be added to this text. Such determinations must be made based on a published standard and in consultation with impacted neighborhoods.

That's very important to us. If access is needed, for example, for storm water management, utilities, or emergency services, and these can be done in such a way that these accesses are only for those purposes. This was recently done for Newmark Commons. For one of our other requests, it is in our opinion that a purpose statement for zones actually include a purpose, not just a description. This is found on Page 151 of the red line version.

The single lot the small single lot unit residential zones, including the R90, R75, R60 and R40 zones, These zones are intended primarily for single unit residential uses on smaller lots than those in a large lot, single unit residential zones. That's as far as it goes. That's a description. It's not a purpose. We ask you to add the purposes of these zones include one, provide appropriately located areas for residential development that are consistent with the plan and public health and safety, and two, stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of existing residential neighborhoods.

This text was taken from the current ordinance. This is to remind future elected officials that they must pay attention to the master plan and that there is value in preserving the essential characteristics of our existing neighborhoods. There's been one council member of public amusing about changing zoning for larger lot single family zones. And I just gotta say just to make an ad hoc remark on something mentioned last meeting. The pre application meetings are important for larger projects. That's where the neighborhood can really go in Thank

you very much. Next, we welcome Julia Binder.

Good

evening, madam mayor and council members. My name is Julia Binder. I live in Newmark Commons. I'm a member of the HOA board. Thank you for listening to the concerns of many neighbors about noise, traffic, pollution, and safety and deciding to prohibit traffic through Newmark Commons and Markwood to and from any development proposed for ZOR ID 17.

Thank you also for rejecting the proposed RMD 25 designation for this parcel. However, the recommendation for RMD 15 with a 55 foot height cap exception that you were presented a week ago for the parcel is alarming. The city code article 11 Secondtion20 says RMD 15 has a height cap of 40 feet. It allows for duplexes, townhouses and apartments. 55 feet is more than double the height of any of the homes in surrounding neighborhoods and is an increase of 37% over the height cap.

This definition doesn't exist in the code. We experienced a similarly confusing situation when the planning commission and zoning team crafted a footnote modifying RMD 25 regarding vehicular access from Newmark to ZORID 17. It begs the question why have a code for the city of Rockville with specific definitions if permutations keep getting proposed. The height cap needs to stay at 40 feet to be compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods of Newmark and Markwood and all the other surrounding neighborhoods. It needs to stay consistent with the definition in the code.

Otherwise the code doesn't matter anymore. I urge you to consider RMD 10 for this parcel as the most compatible zoning designation. Since it seems part of the lot is unsuitable for development, the 100 dwelling units it would permit would be concentrated on fewer acres in effect, doubling the density to 20 units per acre. Whether you adopt our preferred RMD 10 or the RMD 15 zoning designation for this parcel, please stick with the height cap of 40 feet in the code, not the altered height of 55 feet. It allows a suitable and compatible increased level of density and height to support the city's goal of adding multiple housing options on ZORID 17.

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

Thank you very much. Welcome, Susan Knowles.

Hi, mayor and council members. My name is Susan Knowles, I live in Newmark Commons. You know, we we have to stop meeting like this. On a more serious side, though, I was so happy to hear all three bodies come to a consensus about no road through Newmark. At the last public comments, Newmark, the representative from Tower Dawson, and the mayor and council all agreed that allowing through traffic from the Wooten Parkway to Don Mills Court would significantly increase vehicle traffic and create a safety concern not only for Newmark and Markwood, but also the new neighborhood that will be created by Tower Dawson.

Thank you to all sides who listened and did the right thing. To get back to the zoning of this parcel, people seem to wonder, why do we keep stressing RMD 10? Being a retired math teacher, I created a little chart that shows what might happen in both RMD 15 and RMD 10 if the builder is only allowed to build on the six or so acres that seem to be buildable at the present time. I sent this chart in an email to the mayor and council last week. Of the 9.75 acres, there is wetland a water infiltration system that seem to be out of the buildable area.

You can probably add about one acre for a buffer between two seventy and the new neighborhoods. That leaves about 60% of the parcel left for construction, and legally, they can put all of the units allowed for the entire parcel on the buildable acres, which is only about six. Mathematically, putting all the units on six acres of RMD 15 equates to 24.3 units per acre, which is very close to the RMD 25, which the mayor and council deemed inappropriate for this parcel. If we go to RMD 10, the buildable part of the parcel equates to 16.3 units per acre, much closer to the RMD 15 that mayor and council decided on a split vote would be appropriate. It would still allow 15 MPDUs.

I hope that you will reconsider your decision and ask for the staff to make this parcel RMD 10. Again, thank you for listening to the citizens of Rockville. And I have a copy of the chart for each one of you that I will give over here that you can peruse at your, leisure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome Anna Astrid Molina followed by Pat Reber.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Anna Astrid Molina and I have lived in Markwood for over thirty years. I thank you all for listening to our concerns regarding traffic, safety, noise, and the historic burial site. At Markwood and Newmark Commons, we are deeply, deeply grateful for your decision to limit access through Don Mill Court to emergency and pedestrian traffic only and to totally reject the high density RMD 25 proposal for SOAR ID 17 Plot. To responsibly accommodate the city growth, I respectfully urge you to consider an RMD 10 designation with an NPDU of 15, capped at the strict 40 foot height limit.

My neighbors and I are deeply alarmed by the proposed RMD 15 designation carrying a 55 foot high exception. A 50 foot high, structure will completely tower over our single homes, which max out at 25 feet. Councilmember Fulton mentioned that RMD 15 zones in College Gardens have worked beautifully. However, those townhouses work because they are under the 40 feet tall, height, consisting of just two floors plus a basement. What the city is proposing for SOAR ID 17 is not the same.

It effectively doubles the height of the College Gardens townhomes, making it entirely incompatible with our R 90 zones. There is a much better solution, highly compatible and affordable option, a three level one on one stacked townhouse condominium. These structures feature a ground level garage for each residence and two complete single unit stacked homes above it. This achieved this density while keeping the building profile low and structurally aligned with the standard neighborhood roofline. In addition, the plot is not flat or even.

It is a terrain with varying slope heights. Building at the top of the slope will make any building look massive. I urge you not to split the zoning without analyzing the terrain. Real land is not like an app that you allow simply right or left option. As the zoning staff recognized, our community should have been notified about this plan back in 2015.

Instead, we find out eleven years later. It has taken an extraordinary communal effort to just to catch up and to find out what the implications of this comprehensive MAP amendment means for us, and we're struggling to bridge the gap. Please consider a compatible r m d 10 framework, protect our neighborhoods, peace, and honor the sacred history of this land. Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Pat Reber. I live in Newmark Commons. We in Newmark and Mark Ward are worrying and research oriented neighborhoods and we are still pursuing common ground during this our last chance to speak before staff submits a final draft on June 1 for approval. Last week's calculation of the MPD use for this plot show that 15% of the 146 units or 22 units would be MPDUs.

We assume that staff used the recommendation of 15% given in the comprehensive plan on page two hundred and fifteen ten point two point c. Can we assume that this will be adopted in the ZOR? We may have missed discussion about this. Two, we do not understand the raised height limit of 55 feet for RMD 15 that you adopted last week. The current code calls for height limit of 40 feet.

You've heard the others. Referring to the previous testimony of my neighbor Anna Astrid, I believe council member Kate Fulton said RMD fifteen will work on this plot next to Newmark because it works in College Gardens. But most of those townhomes in College Gardens are under 40 feet. 55 foot high buildings, especially if built behind the nursing home, would tower over our homes in Newmark and Markwood and act as a multiplier for noise and pollution from I 270. A further worry is that given that about half of the 9.75 acres is unbuildable due to wetlands mitigation and the storm water filtration infrastructure that you all know about, all 146 units would be built on about five acres.

Susan's calculation is a bit different from mine, or nearly 30 units per acre. If the builder gets bonuses for increasing the number of MPDUs, could that company get the go ahead to increase the height beyond 55 feet and perhaps increase the overall number of units? Those are questions we're asking. For all these reasons, we urge you to reconsider the zoning assignment you adopted last week to the least dense option offered by staff, RMD 10. That would reduce the concentration of dwelling units to 20 units on the buildable acreage and lower the height limit to 40 feet.

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

Thank you. Welcome, Libby Adams.

Hi. I'm back. So we are just three weeks shy of the year anniversary of me discovering the mold of Fields of Rockville. All of my family's belongings are still being held hostage by Fields of Rockville and Kettler because we won't sign an agreement saying we won't sue and that we won't speak out anymore. The city is allowing this.

I've had no communication despite asking Trevor from landlord tenant for an update. My family is still being plagued by long term illness caused by our exposure to long term black mold. This was partially caused by the city clearing our unit in December with, I quote, from the city inspector, the drywall has been replaced, so it must be fine. Would that be a sufficient response for an inspection for your homes? Don't worry.

That was rhetorical. Your city is passing off inspections that are far from thorough or efficient. You are fairly failing renters and likely homeowners and companies as well with inadequate inspections and subsequent license and permits. To you, city manager. Last time you snuck in some ridiculous statement suggesting that the complaints of toxic black mold in the housing facility's refusal to address it facility sufficiently as a mere dispute between me and the complex, and that it was an unfortunate circumstance.

To me, that response falls completely in line with how the city has handled this situation. You saying you sent inspectors to the whole building is grossly exaggerated, especially considering the lack of knowledge your inspectors even have with mold. You are slowly and systemically killing people, of which it seems to be directed towards low income families. The city needs to do better.

Thank

you. Also, Rockville I mean, I'm sorry, rentersrightsinMaryland.com@Gmail, all the things, find me because this is ridiculous.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Thank you, everyone, for your testimony. I want to acknowledge that we have received several written comments as well, which the body has We'll now move on to our consent agenda.

We have several items for review and discussion. Can I just get the consent? Thank you. Consent Item 9A, approve the recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board to approve the proposal from the Maryland State Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution to Plant a Liberty Tree, Scion at Glendee Mansion in recognition of America's two hundred and fiftieth Semi Quincetonial. B is the FY twenty six grant agreement for the Rockville Volunteer Fire Department emergency vehicle contribution.

C is award and authorize the city manager to execute contracts responsive to IFB 2625 for Water Main Rehabilitation Program externally funded projects. Item D, approval approval of of FY FY26, 2051, the community development block grant contract with Montgomery County in authorization for the city manager to sign the contract. And lastly, E, the approval of minutes. Does anyone have any questions or want to discuss any one of these before we poll or before we vote? Okay.

Alright. I will just make one comment. Councilman Valeri is not here. She is maybe on virtually. She is raised some comments last week, and I also shared an email with my colleagues about the planting of the liberty tree. And mister city manager, just we asked if it's possible, given the history, to help create a more inclusive opportunity to have some sort of recognition or playing of a song by Marian Anderson to support the Liberty Tree planting.

That's what we're planning to do, mayor. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Council member Miles.

Thank you, madam mayor. I wanna thank staff for their reply about consent agenda item nine c with regard to the bid. Thought it was a little low, but I got some reassurance that this is within line with their past and that the current bidder who was awarded who will be awarded the contract presumably after this vote has historically done a good job. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? If not, we can take a motion. Do we have a motion to approve? Councilman Van Gruyk.

Madam Mayor, I move to approve consent agenda items a, b, c, d, and e.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Councilmember Jackson?

Second.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Council member Chad, is it something that you wanna raise under landlord tenant or under old new business? Just wanna make sure we're.

Madam mayor, I just wanted to make a just a quick comment. That was something that was raised in community forum. Just for the listening public, tenants are able to organize in their building. They are able to, post items in their building just as long as it says where it's from. And tenants are able to organize tenant associations. And I just wanted to make that clear just for the listening public because that was an issue that came up. Thank you.

And we'll be talking through some of those items with rights and responsibilities as part of this next agenda item. Okay. So we're now moving on to 11 a, adoption of potential adoption of an ordinance to amend Chapter 18 of the Rockville City Code entitled Rental Facilities and Landlord Tenant Relations. I'd like to welcome Jane Lyons Rader, Housing Programs Manager, the Housing and Community Development Division as well as Ryan Trout, who is the Director of Housing and Community Development, Trevor Stevens, who is the housing specialist, and I also know we have Christina Shakur Harris to serve as support as assistant city attorney. Welcome, everyone.

And while you're getting set up, I say want thank you for all of the work on this. And we know that there's been many work sessions leading up to today. Thank you.

Thank you. And a note for IT, this looks like the presentation for the work session. But we can go ahead and get started while they're working on that, if that's alright.

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

Yes. I'll hand

it over

to Trevor here.

Perfect. Thank you.

Yeah. Good evening. Good to see everyone again. As a reminder, my name is Trevor Stevens. I'm the housing landlord tenant specialist for the City Of Rockville, and we are here about the introduction, hopeful adoption of Chapter 18 code update on rental facilities and landlord tenant relations. So before we dive in, I do also want to take a beat and just say that we're we're really excited about how this has come together. It's been a really exhausting but fulfilling collaborative experience with our department, with code enforcement, with the city attorney's office. So really grateful for all the work that's been put in. And again, we're really excited. We think it is an assembly of some of the national best practices in this code, we look forward to talking through it a little bit more.

So there it is, right on time. So just going through briefly the outline here. We will start with the background, and then we'll discuss a little bit about the work session follow ups as well as the community engagement summary, some of the highlights of the proposed changes, anticipated impacts, as well as the introduction motions. So starting with the background. Again, we know that housing is one of the five focus areas for mayor and council.

And to that end, we have had a number of work sessions, including in fall twenty twenty four, three different work sessions on the city's housing strategies, and comprehensively updating chapter 18 was approved as a strategy by mayor and council at that point. In June 2025, we had a work session on data reporting and transparency. And then in November 2025, we had the work session on rental licensing inspections, and one of the the outcomes from that was the enhanced inspection program, that is currently being implemented. And then following that, we had the December 2025 work session on existing code and new policies. And then most recently in February 2026, our work session on new policies.

And then, again, just a a quick reminder about some of the background project goals, and these were presented previously and were based on mayor and council feedback. So just to quickly go through our timeline of the project that we've had to this point. It's crazy that it's been almost a year already over a year already. Back in April is when we had our initial engagement and outreach with landlords and tenants, where we went over, you know, what the goals of the project were, what we thought some of the common issues that we were seeing were and what they wanted to see from the process. And then we drafted our updated code, went through our work sessions before, again, in April, going through the additional round of community engagement based off of the actual code language that was generated from all of that.

And then that puts us here today. And just as a quick touch on some of the things that will follow the Chapter 18 work that we've done to this point, we will have a cooling requirements work session to be scheduled for September. We will be launching a pre eviction financial assistance pilot in July. This is a really exciting program. It's intended to sort of bridge the gap for those individuals who might have unexpected financial emergencies, things like unexpected medical costs or potential issues with cars.

It doesn't require an eviction notice, but it does require that you have fallen behind on rent. Under normal circumstances, the maximum is for $750 but with manager approval, that can go up to $1,500 And any amount that you receive from this would then be deducted from your yearly REAP total. And as a reminder, the yearly REAP total is $3,000 So if you were to use $1,000 under this program, then you would be able to come back for REAP, but you would only have $2,000 to work with. $3,000 from the county potentially as well. Yep.

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

I think one last bullet point there on that. We will also be creating educational materials Oh, yes. To be shared with landlords and tenants so that way they can ensure before the effective date of the new ordinance that they completely understand their rights and obligations under the new ordinance. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the various community engagement strategies that we used over the last year. So as Trevor talked about, we first hosted two virtual input meetings, one with landlords and one with tenants.

And during those input sessions, we went over the goals of the rewrite as long as heard from landlords and tenants about what are the common issues that they're facing and were there any changes or clarifications in city code that they would like to see. So that initial feedback really helped us to set the direction for our research and the overall ordinance update. We published an Engage Rockville webpage with information about the project. Everything that somebody would need to know about the project is located there, including several opportunities for different engagement tools, such as a comment form, a question portal, and we had two different surveys. So the first survey was to gain initial input.

It was an option for folks who couldn't make that input meeting. The same questions generally were asked in that survey. And then similarly, for folks who couldn't make the second input meeting that we held last month, we launched a survey that asked the same questions about what do you think about these proposals for the new chapter of code. We interviewed stakeholder organizations to learn more about how things have been changing over time, what are recent trends in the landlord tenant world. And we also provided regular email updates throughout the project to the Engage Rockville subscribers, all of the rental license holders, property managers, affordable housing operators, and tenant organizations.

And then, as was previously referenced, we had a follow-up virtual input meeting, one for landlords and one for tenants, to now say, hey, here we have the results of our mayor and council work sessions. We know the types of things that we're going to be putting into the code. Pictured here on the right is the fact sheet that we put out, since we know that reading the 40 pages of code is not everybody's cup of tea. And so that way, we were able to get input from folks on the actual code itself. And now I'm going to go over the major takeaways that we had from those input meetings.

So when we had the initial input meetings, we heard from tenants about high rents, maintenance response times, fees, differences between the city and the county, including on things like rent stabilization but also cooling requirements, and desire for more information about properties. So then when we came back to them to say that these are the things that we are proposing to include in the code, There was excitement around banning algorithmic rent pricing and restricting junk fees. There was disappointment regarding the exclusion of a rent stabilization policy. Questions about how rent increase information would be collected and displayed In lieu of a rent stabilization policy, tenants were very interested in how they could they and other tenants could learn more about rent increases happening around the city and then concerns around the six month cutoff for a unit being unsafe to occupy before the permanent relocation assistance triggers. Oh, I'm sorry.

I was not clicking. Tried to make it more digestible with the animations, but that doesn't help if I forget about the animations. So there you go. Give you one moment to read just in case. Alright.

So then landlord responses to the proposed proposed code. At the initial input session, we heard about rising costs, the length and difficulty of eviction proceedings and the rental license inspection process, responsiveness from city staff and RHE, and difficulty adhering to code requirements, and because of that, to have more educational resources and templates to help them to understand and adhere to requirements in the code. So when we came back to them with the proposed code, we heard a general feeling of bias towards tenants and concerns at some of the specific policies. This include the requirement to offer tenants a two year lease term, although we clarified with landlords that as long as there is language in the lease stating as such, a landlord could provide an increase during a two year lease term as long as there is a ninety day notice before that rent increase. So we clarified that for them.

There were some concerns about restricting landlords from asking about a tenant's perspective or previous eviction history. And again, we clarified that there would still be the ability to look up online publicly available information about eviction history. It's really just about on the rental application itself not asking about eviction history. And then concerns around a repair and deduct policy for tenants to be allowed to make repairs without landlord approval when the landlord has not made those repairs within a reasonable amount of time. And the main concern that we heard from landlords there was a worry that tenants would use unlicensed contractors.

But in the code language, it specifically says that this can only be used as an option if the tenant is using a licensed contractor. There were questions and concerns around the relocation assistance requirements, particularly around the cost of the permanent relocation fee, which can be quite substantial, and as well as determination of responsibility for in what situations the landlord would be required to provide either temporary or permanent relocation assistance. And then around the fee restrictions, we generally didn't hear a ton of pushback around fee restrictions, but there was a desire to allow fee for return checks and to allow an increased lockout fee for repeated occurrences. So those were some of the specific things that we heard there. And now to dive a bit into the highlights of the proposed changes.

And it is quite difficult to fit an entire chapter of city code into one slide, but I know we'll go through more of it later. But to provide the overview, per the direction of the mayor and council, the ordinance includes policies like restrictions on algorithmic rent pricing, restrictions on junk fees, and really emphasizes transparency in a variety of different ways. So first, this includes restrictions on asking about eviction history, as I previously mentioned, charging tenants court costs and legal fees, and using algorithmic rent pricing systems. New requirements for landlords to report data, provide two year lease options, adhere to lease review and provision timelines, allow nonelectronic payment methods, provide relocation assistance, and allow tenant organizations to use meeting rooms free of charge. Increased transparency around fees and guarantor requirements, more options for early lease termination, creation of a repair and deduct option, changes to how leases and rent information are provided to the city.

Most commonly, this will be now streamlined through the rental licensing process. And then lastly, meaningful fines for certain code violations. And the fine component of the new chapter will not be part of the introduction tonight. That will be separately considered as a part of a fine resolution. Before I get to the anticipated impacts, just to say again to reiterate what Trevor mentioned that with all of these policies together that you see here, we're very excited to present a best practice landlord tenant code.

These are best practices based off of national research and successes from jurisdictions across the country as well as really thorough engagement driven by our local stakeholders here in Rockville. So now for the anticipated impacts of this action item. We don't anticipate any environmental impacts. With equity, we anticipate a positive impact due to the many benefits of improved housing stability, which includes better mental and physical health, better economic security, better educational outcomes, also improved social connections and community diversity because the families that are often first to be displaced are disproportionately likely to be black or Hispanic in Rockville. And in general, in Rockville, tenants are disproportionately likely to be black or African American, especially tenants who face the most significant cost burden, but all renters really are facing cost burden, to some degree.

Half of all renters are facing cost burden to some degree. Of note is that on average, the median income of renters is $100,000 less than homeowners in Rockville. The economy. We anticipate a neutral impact. We recognize that these additional requirements put onto landlords may have negative impacts on their decisions to rent or developers' decisions to invest in Rockville and that compliance costs may put small upward pressure on rents.

But also, we recognize, again, that improved housing stability, in addition to bringing benefits to equity, also brings economic benefits. So we also believe that these transparency measures may create a more competitive rental market, resulting in slight downward pressure introduction and suggested motions, although I understand that there are likely questions that we are more than happy to address and go through the code before moving forward with the introduction. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If we could move over to the slide that highlights the major changes. While you're doing that, I just want to say thank you very much for the hard work on this. I did have a chance to listen in on some of the sessions you held quietly. And you all were very thorough, and there was good participation. I know that this body has been talking about housing, increasing the access to housing, having safer housing. We've had a number of work sessions, and we have over 40 action items to help support quality, affordable housing across the city. And this is part of this work. We're not done, as you mentioned. There are other things that are coming.

And there are several things that have already gotten started, whether that's the down payment assistance program to some of the work that we've done for the employee homeownership program, changing the way that we're looking at inspections to be more focused on quality housing for every resident in the city. So I just wanted to acknowledge the good work here. I know this is another step. We're not done. We have more to come. I know we're going to look at the MPDU regulations. We're going be looking at building code. This is just part of the building blocks of what we're doing. This council said that housing was one of its top priorities, and I appreciate all the hard work research that you've done to bring us here. So colleagues, I wanted to just check-in to check comfort levels.

I know some colleagues have very specific questions by section, and then some want to do other major sections here. I'm willing to start here and then move to the articles, but I do know that there are folks who want to go by articles. What I would suggest is when we do the articles that we take them there are five articles that we go in the groups of five so that we cannot jump around from Article one to four to three. So just want to see how folks feel about this. If you want to start here or do you want to just go through the articles?

All right. Councilmember Shaw.

I have some overall questions about the highlights and the proposed highlights.

So let's what I do want to be careful of is the highlights. If you want to go high level, that's great. I do know that all of these are in the sections as well and so some of them are very, very deep questions. If you have maybe an overarching question before we get started going on

the line, please Madam feel Mayor, I have quite a few questions overall and also some questions around the equity impact and some data data questions as well.

Why don't we go down the line and maybe we can go by article to start and then we'll hit the major points within there. Is that okay? Alright. Doctor. Miles, Are you okay to start or do you want me to start on the other side? You are willing to be put in the hot seat first? Okay. All right, Doctor. Myles, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. In terms of the overall highlights, no broad questions that I have here. I had more specific questions that staff replied to with regard to an explanation about the permanent relocation assistance, which I imagine we can get into once we get into the individual sections. And so I'm happy to reserve my questions until that point, if that's okay.

Okay. Perfect. So we're on article one, which I should say article one covers definitions, purposes, policies, applicability, interpretation, penalties, ceasing operations in lieu of compliance, failure to comply, and then there's a section that's reserved. That section is covered later. So if you want to hold.

Yeah, can hold.

Yeah, no problem. All right. Councilmember Fulton. I don't

have any questions on that article, so thank you.

Okay, perfect. I have just a few. There is something about ceasing operations in lieu of compliance, the section eighteen -six. It's very minor. I just was curious because this code initially was created before there was a Department of Housing and Community Development.

Actually last term we created the Department of Housing and Community Development. I was just wondering whether some of these sections should acknowledge that or is it all should say city manager? I'm open and flexible about that. But I just wanted to note that there's a section that says if a landlord decides to cease operations, that they have to submit that information to the city manager. My two questions are that, should this be going to can this be done electronically and should this go to DHCD or not? That's one question.

Sure. So I can address that and I know Assistant City Attorney Christina Harris is on the line as well. But my understanding is that the city manager essentially delegates that responsibility on an administrative basis to the department and to specific staff members. The ultimate authority still lies with him. But that for consistency throughout the code, will see those references to the city manager. But those responsibilities, depending on the article, are either delegated to Department of Housing and Community Development or to Department of Community Planning and Development Services.

Okay, thank you. And because there will be fines and penalties and people have to comply, when it says you must submit to a city manager, can that be done electronically? And will we be having information? I understand that there's going to be a landlord tenant guide that's developed after this, so maybe that will have more specific instructions on how to do that. But I wanted to flag that wasn't clear.

It does say, as you quoted, that the copy of the notice must be delivered to the city manager. The notice to the tenant must be a written notice. But I would think that the copy could be delivered electronically since it doesn't specify one way or the other.

Okay. There are some things that are like, must be paper, must be not. Just want to make sure that as we're looking through this, we're being as clear as possible. And perhaps there'll be more clarity in the landlord tenant guide that's put together. Mr. City Manager saying yes. Okay. And then there's a section that is stricken from this. It's called failure to comply with summons. My question was, why was this removed? It was failure to comply with the summons issued pursuant to this chapter shall be unlawful and subject to the appropriate legal action being taken by the city. I'm guessing you may have just this other sections that talk to this. Is that why you struck it here?

It was moved to Section eighteen-seventy eight since it's related to the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission.

Perfect. Okay. That makes total sense. Thank you. All right. Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor. So I don't really have any questions on this section. First of all, I wanna say thank you to staff for doing an excellent job of engaging with landlords, with tenants and with the organizations. We've had conversations with vendors and landlords here in Rockville. We've had conversations and gotten feedback, comments and clarification.

I'm just going to read the list because I think it's really impressive what you guys have done. Action in Montgomery, CASA, Everyday Camping, Housing Unique Partnership, Housing Justice Montgomery, Juice United for Justice, Latino Economic Development Corporation, Maryland Center for Legal Assistance, Maryland Legal Aid, Montgomery County DSA, Montgomery County Renters Alliance, Progressive Maryland, Renters United Maryland, Rockville Renters United. We also get feedback from AIOBA, the Apartment and Office Building Association of Washington, RealPage, and Southern Management. So thank you for this deep dive and for shopping it around and getting feedback from a lot of organizations with expertise on renters and landlords. I think this is an excellent start.

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

Thank you. Just a point of clarification that those were all of the organizations that we reached out to. We did not necessarily hear feedback from every single one of those organizations.

No. Thank you for clarifying that, but the point still stands.

Thank you. And I also know that you had many more participate in the second session that you did. I think there were some of them had 40 or 50 different groups there. So I know that you've continued to grow that list and appreciate that. Thank you. Councilor Bershaw.

I also wanna echo my colleagues and thank you. I know this has been a pretty extensive process. Just just wanted to know because I know there was some data previously. So half of renters are housing cost burden. I believe that was more than half. Correct? A few years a couple years ago, I think it was last year. Actually yeah. I think it was last year. It was, like, 56%.

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

Okay.

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

Okay. So last time I saw it, it was '56, so it'll be good to know if it went down. Also, that's, do you have the number of severely cost burden of those spending 50% or more of their income on rent in Rockville?

So in the staff report, we state that as of 2024, 53% of Rockville renters were considered housing cost burden. And that means that they're paying more than 30% of their income for housing and over 20% are considered severely housing cost burden, which means that they're paying more than half of their income towards rent.

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

That sounds correct. Don't have that staff report in front me.

That is acute housing instability. Also, you noted in here compliance costs may put small upward pressure on rent. Can you just share a little bit more details on that?

Sure. So if a landlord is required to bring on more staff in order to adhere with some of the additional requirements, then that would be an additional operating cost. And in order to cover any additional operating costs, landlords may feel pressured to increase rents a certain amount.

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

In terms of one thing in particular?

Like, in terms of

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

And that was this year?

Yes. Over the last year of doing the update project.

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

Yes. We've heard that consistently. Also,

did you use any of I think there was, like, hundreds of testimonies for rent stabilization throughout the past several years, not just outside of the input session. There were a lot of renters that shared what they needed. Was any of that information used? Because I know a lot of them, took a big risk coming and sharing sharing sharing that.

So Absolutely. Yes. Out of that, we monitored the testimony that was given from tenants at that time as well. And one of the things in addition to the desire for rent stabilization that was a frequent, challenge listed for tenants was maintenance response times. Mhmm. So that was something that we heard then, and then we heard when we did the outreach for this specific project as well.

Okay. And I know we're talking about the inspections, but I also just wanted to note the tenant's ability to call for their inspection and the city being objective between the tenant and the landlord and to go in there and to investigate and just get the facts. Okay. Also, I I wanted to ask about the equity statement and to see if you can just, outside of this, just to provide a little bit more data on that equity statement, because I know that we're not doing rent stabilization, which is the number one thing asked and needed of tenants. Is that and that there is gonna be there may be a small upward pressure on rent.

And so if there is going to be a small upward pressure on rent, could you just describe a little bit more details on how this will benefit? I think this could be focused just on the fees itself, but there's less of a cost with more restriction on fees. Is that where this is coming from?

It's hard to do that degree of discrete economic analysis. The best that we can really do at this time is to say that these things may cause slight upward pressure because of some of the additional compliance costs. But then again, there might be slight downward pressure and relief for tenants with the banning of junk fees and creating, hopefully, a more competitive environment in general that will help to push rents down, as well as through some of the additional actions that mayor and council is taking outside of just this ordinance, but with the zoning ordinance rewrite as well.

Okay. Because I'm just a little unclear on how particularly the reason why black renters, black or African American renters, have the highest burden also aligns with income and discrimination and all these things. Right? And so I was just curious of how you got to the equity statement, just to have some more details and understanding that. And I I also wanna share that, women, are also, disproportionately burdened, particularly black women and, thus, black children.

Okay. These are my questions from now. Oh, one more thing. Madam Mayor, my last question.

Thank you. Yeah. Is this overarching, or do you have any questions about this section? If you could just let him know if don't have

This is a clarity question.

Sure. Sounds good.

Just a point of clarity. So you talked about the two year lease agreement, and you confirmed that in between the two year lease, like after the first year, they would get a ninety day lease renewal?

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

And that's covered sorry, can I just say that's covered under another article? Feel free to put the question out there, but I know we're gonna go deeper into that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Councilor Van Grack? Thank

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

My one concern which addresses, I think, partially within this first article and throughout is I think the one area where we can do a better job is clarification and definitions. And I know that we've got a section right at the start of the the the first article that deals with definitions. One, I think at least when I'm dealing with code, and I noticed that throughout most of the other code and articles, there's the subsections a, b, c, d, and e. But in where we're talking about definitions here, we don't have that. It might be beneficial to relate back to specifically have those subsections.

Like, for example, I know the mayor was talking about this. There's numerous sections here that talks about written notice. Sometimes that written notice is clarified of exactly is what to happen, certified mail within seventy two hours. Other time, it just says written notice. It might be a good idea right here at the outset to define whether there's different types of written notice or what written notice is meant. In this day and age, we were talking about just the other day with regard to the zoning ordinance free right and some other sections. What written notice means? Is electronic notice? Can a renter consent to having electronic notice as opposed to written notice by certified mail? That's the type of clarification.

And I think throughout the code, I know some subsections do have their own definitions. And know when we get to eighteen one forty eight, I think there also should be some clarification, but we'll get to that. But a lot of the other subsections don't have clear definitions. And, like, for example, section eighteen one sixty three, when we're talking about those terms and we're talking about fees, we have a lot of terms that are being used here. It might be worthwhile in this first article to really set out some of the clear definitions that we're using later.

I mean, for example, we've got just within fees and what's allowed, what is a pet? What is a motor v motorized vehicle versus a bicycle? Is there an in between where you have a vehicle that has a motor but it's not a bicycle? What can renters do within those areas? And I think there's a lot of areas within this code that we can make more I mean and this is actually a quote from our city manager.

You hear it all the time. Clarity is kindness. And I think that on both sides of the, position here with regard to renters and landlords, There's a number of areas. And just an example of some of the code provisions that I think we can have definitions that's clarified. Eighteen one fifteen, eighteen one forty six, eighteen one sixty three, eighteen one forty eight, and eighteen one seventy eight.

I think each of those areas, there are terms used within those sections, whether it's about the fees, whether it's about the lease terms, whether it's about written notice, or whether it's about the timelines that certain actions are to occur, we can get into more detail. I'm happy to provide some of the list of some of the definitions that I think would be helpful. But I think having this definition section more enumerated and more clarity with some of the other terms because it seems to me, like, when we were just as a comparison, 1948, eighteen one forty six, and eighteen one seventy eight, they're all talking about different areas with regard to what can be done, what is a landlord required to do. But in some of those cases, they seem to be using terms that could be conflicting. And I just think, and when I went through some of the other landlord tenant codes, like I looked at Baltimore, I looked at, Berkeley, California, some of them, they have a really robust definitions that permeate through the whole the whole code.

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

Thank you very much. We now have the next article. Councilmember Fulton.

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

Thank you. This article is Article two, the administration division. And it covers functions of the city manager, composition appointment, and commission related pieces. There's also a division three under here that covers complaints. So I'm going to just highlight just a few small things that I have here.

Under the functions of the city manager, there is a piece that speaks to promulgate administrative procedures governing the licensure and inspection of rental facilities pursuant to this chapter, including at a minimum, the number of dwelling units within multiunit building that must be inspected before the issuance of a new rental license or renewal of an existing rental license. I wanted to call this out because we had a very dedicated work session focused on the inspections issue. And unfortunately, we have seen in the past that there have been some affordable housing areas, in particular, that there have been more concerns that we're hearing, you know, concerns from residents and things that we're discovering. Some of us have found them ourselves and have worked with our city team to help go in and inspect. I really appreciate the previous code had some language that was a little bit more clear.

I do think there's some clarity on the single family home inspections requirement, but we really did talk about what the enhanced program looked like, that percentage. We talked about what we were going to be doing to do more to inspect on the general multi side. And so I I think that this is something that the mayor and council really wanted to change and to make better so that we can have more quality housing. And I think we should clarify and put that in here. That's a policy decision that we were making and coming to say we were concerned about what was happening before.

We wanted to make improvements given what we were seeing. So is it possible to add the elements of what was discussed in our work session? I think it's probably just two tweaks. What is the enhanced program? Are you going in and doing 50% of that at least 50% of the building? Or there was some language that we agreed to. But can we make that clearer here?

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

I'm just I apologize. I know it's not your department.

So I think the quick answer is yes, we can. I just want to be careful about getting too much detail in here in case we want to make some flexibility, especially in year one, before we come back and do an annual report on the effectiveness of the program.

Thank you. I think, at minimum, we had a base line. And so if we could at least put the base line in here, you may all come back and say we're not we need more. I think that's fine. But I do think that because we have seen differences in how it's enforced or there are staff changes, there mayoral council changes, we're trying to set this is what the baseline is for our inspections program so that we can make sure that everyone has access to affordable and safe housing.

Do you need any clarity from us? Do you need us to draw a poll? I know we had a work session on this, so can we just put that in there?

We'll do the best I can to put in something in there. Again, I'm worried about being super restrictive. The idea of a baseline in there, I think, something we can work with.

Perfect. That makes sense. Thank you. Okay. And then under understood that it's a city manager or designee everywhere? I'm assuming that's what you guys will decide or maybe that's a way to clarify in the early definitions. There are some parts of our code that do that, that say the city manager or designee, so maybe it's worth clarifying there. But I was looking at specifically the procedure following investigation. The city manager will attempt to conciliate the matter of methods by initial conference. That was one I thought we could clarify or at least put city manager designee.

Designee. If we at least put it up front, that would make it clear. Sections eighteen seventy nine-eighty, violation of defective tenancy found, It changes the potential cost that a tenant might have to pay from $2,000 to $5,000 in fines, but I'm not clear as to how they could get up to that level, and that's a big jump. So that one gave me pause. And I know you're going to come back with more fine information later, but that was something that gave me some pause.

So yes, the change from $2,000 to $5,000 is the amount of damages that can be awarded at the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission. We've found that there are many cases where the amount in question goes beyond the $2,000 limit, and then those cases we're unable to further assist with. And their only option going forward at that point, since conciliation was not successful, is to go to court. So the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission is a service that we offer as the city to be an option other than going to court and having to get lawyers involved to instead come to the city. So by increasing that cap and I'm sure it had been many, many years since that cap had been last increased.

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

Thank you for clarifying that it might save money in the long run by not having to use as lawyers, but also that you're leveraging this based on the experience that you have. I do think that the body, it's going to be important to see how we break that down and what the fees can be. So I'm going to put a pin in it then and know that you're going to come back to us with more specific information about how we're going be looking at fees and that process. And I think you mentioned that will be another work session. Is that correct?

No, that is not proposed as another work session.

So you're just going to introduce it as a resolution without discussion?

So this is different than penalties. So the penalties for violating any of the sections of the landlord tenant code, that would be done through a fine resolution. But this is not a fine. This is the amount that the landlord tenant commission can award as damages. So it's not necessarily a fine for a code violation.

But the amount that they have to play with when saying that, for example, if there's a security deposit dispute or a tenant has caused significant damage to an apartment unit or x, y, z, all of the different types cases that we can see. So those are two different things, the penalties for violating the code and the maximum award amount for the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission.

And for that, you'll be using actual receipts? I'm just trying to get to what is the criteria that we're going to be saying what is fair.

Yes. So the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission is appointed with the goal that they are the body who makes those types of legally binding decisions, which can then be appealed to court. But they are the body that is looking at all of those receipts in a very, very detailed way, if Trevor would like to speak more to this as our liaison to the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission. But they're looking into those receipts. And they hear the arguments from both the complainant and the respondent.

It sort of mimics a court procedure without being an actual court procedure. And then they go into deliberation in a closed session where they talk about what they've heard and decide what will be fair. So that is their sole purpose, is really to decide what is fair in those situations after receiving all of the evidence and information.

And if folks are unsatisfied at that stage, they can still take it to court? Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. That's what I have for that section. Council Member Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor. I will be brief. I was wondering though, have we run this by the landlord tenant commission? This section.

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

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

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

No, that's perfect. The only other thing, and this kind of goes to Council Member Van Grieg's point of the definitions, is there was something in here about security deposits. And I just want to caution you, John, I believe you are looking at every piece of code or law in the state of Maryland, but just to make sure that we kind of align with Maryland law as well. Somebody brought inconsistency with Maryland law and what we had for security deposit. So just making sure that we're kind of aligned with state law.

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

Thank you. Councilor Bouchard.

I know the way that the landlord tenant commission is formed. There's equal representation for tenants. There's equal representation landlords. Are there any long period of time where there's vacancies, particularly on one side recently?

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

Okay. And then I know that they're set up to have an election. Each well, each the commission elects their chair. Correct? Or

Yes. That would be the proposed change is that there could be an appointed chair.

Okay. So there's not an appointed chair now?

There there is an appointed chair now.

Okay. But they're not elected then?

So the Commission, yes, elects a chairperson from among the appointed members.

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

So the chair, are they a non

count towards the

Yeah. They they don't count towards the balance of landlords or tenants because we have both landlords, tenants, and parties that represent the

IRA. Don't vote?

They do vote. Yes. But they are not designated as a member representing one of those parties.

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

Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Van Grak.

Thanks. I actually don't have any specific, definitional concerns with this section, but just to follow-up with councilmember Jackson. Councilmember Jackson, I assume you're referring to the section. I think it's, of a real property article eight two zero three that talks about the different specific requirements of how much deposits can come come out?

I was and also 1880.

Oh, well, as comparison to real property article a two zero three. So because, in my looking into this, and correct me if I'm wrong, the state has a requirement. We can go more stringent than that. The state just sets us the limit. Is that correct? Meaning that if the state says two, we could go one being more limiting.

Yes. That is generally

how how

it would work.

Yeah. Because I couldn't find any, at least, case law that says a municipality or county couldn't go lower than the state. The state just sets the baseline limit. Is that right? Or is that incorrect?

Yes. In this case, 1880 is talking about security deposit disputes and that if a landlord imposes a security deposit more than the equivalent of one month's rent per dwelling unit, they can award up to three times the extra amount charged as permitted by Maryland law. I think the question around there is that Maryland law does state that there are some exceptions where the landlord can charge more than one month's rent. And this is not necessarily stating those exceptions. But we do by including, as permitted by Maryland law, we're acknowledging that this section does need to be in compliance with Maryland law.

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

Yes. Yes. This is not changing what a landlord can charge for a security deposit.

That's actually a great clarification. And I thank you, Councilor Jackson. I actually interpret it differently. I interpreted that Rockville was actually saying we're going to be more limiting the state law. So it actually could be something that we could more clarify in this section to clarify that the amount of the landlords charging and potentially even reference the real property article is not something that we would be asking a landlord to do more or less than. It's the same limit that applies by state law. Because I actually interpret it like council member Jackson.

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

law Exactly. Correct.

Not changing it.

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

I will admit that I was as well. So so we got some feedback about that. There were a couple of things today where there was a thought that we were more stringent than the state, and there was a concern. Gosh. Was it a utility cost or something related to that where it's it goes beyond I think it's when a land something about when utility costing to be paid to a landlord, and there was concern that they should be able to collect for that. So I just wanted to flag that feedback that we got from the community from members of the community.

Yes. We received that feedback as well. Which part of code for that one specifically, if you have the reference about the utility?

Let's come back to this if you have it.

Yeah. It's it's actually if you go to the the real estate property article, a two zero three b two is where there's the specific exception for the utilities, that can be paid directly to a landlord.

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

Yes. We haven't gotten there. Thank you. Okay. Doctor. Miles, do you have anything on article oh, wait. Did you are you done? You still have more? Let me double check. I'll come back to you. Do you have anything else in this article?

That is in 80 is in this article.

Yeah. It is.

I'm just looking to Jane. Do you want us to come back to this?

To that question specifically about utility billing? Related to security deposits.

Oh, related to security That's

the interplay between the feedback we received in the community that you said you've received, and I was just gonna ask you what's your interpretation of what we received, specifically relating the issue of the security deposit and not being able to collect that utility fee. Let me get back to you on that one. Okay. Understood. We'll give you time. Doctor. Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have no specific questions about this article. I'm good until article four, but I do appreciate the conversation of my colleagues and staff's preparation for this. That's all.

Excellent. Okay. Thank you. So next we go to Article III, and it's covering rental facility requirements division. And it covers general licensure rentals facility goes more into inspections, displaying of licenses, minimum facilities requirements.

I have a couple here. So for this one, under Division II, the language is kind of interesting here because it looks like under Section 18.114 that we would be potentially striking the language, a rental facility must be inspected upon the receipt of a completed application for a rental facility license and before issuance of a renewal license. I think you're addressing that later and that's maybe why you struck it from that section, but I just wanted to clarify.

Yes. I believe that that section we now have Section eighteen-one one one five, rental facilities inspections. So that section goes a little bit deeper into those things. And also the following language about the city manager may only issue or renew a rental license upon finding that twelve thirty four, goes a little bit deeper than what was previously there.

Okay. I just wanted to be careful because I know when we had that bigger discussion, there are some jurisdictions that hand over licenses without inspections. We will not be doing that.

No, there is no proposal I to change

just want to make sure this is something I care deeply about because of the quality of housing issues that we've discussed, so I won't belabor the point. And then it says the city must provide at least seventy two hours written notice before any inspection of a rental facility by certified mail sent to the landlord's last known address and posting of at the main entrance of the rental facility. I just kinda to the comments of of myself and councilman Van Gracken, councilman Jackson, just the definitions on what is can they do in email in addition to a letter. I do think that I was concerned about the delay on the process and if someone can get an email quickly then they can start moving to go. We don't really address electronic communications very well in this section because maybe we don't typically do that or require that, but I just wanted to flag that as a concern to me.

And then Section e in this area, a landlord has deemed to have violated this chapter for city's inspectors refuse entry to the landlord's rental facility to conduct an inspection that has been properly noticed under section. Each day an inspector's refuse entry to conduct a property notice and inspection is a separate violation. So one of the things that you all have shared with us is that sometimes tenants deny access. So what happens in that case? Because it's kind of silent. It speaks mostly to the landlord. And sometimes the landlord may be open to inspection but the tenant doesn't allow. So what do we do in that case?

So part of the reason why E is in there is because we want to hold the landlord responsible for enforcing their own lease with the tenant. And the lease includes language around that you must provide access for these types of repairs and inspections. So if it were to be directly us saying that the tenant is in violation, we would not want to institute a municipal infraction on a tenant and be enforcing the landlord's lease for them. So that is why this language is in here, so that we are essentially requiring the landlord to enforce their own lease.

I do think that we should clarify that the tenant also I mean, that's part of the legal requirements. We should also note that the tenant must provide access and buy a home.

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

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

Correct. The tenant could be found in violation of the lease, and then the landlord could take the tenant to court over a defective tenancy.

All right. You all have shared that this is a common issue. And so I'm concerned that I don't feel like it's as clear as it could be. I do feel like we should say the landlord and the tenant are required to provide access.

I'm not sure whether or not that is something that we can do. I don't know if Christina's mic is working, if she's able to speak more to this, then I could.

And sometimes this impacts the safety of other tenants, nearby tenants, because there are issues that are going on that spread to other units. So that's one of the things, and I've heard feedback from you all about it.

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

And if the the landlord is fined because the city is not accessed, the landlord cannot pass on that fine to the tenant. Because we have other sections saying that. So this is why I think it's tricky. And we should just be clear of what we're intending. Does anyone from legal want to respond? Do you want to just get back to us? I don't want to put you on the spot if you need more time. I think we were trying to get Christina Harris on. Is there a problem with her mic?

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

Okay. We can put a pin on this. But if maybe she can send a quick email in or note in so that we have that advice, it would be very helpful. Oh, we're seeing that people who are online can hear her.

But we can't. But we can't. She is typing a message to me. In

the interest of time, I'll continue moving. Go ahead. Oh, she's saying it to all of us.

Who whoever has control of the system, there's a note that's come up on the system that says our output is muted. So if there's someone either within staff that can push the button this is unmuted. We might be able to hear

it here.

Teamwork makes a dream.

While they're working on that, she has told me that she believes it's addressed in Wait. A different

She's sweet. She's in There she is. Right here.

Great. I believe this is in a different section. I remember including it and making sure it was in here, but I can't currently find that. I'm trying to do a search of the edits. But we can do that, and we can, you know, require a landlord can get in there and enforce their lease. We can make that adjustment to make it clear clear here.

That will be Once I find where

it is, I'll advise.

Okay. I think if we can do that, that would be great have that addition. And then also to include it in the education materials so that everyone is clear on their responsibilities. Thank you. All right. So there are a couple other things in this section. There were some questions that I saw about just clarifying what the timelines are, and I think that's something that Councilmember Mengrack also raised. This section also covers those kinds of timelines. Is it business days? Is it not business days?

I think that would be helpful. I think there are also some potential questions about repair and deduct, and I'll get into that in a bit. Section eighteen one hundred twenty seven also gets into requiring on-site personnel for 100 or more units. That is a new addition. Is that correct? Or are you requiring that now and it's not being forced?

No. So that is a current requirement.

Okay. So there is a building I'm not going to say which one but there is one in Twinbrook that has this new technology do you know what I'm talking about? I don't want to say the names of the building, but they it's it's it's like not a on-site card. It's kind of like they there's a more electronic access and and things of that sort. I I would be happy to share which one to see what they're doing, but

please do.

That was one of the ones that I was just concerned about how would this have an impact. And is this something where we haven't been enforcing and now that's going to cause additional cost. Have we enforced this rule?

So Article III is enforced by CPDS, so I can't necessarily speak to that part of it. I have not necessarily heard about it being enforced, but they would be able to give you more accurate information there.

Okay. All right. All right. And then you have sections on display rental license. The landlord of a single unit detached dwelling or ADE must provide a copy of valid rental license to all tenants of the rental facility. This I just wanted to note, this is a new addition, which I think is a good thing. Well, it was it looked like it was add in. I wanna make sure that there is communication specifically to small landlords for any new additions. Because I know corporate landlords have staff, and so any new additions in this section that we're really doing a lot of work to say, here's the new thing before we start finding people?

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

Okay. And then on transferability, a rental license holder must give the city manager a written notification of any change in address or change of property ownership within ten days of such change or transfer. If you you're you've got a rental license, your house no longer has a tenant, and you sell it, you're still you're saying you still want someone to contact the city manager? No one

I'm sorry. Could you point me to exactly which section this is on?

Transferability. Which number? 18117. I think it's a.

Yes. If they are changing the property ownership, then, yes, they must give the city manager a notification.

What if they're changing the ownership and no longer renting? I'm thinking of small landlords here.

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

Okay. I'd have to double

check that.

To find someone for this if they just sell I just I anyway, I think that's this seems overly onerous, but because normally the rental license comes up and they ask you, have you sold your house? And for single family, it's every two years. So I just wanted to flag that.

I believe that if a small landlord renting a single family home were to stop renting and to sell their house, if they didn't have an active tenant, then there's nothing more that they need to do. Their rental license would just expire. Perfect. But if they do have a tenant, then there's a series of things that need to happen.

That is an important clarification. That wasn't appreciate you saying that. Okay. And then there's a section eighteen one nineteen on administrative appeals. It seems like there was language removed to be able to appeal the city manager's decision to the landlord tenant commission. Again, that's section 18.119, administrative appeals.

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

Okay. Well, here's why because you told me before that the landlord tenant commission has helped people not have to go to court. But in this section, it's like the city manager delivers something, and in the past, they could go to the landlord tenant to appeal that decision. But the way it's rewritten is the city manager has a decision, and then they have to go to court. So it seemed to have cut that step out as an option that it is not legal intensive that a tenant or a landlord could have to try to come to an agreement. But I just wanted to flag that. I may be misreading it, but would love to get clarification.

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

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

Oh, no. Not the I see the language that you're pointing out in article three, but I'm checking to see if we move that language into Article II where it talks more about the Landlord I Tenant Affairs don't believe that we did. The reasoning behind that is that going to the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission, having that as an option is a really great option for landlords and tenants to avoid court. But then appealing the decision, it would really just be appealing it again and going through the same process with the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission and would be redundant. So instead of incorporating that process into the code, we figured it would be more streamlined to tell folks that at that point, you really just need to go to court to settle those matters.

Okay. And so at that point, when the city manager gets involved, are you saying they would have already gone to landlord tenant and it would be a loop again? Is there a possibility where the city manager issues

because at that point, we would potentially have the city manager being in conflict with the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission, and that's a situation that we are also trying to avoid. Because at that point, there would be a question about what happens there. And so the way that it's currently written is that the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission, the city manager makes the findings, does the investigation, attempts the conciliation, makes the recommendation for the case to go before the Landlord Tenant Affairs Commission. And then at that point, the commission is the final say. But then having it to go back through the appeals process would potentially put those two parties in conflict.

Thank you. I think there's something like Oh. Go ahead.

I might be able to clarify this. Yes. And so I believe it took me a moment to realize. It's section eighteen one nineteen. This is final action of the city manager under this article as so in regards to issuance of rental licenses or suspension of rental licenses.

So this would not be addressing other issues regarding landlord tenant disputes. This would be purely article two or this article on the licenses. And so for that, regarding expertise of the commission and where it would go for to have the dispute regarded. This is, again, the final action for city manager to go to circuit court rather than landlord tenant affairs commission and only to this article.

That is super helpful. That is only related to loss of a rental license. Okay. And in that case, if the it's mostly would be just be the landlord that would be concerned about that, and they would take take this issue to court, probably the city to court. Correct. Alright.

And some of the other items are already going to court if they're a violation of rental licenses and a municipal infraction.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Under Division III, minimum facilities requirements. So we have specific language that speaks to smoke detectors. I didn't see language that speaks to common carbon monoxide detectors. So I was just curious that is a common thing for safety in homes. Why include smoke detectors but not carbon monoxide detectors?

I believe carbon monoxide detectors might be further covered, as are many other things related to property maintenance in those facilities under Chapter five rather than Chapter 18. I was thinking that, but then I

saw smoke detectors. And I was like, well, we have smoke detectors here. So either we're including those things in the building code or we're including them here. Just if we're gonna say smoke detectors, I think we should also say carbon dioxide because we get to other gases like radon. But I just that was something I think if we're gonna say smoke detectors, then add carbon monoxide or you're to refer to the other chapter.

And then we get to some very specifics about hotels and inns. I'm not going to belabor that section, but it says like every hotel room must have two chairs. That's not a thing anymore, really, in every hotel room. So I just thought one chair. I just wanted to clarify that because most most hotels now, you'll just see one chair.

So we weren't proposing to change anything related to hotels, but if the mayor and council would like to change something like one to two chairs, I wouldn't see any issue with that or two to one chairs.

I'm proposing we do one chair because that's what's in practice now. We don't have to start filing fining people for having less than two chairs in the hotel room. Do you need a straw vote on that?

Don't think

basic enough that we can just do it. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Shah.

You're saying at least one chair? Yes. Wanted to clarify. Yes.

Okay. And then we, for some reason, struck providing fresh linens in a hotel.

So the reason behind that is because if you've been to a hotel lately, you may have seen that some places will have the The

eco friendly.

Environmentally, yeah, eco friendly note saying that if you would like your linens changed once a day, then you can contact them. But unless they're otherwise contacted, they wouldn't be changing the linens as frequently.

So I would propose a modification that we don't say that they don't have to provide fresh linens, that they have to provide fresh lemons but strike that every day. I want people to go into a hotel room and know that they're fresh lemons from another guest. Understood. Okay. And I'm saying that because there have been issues, not necessarily in Rockville, but That has been a thing. And actually, there are some places that they don't provide land and people have to bring their own, which is also wild. I didn't see in this section a fine for not filing a rental license. So there are some properties that operate without rental licenses. Is that going to come separately?

Yes, that will be a part of the fine resolution that's provided separately. But as of right now, everything within Chapter 18 is considered a municipal infraction with a cost of $100

Okay. And then Section eighteen-one 127, it talks about a four or five burner stove. I assume that since our building code is moving towards more electric that it's just understood.

Understood that it

has to be electric and it may not be a burner. Sorry? It may not be a burner. May be it may not be sort of a traditional burner. Maybe an electric kind of plate.

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

Okay.

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

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Alright. Those are my sections for this comments for this section. Thank you. Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, mayor. Actually, no questions for me.

Council Member Shah?

Yes. I have a few questions. I believe rights are under the section. That's article four.

Okay.

And

the two year leases, that's under the section, right? Or is that four?

No, that would be the next article.

The next one is juicy. And

the data collection is also under

That, I believe, is under that's at the very, very end of the chapter. So I believe that's article

five. Okay. No questions for this session.

Thank you very much. Councilman Bhubankarad.

Thank you. So a lot of my focus, just similar to some of the things that the mayor was said and so I said previously, is with regarding some of the definitions and clarity. I also was looking at eighteen one fifteen, similar to what the mayor was. I also circled with regard to subsection e with the refused, although I was looking in a little bit of a different direction. As opposed to penalizing the renter who might be refusing, we might wanna put an exception clarifying that the landlord will not be penalized if it is the renter who is doing the refusing.

Essentially, because this is for this is facing the penalties that's going to the landlord. Right? And if the penalties are going to the landlord, we don't need to increase the penalties to the tenant because just as you said, that could be dealt with from a civil manner regarding the rights in the lease. But the more important part is this is imposing a penalty directly on the landlord for the refusal. If we clarify that if the refusal has nothing to do with the landlord's refusal and is a either a third party refusal such as the tenant or some other circumstance that it is no fault of the landlord, then there shouldn't be an a penalty imposed.

Because if we're imposing a penalty on the landlord for a problem in a unit where the tenant is the one refusing, should we really be imposing any penalty at all that's supposed to be for the benefit of the of the tenant. Is that a potential way to deal with this?

I believe that the rationale behind still having a penalty for the landlord is that the landlord might need encouragement in order to in order to implement their own lease in this situation, that there could be a situation where the tenant has made a complaint about the property maintenance, and they want it fixed. But for whatever reason, they're not providing the access to the unit. The landlord can what incentive does the landlord have to enforce the lease and bring the tenant to court for, breach of lease, if not then also receiving a municipal infraction from the code?

So then but here here in lies, I think, some of the issues. We're imposing some pretty very quick penalties. We're talking about notice. We're talking about days. To bring something with regard to a breach of lease against a tenant by a landlord, that doesn't happen within days. Right? That's things that could happen within many, many months. So you're essentially saying to the landlord, we're gonna penalize you in a matter of days. However, your only recourse is to try to enforce a lease, which could take months. And so that's that's where I see kind of a juxtaposition of we're saying, hey.

Go ahead and do it. But their recourse is months and months away, whereas we're opposing penalties within a matter of days. So that's why, you know, I think that allowing a landlord to be able to say, hey. I have done everything that is within my power. I will still go and try to enforce it, but I shouldn't be penalized within a matter of days when I'm doing everything I can, including trying to go to court with a matter of months.

I see the point you're making there.

Okay. And similarly, with regard to as we go through eighteen-one hundred fifteen, we're talking about a wide range of the ability of the city manager or the city manager designee, to make, timing issues and specified period of time. But we're not giving any clarification as to what is within the permutation of specified period of time. And I know this is not something that we can clarify here, but this is kind of one of those definitional areas that we might want to clarify. For example, there could be a difference between a violation that is severe health and safety of the whole building, or it could be a violation that's maybe ministerial that doesn't need to be that area.

And it could be something that we might want to have guidance for the city manager and his staff to be able to determine what that specified period of time is. Similarly, and I note just as an example, we're talking about written notice here within eighteen one fifteen. The mayor talked about. I talked about it with the seventy two hours of notice. But just in other sections, for example, eighteen 01:17, we're just saying giving the city manager written notice. So that's one of the areas that we might wanna clarify just as an example that there's two neighboring sections, one of which clarifies the written notice and the other doesn't, how it could come come to play. Those are my only comments in this section.

Thank you. Doctor. Miles?

Again, I'm good till section four.

Okay. Thank you. Councilman Fulton? I think we yes. I'm good. Okay. Great. I have one last question for you. With this new landlord tenant code update, are you going to be reinforcing or have any way to there's some people who are doing the right thing and getting licenses and some people are not. Is that part of your program of what you're looking at in the city?

So we will continue to do what we currently do, which is to administer the rental license program. And if we are made aware of a landlord renting without a license, they're issued a notice of violation and given a period of time to come into compliance.

Okay. Previously, there was discussion about a technology that the city was going to be investing in to understand when that it was kind of a scanner to see if if there are properties being marketed that don't have rental licenses. So I we haven't the mayor and council haven't hasn't received a briefing on that. This relates to my second topic related to this is there are about 150 at least marketed short term rentals that are happening. And currently, don't have a regulatory framework for that to even be legal.

But if they're marketing without a license, don't know that those units are safe. It just is a broader question not to be answered tonight, I just wanted to raise this issue for us. Okay. The next big section goes to Councilmember Jackson and it covers landlord tenants rights and obligations. And some of the sections are contents, notice of entry, two year lease, subleasing, additional leasing requirements, early lease termination, miscellaneous. Those are some of the highlights, but there's more.

Oh my gosh.

I didn't plan that, Councilwoman Jackson.

Sure, certainly, Mayor,

I believe that.

Let me see. You know what, I'm gonna pass because I have

to get

my notes together.

No problem. Councilwoman Bershaw.

So I just wanted to note that many of these rights are already state law and were existing. And so I'm speaking particularly about the right to assemble, the right to distribute information, the right to use a common area without a charge that's actually a state a state right. And so so I I'm glad that we are aligning, but I just wanted to make sure, like, especially for the listening public, that a lot of these rights we we've already had for some time, and they are incredibly important. I just think that we have to just do continue doing work just to let tenants know of these rights. Just like we heard today, you know, someone was it was shared that someone wasn't able to distribute information when they were organizing tenant association, that's against our law.

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

Thank you. Agree.

Council Member Bengarat.

So not surprisingly, some of my comments here with regard to clarity and definitions. And one of them, I know that the last time we were discussing the, and doing a straw poll and talking about, with regard to two years versus one year leases. I know that's the first section that we get here. Even amongst the mayor and council and some of us who have been talking this past week, there have been some even lack of clarity with how it's how it's laid out here about what is allowed, what isn't allowed within the the a two year lease, which is required to be offered. Now we do make it clear, which is absolutely crystal within, eighteen one forty six one b that you can offer more or less.

So you can offer a six month lease. You can offer a one year lease. You can offer a three year lease. But within the two year lease, I know there have been some comments and clarifications with regard to whether that can you can have a graduated increase of pricing with of the rent within that two year period. And I think it's debatable, but from what I've heard from a lot of folks, I've heard from some renters, and I've heard from some landlords that they want the flexibility to be able to adjust from a contractual relationship the way they would if, for example, it was gonna be a one year lease and a one year lease to increase.

We might wanna clarify to the extent that a graduated rental increase so long as it is made clear through the benefit of the bargain and, upfront clarity that that's allowed. Because I know that how it's phrased, heard some people say it is allowed, some people say it isn't, but we might wanna make even even a subsection, make b, c, and have a b there talking about pricing because we've heard a lot from folks regarding rental pricing. We don't want to have the landlord be forced to have one price when it could be graduated. By the same vein, I think one of the reason we're doing this is because we want that option to be there. But we have the subsection b to say, you might want a lower rate a lower time period or a longer time period.

So I think we might wanna just clarify, again, city managers phrasing clarity is kindness, that we would allow a graduated rental increase because I think that benefit everybody. Similarly, when we're going down in these kind of sections when we're talking about the contents, 15 goes to similar to what we were talking about before. I just wanna make sure that we're not imposing unreasonable restrictions on the landlord with regard to and I guess this goes to things that could benefit the whole unit as opposed to one unit who is unnecessarily, restricting access. So just to look, I would probably make it a little bit more stronger ability for a landlord to be able to do that. Again, we've heard numerous times and landlords say that there is potentially sometimes a tenant who is unreasonable reasonably limiting the ability for them to get access, and it's disturbing everybody else.

And so that's something to consider. Similarly, in subsection 16, when we're talking about subleasing, it says unreasonably withheld with regard to what a landlord's allowed to say no to with regard to a sublease. We might wanna clarify that definition. What is unreasonably withheld? I know sometimes that means that what is a reasonable person and one reasonable perspective?

Is financial reasonable? Is the amount of people that is looking for the sublease unreasonable? Is it outside the definition of household from the earlier section of the code? When we're gonna if we're gonna be enforcing this, it's something that I'd want to have as much clarity as possible. I think this also goes to subsection eighteen one sixty three.

We're talking about the landlord is prohibited from charging of fees. Now I thoroughly agree, and we've talked about this with regard to fees. We really wanna have clarity with regard to fees, and I think that's every, just about everybody, on the mayor and council have talked about us really wanting to have clarity. But now when we're talking about prohibiting charging a fee, which is more than just upfront clarity, we're actually talking about prohibiting, I think we've got to be even more clear with regard to our terms. Like, when we're talking about services or amenities related to the performance of any repairs, maintenance, tasks, or other work which the landlord has a duty to perform to maintain the the habitability of the dwelling unit.

Well, we could come into a situation where the utilities are adjusted, and that is now something that could be needed to be added depending on how that utility is being charged for the whole unit, whether it's used to be like whether it's something that has been charged by unit and is adjusting versus those specific units that charge a percentage of whole. How a landlord interprets that or how we're interpreting that, that should dictate. So I just would like to see how at least staff is interpreting service services or amenities to make it abundantly clear. Because I think it's one thing to say you've gotta have everything clear at the outset. It's another thing to say these are what we're actually prohibiting.

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

So the intention behind, section 18 dash one sixty three a three, if that's what you're referring

Yeah. To

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

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

I think I would argue that there's a difference between maintaining and doing maintenance versus providing something like a utility. And then we do speak to utility and fees for utilities later in the code as well with with eight five here of any administrative or processing fees for utilities, including trash, and in other parts of the code as well, talk specifically about utilities. Usually, if utilities are intended to be included in something, they're specifically called out.

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

Know that sorry. You continue, I know that we received a comment specifically about a two, that there was concern that services or amenities previously included in the rent could prohibit landlords from introducing utility cost recovery structures or ratio utility billing systems. And so that's something that we received that comment and agreed that it could be potentially interpreted in that way. So that's something that, we are happy to discuss, amending so that it is more clear in that case.

Okay. Let's see. The I think hold on. This goes to alright. $1.48 is still in this section as well. Right?

Yes. It is.

Alright. So $1.48 with regard to algorithmic prices. Fully agree. This is absolutely something that we need to do. I would ask staff to take a closer look.

I know that there have been a number of lawsuits, and I know that you know, one of them in Nevada, which was specifically talking about whether it goes too broad with regard to the definitions of algorithmic prices. Now I have not yet married specifically all of this definition with the I think I think there was one in California too. It's a California and Nevada case that specifically said that their definitions were too narrow. And I believe in both of those cases, when I went and looked up the case history, it ended up with some type of resolution outside of the court interpreting that it was too narrow or that it was properly broad. And the definitions both in those cases made it more narrow than what the jurisdiction had.

I believe in how I interpreted their definition and our definition is they made it more narrowly tailored through current pricing versus past pricing. Now I'm not a specific code drafter, and this isn't my area, but staff might want to look at because while we absolutely wanna have this, this is something that I think almost everybody on this council have talked about it. And this is absolutely the right move to go. We need to make sure that there isn't improper price fixing going on between landlords. What I don't wanna have happen is we have something that's too broad, and we ourselves have to be facing a lawsuit or an action because we've gone to that overbroad that some of the other jurisdictions, found themselves into a lawsuit as well.

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

Berkeley. Berkeley.

Well, it will that's not the county. It it city was Berkeley, but I'm not sure what the county where that lawsuit was in California. So just something to think about when trying to do with it because it's absolutely the right thing. I just don't want it taken away, because we've been too broad. Thanks.

Doctor Miles.

Thank you, madam mayor. Thanks, staff. And, again, thank my colleagues for their excellent review. The question I have is to get some clarity. I appreciate staff's reply to my question regarding the permanent relocation assistance. This is article four, division four in our agenda book. It's packet page two forty eight. What I was trying to gain clarity on are, I guess, how long like, what does permanent relocation assistance entail? Is it something that goes on in perpetuity? Is there a time at which it would extinguish?

Like, the writing, the explanation for temporary assistance is fairly comprehensive. I just didn't understand the permanent relocation assistance. And perhaps it's just my inability to interpret, but I'm happy to take your answer here.

So permanent relocation assistance is really just a payment, is what we're talking about, is that a tenant, when these XYZ situations occur, they would receive this permanent relocation payment. That's the main thrust of the policy. And that payment includes the full refund of the security deposit rent for the remainder of the month, the cash equivalent of three months fair market value rent, actual reasonable storage and moving costs, an additional sum if one tenant is a senior, a person with disabilities, or a minor child. So at the end of the day, that's really the main part of the policy, although in that case, the first right to return would also apply in cases of permanent relocation assistance.

Thanks for that explanation. So it sounds like the limit is three months plus the secured deposit. Is that

Yes. It's those things that I just listed for the part about the cash equivalent. It's three months fair market value rent for a unit of comparable size as established by HUD.

The second part I had, a question about clarification is subsection c one b. It says the tenant I guess, permanent relocation assistance. I guess it's talking about landlord is required to provide permanent relocation assistance to a tenant. Looking at part b, tenant elects to relinquish tenancy follow a

period of

temporary relocation that has lasted or is expected to last for at least six months before the tenant has returned to the dwelling unit. So in this context, is it I'm just trying to figure out what this is saying. I'm I don't do housing for a living, so so I defer to you. So if there's a temporary relocation, but the person just decides not to go back to that place even though it's available, they can get the permanent relocation assistance?

So this would be a situation where something happens to the unit, it's not safe to occupy, and the tenant has to leave. They need to be temporarily displaced. The problem can be fixed. But after looking at speaking with contractors, talking to them, and figuring out how long will it actually take to fix this problem that's causing the unit to be unsafe to occupy, they realize, oh wow, this problem goes a lot deeper than we thought. This is going to take eight months to fix.

At that point, the landlord informs the tenant, hey, I think this is going to take maybe eight months or more to fix this issue and for you to be able to return to the unit. The tenant can decide at that point, that's entirely too long. I'm relinquishing my tenancy. I'm ending my tenancy with this unit. And if they do that, then they would also be entitled to receiving that permanent relocation assistance payment.

So up to that point, they would have presumably been eligible for the temporarily temporary relocation assistance benefit, but they can say at month seven. So they're you know, the temporary things last for six months. This project may take an additional month and say, no. It's too much. I wanna take off.

Correct.

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

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

I understand the thrust. I think it's I mean, as a whole, I think that this this rewrite certainly does center, for the most part, the, you know, the notion that a home is a a basic right at some level, and that we should make sure that people can stay in their homes. I wouldn't necessarily say it's overly generous, but it seems to be I won't say disproportionate, but if again, in this crazy example that I make up that probably isn't true, just a hypothetical. But just to to suggest a point, if the repair would take an additional month, they can say, no. I'm good for three months. I don't know. I I think that that strikes strikes me as odd. I I think it's great for the tenant. I don't know if it's a small mom and pop landlord. That might be hard.

Yeah. It might be it might be hard. That's all. So I I'm I'm curious to see what my colleagues think, but it's just something that struck my struck me when I read it. That's all.

Councilmember Fulton.

Thank you. I do actually have some questions on this article. First of all, I will say when I had several questions on this article, but you did a really great job of going over the feedback from the landlord and how you clarified for them that answered about half of the questions I would have had. So thank you for that at the outset. First question though is going back, you all had a good conversation about the 18.163 on regulation of fees and clarity there, but you skipped over the one that I actually need more clarity on, and it's eighteen one hundred sixty three a four.

I think it might just be awkward wording. Any charge for which the landlord failed to request from the tenant after more than forty five days After forty five days from what? I don't know what we're trying to do there.

So this would be in situations where what kind of fee to use for this example? Where there was some sort of parking fee for for example or or a bicycle fee and the landlord did not charge the tenant for that fee, and forgot to charge them for whatever reason. If it's been more than forty five days since that charge is intended to occur, then the landlord would no longer be allowed to ask the tenant to make that payment. That's interesting.

So number one, I think it just does need some clarity on forty five days from from what. But that so this would be a situation where it's a legitimate fee. We have no concerns about this fee in general. But if a landlord I don't know. There was a mistake and it wasn't charged. Is it you can't charge retroactively or you can never charge it again?

You just can't charge retroactively for that fee that was not charged for.

So I can't you can't get my bicycle fee in arrears, but you can charge me next month for my bicycle fee. Correct. Yes. Okay. That all makes sense to me. I think we might need a little bit of clarity on the on how that's I support what we're trying to do. It wasn't clear to me when I read that. My other question is on the relocation assistance. I have a couple of questions. I share my colleague's concern maybe that aspects of it might be more of a burden.

The burden might outweigh the benefit. But broadly speaking, as I read it right, for temporary relocation, so it's 1978, it is not there's not an entitlement when I think the language is the tenant failed to uphold the obligations. I can't find it. Hold on. So when the reason for the the dislocation is because the tenant failed to upkeep or whatever, that there's an exception, that there's no entitlement I can't find it anymore, but I'll just speak to it for the temporary.

That same exception is not in the permanent relocation provision. Shouldn't it be?

Let me see if I can find it. I'm trying.

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

about.

Yeah. Me too. I

think would it be under number no. Number four.

This is so bizarre. Really just had it up. But

generally speaking, that

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

Sorry. I'm hopping around in here, and I lost it.

I believe it's at b two c. The tenant's failure to uphold their responsibilities under the lease has led to the property becoming not fit for occupancy.

Yep. Thank you. Here we go. So thank you very much. That's there for temporary, which makes sense to me, but the same exemption doesn't apply for permanent.

So looking at the reasons why permanent relocation assistance could be triggered, that would apply under

It would be under c two. Would be but because if the the parallel is not with standing, the landlord is not required under these circumstances, and it's not repeated there, and I'm wondering why.

So for the situation, the first situation that somebody can receive permanent relocation assistance is if the rental license has been suspended or revoked, the landlord ceases renting. That one, the tenant not, allowing the landlord to make the repairs wouldn't apply. Under b, the tenant elects to relinquish tenancy following a period of temporary relocation so that all of the temporary relocation things would already apply to that one. She would have gone through the whole temporary relocation assistance process. Under c, it also wouldn't apply because that's only in cases where the landlord is, like, redeveloping the property.

And then under d is that the city manager determines the dwelling unit will not be fit for occupancy for at least six months. So under that last reason, under c one d, I can see that that part about the tenant being applicable. So sorry. Walking through this out loud, but I I take your point. Thank you.

Okay. So my my suggestion, to be clear, would be to add because of that, if the city's something happens, the tenant is not upkeeping the property, there's there's violations there, there and the city manager determines the dwelling unit is not fit. Under those circumstances, under two, we would we would say, permanent relocation systems does not apply. Right? Under two?

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

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

Okay.

Christina too. Sure

needs to be a notwithstanding.

Mhmm. Okay. No. I see what you're saying, and we'll make sure that it's covered in those circumstances as well.

I also will just say that I of mentioned already, I share my colleagues' concern that we might want to take a closer look at the impacts of the permanent relocation on smaller landlords before we finalize. I had one more on this, guys. Sorry. There's an overarching exception to all of this where, notwithstanding all of this, if the landlord and tenant agree to something that meets the criteria set by the city, then that would be okay. Isn't this the criteria set by the city?

Like, I I guess I don't know what that means. So I am at three d somewhere. Notwithstanding the relocation assistance required under this section, a landlord and tenant may agree to an alternative arrangement which meets criteria set forth by the city. Are we are we proposing an administrative other set of criteria or just that there's something that could meet all of these requirements that

There is something that could meet all of these requirements but isn't necessarily exactly what we've outlined. We wanted to provide some sort of flexibility for them to come to an agreement that isn't exactly as we've outlined but still meets the needs of the landlord and the tenant.

I actually agree that we should have that, but I think the way it's written is strange because it implies that there's some separate set of criteria. So maybe if we just changed it to an alternative agreement that the city also approves of or or something. Because it does imply a separate set of criteria that we put out there.

I see, yes. I think that we can make some adjustments to Those speak to

are my concerns. Thanks so much.

I love that my colleagues have gone first because I'll just say ditto on a lot of it. I do have some additional commentary on this one, and I know this is a big section. So the notice of entry, the ordinance requires twenty four hour written notice in advance of any inspections or repairs, including situations where tenants request repairs. This is a situation where sometimes a tenant like, if if there's a overflowing toilet or something like that, like, you'd you might need to get in there sooner. And so I was concerned about the onerous nature of this one in particular for certain kinds of situations.

If a tenant's requesting it or if there is a something that's gonna damage the property that you gotta get in there, that's one of the things that as long as the landlord and the tenant agree or or if there's an emergency, I think there needs to be some flexibility in this language. So I think the tenants might appreciate that the landlord responds more quickly. But we are putting in parameters that might prevent that.

So I'm sorry, you're referring to

Section eighteen-one one hundred forty hundred forty six, subsection 15, Notice of Entry.

Yes. So with that, all of the changes that we have made there, were updates so that we can better match state law. And the exception to the twenty four hour requirement is for emergencies. So in an emergency, landlord and maintenance team are allowed to go in without that twenty

four hour notice. Understood. But if the tenant allows someone to come in within twenty four notice, if if they say, get me someone as soon as you can. I'm gonna go on travel tomorrow. Are they gonna be in violation?

So the landlord is required to provide the at least twenty four hours notice. I wouldn't think that there's anything. Maybe

it's something along It also says in lang the the language that remained and was there before, but as otherwise agreed to by the parties. So the lieutenant can say, you need to come in here right now, and the landlord says, yes. I can be there right now. She we don't need to re wait the twenty four hours, and that's in there.

What section is that? What That's in

same one. That's that's in there.

Right after Saturdays, except as otherwise may be agreed upon by the parties in the towards the middle of the paragraph.

So that would allow them to not if the tenant agrees, then they can go in within before the twenty four hours? Yes. Perfect. Okay. And then the emergency situation is also covered here, providing that nothing in this paragraph prevents the landlord from entering the lease premises in an emergency situation?

Correct.

Do you guys who defines what an emergency situation is? Or is that reasonable?

Yeah, there's typical situations that are seen as emergencies like floods, like

Gas leaks.

Okay. And that would be clear. Yes. It's understood.

Yes, and usually our code enforcement team has that definition as well as to what are some of those emergencies.

Okay. The early lease termination, so the landlord has to give sixty days notice for a number of reasons that they're gonna do it, but then the tenant can give thirty days. That's that's state there's some state law there. Is that correct?

In regards to month to month leases specifically, yes. Yeah.

Okay. So is there anything that's different from state law in this section for early lease termination?

I don't believe so. No.

The we go a little bit further than state law in saying what are the situations where a tenant can do the early lease termination with only thirty days notice.

Can you just clarify which ones are not state law that we've added?

I'm not sure which ones specifically go further than state law, but all of the ones b through h are new additions to city code.

Can someone get back to us just to clarify which ones are state versus not? Sure. That'll be helpful. Okay. And when I was listening on one of the calls, people were saying, okay. What does that mean for payment? But I think you're you did try to clarify here that they only pay thirty days.

Yes. So at the very end there it says that the lease may provide that in the event of termination for such cause, the tenant shall be liable for a reasonable termination charge not to exceed one month's rent.

One month's rent. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I just would love to get the clarity. I do know that to turn something over, we definitely wanna be supportive, but to turn something over usually will take sixty to ninety days. And so there will be a loss understand that. But I do there are obviously some really good reasons, especially given some of the federal job losses that we've seen that people really do need to move or if there's a safety issue. But I I would like the clarity, if possible. Possible.

The other thing was on two year leases. And similar to my colleague, Councilman Van Gruek, I've heard some questions about this as well on both sides. And I think what we're trying to do is we would like to see that renters have the option to stay for two years. It gives them stability. What I heard is that the people might charge a higher fee upfront. And you have some provisions that you added since our last work session that allow an increase to happen with ninety days notice. I'm wondering, is there a possibility that we could say, yes, you

can

increase the rent within those two years, like after the first year. But there's some kind of clear, transparent of here's what it is in year one versus after year one so that people know upfront what their rent increase will be.

I would think we would be able to include that, yes.

I think that would be very helpful because I think this body was trying to really increase transparency and give consumer choice, increased choice. And I just don't want to inadvertently cause harm in another way. So I think that would be helpful to me to see what that looks like. Sub leasing, can you just clarify what the state law is on this one and where we go farther than state law?

I'm not sure what state law is for subleasing, but our current rule around subleasing is that the landlord should not unreasonably bar the tenant from being able to sublease the unit.

K. I think I had come questions similar to my colleagues on, like, what is that screening like? Does what is what is reasonable? That wasn't clear to me. I think that the property owner should be able to clear whoever is going to be subleasing so it's not just done without their knowledge. And that there may be some criteria of, like, like, the landlord can't stop a tenant from trying to cover them if, you know, if there's something reasonable. So I just I wanted to see if there's any clarity that we can have on that particular section.

We can consider that. Absolutely. Okay.

Does the I think it's at the point of lease, but when the when the common ownership community laws that we're having here and any renewal offer letter provided must include rent which matches the rent listed in the lease. If the rental unit is located in common ownership community, the landlord shall provide prospective tenants with a copy of the common ownership community's bylaws. Is that at the point of leasing, right? Am I getting that right? Or at the renewal?

Yes. Because this is under the section of additional leasing requirements, this is something that would be required as a part of the leasing process.

Now what I'll say is in the city of Rockville, the rental license happens, but there's not a lot of like, here's what your responsibilities are, here's what you need to give the tenant. I think that we might have have a situation where people don't know what they have to do or that there's so many new things, state laws changing. I just I do think that we need to leverage the rental license process to be able to use it as an education point because I don't think we're currently doing that as well as we could be. I know that's not your department, but I think the departments need to marry in that case. Is there something that we can say that this will happen going forward?

That's something that's already part of our plans for improving landlord tenant education.

Excellent. Thank you. It says that a landlord must provide a tenant the entire rental payment history within seven days of a tenant's written request. Is that seven business days or seven total days?

And is that Unless otherwise stated as business days, it just means days.

Okay. Now this makes sense for a corporate landlord who has a database, but I just I I was thinking maybe and maybe that if this is not state law, that that could be business days or something where people have time. Because if you're saying the entire, that could be years and years and years that people have to dig up. So I just that was something that made me think that for smaller landlords, might want to have a consideration there.

So is the suggestion to make it business days?

I would be fine with biz anything that adds a little time for smaller landlords, I think that would be helpful. Okay. I appreciate the eviction history addition that we have here. They can't we received some questions about it can't be included in the application, but it obviously, someone can still do their own background research. Do you feel like our code is clear that they can still do that, or do we need to clarify that?

The code as drafted does not explicitly say that the landlord can still use publicly available information, but it is clear that they are prohibited from including a question on eviction history on the rental unit application.

Is there a reason not to clarify that?

I would think the only reason to not further clarify it is that if it's something implied, we usually try to keep the code as as simple as possible.

Okay. Alright. But maybe there'll be a q and a or something in the educational materials?

Yes. Because I I expect that more landlords will hopefully be reading our landlord tenant handbook than going through

seemed like a place where came out of all the comments that that was a question that kept coming up and up

and

up. So it would help you guys if you get it answered someplace once and for all. Yes. Okay. So this is one thing that I know that we don't clarify, but I have seen this situation.

And it's under that same section but C, if a dwelling unit is a moly price and regulated under city code chapter 13.5, which is a moly price dwelling unit code, and the tenant no longer meets the income requirements, the landlord may terminate the lease pursuant to that chapter. I do appreciate that we're referring to the other chapter, but doctor Miles and I experienced this last term where as soon as one missed the income, they were no longer in the income criteria, they were kicking people out. And I know we worked hard to make that change, but I just I don't know if there's a a better way to refer. It's like, it's not as soon as a person doesn't meet that income limit. There is some level of graduation that we a wiggle room that we allow for people to be able to still stay and not have to leave immediately.

We do. And in order to keep things as clear as possible, and this is what we've tried to do throughout the code, if we're referencing a different part of the city code, we wanna reference that part of code. So that way, if something changes at any point in the future, we're not trying to see all of the other parts where we talk about those specific requirements. But if it's something pursuant to Chapter 13.5, then we're pointing people there, since we also hope to update Chapter 13.5 in the future as well, and who knows, maybe something related to that could change.

We did make some changes to allow to move from three months to six months, and then I think we also made some changes to allow a little bit of flexibility. I just know that some people have tried this and since. And I it just it concerns me that it's so flat here that it's like, you're out. And I just wanted to be humane, and maybe you'll deal with that in the education materials, but I do think it needs to be married in in one place, someplace when landlords know that they can't or shouldn't do that.

We can make that clear in education. Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you. I agree with my colleague, council member Fulton, on the charges limited 45. The one situation that I've heard of on a number of comments is sometimes the water billing can be more than forty five days. How would you handle that?

We received that comment as well, and that's something that we've had preliminary conversations about changing that from forty five days to a hundred and twenty days in order to make sure that we are allowing for situations like water billing.

Okay. And maybe the city will have monthly billing one day. Yes, I appreciate that because that was of the key things that I kept hearing. Okay. The trash service, we received a comment today about trash and valet service. Is that a thing? Is should we be worried about that as it relates to fees? And

so valet trash service was not something that I've really heard a ton about. Is it is that something you've experienced when working with tenants?

Yeah. It's become increasingly popular in the city just as an additional fee on top of a flat trash charge.

And so something that we would propose to consider there is adding an exemption for valet trash service as long as that regular trash service is still provided and still an option.

So it's like an option and not required. I would support that, and I think that should be clear. People should have their basic trash opportunity, and then if they someone may be senior or someone who has mobility mobility concerns that they want some additional support, that should be okay. Okay. Alright.

I mentioned this last time, and I didn't see it fully clarified. And it relates relates to storage, and this is optionals. Right? But I I totally agree with you all when if a storage is attached to the unit or attached to that home, that that is included. But sometimes there's, like, a basement and they're, like, numbered and people can choose to it's still in the building and it has a number, and it could be construed as I have a challenge with the word associated with.

I fully support the do not charge if it's attached to, but associated with. There could be a numbering system that's in the building, and that should be optional.

Sorry, let me pull up that exact language.

It's subsection c 10.

Of which section? 18? I

will have to look. No worries. I know we have a Oya guru who's scanning, so maybe she can add this.

So with the fees, so all of the language that we have as I'm trying to find the exact language there related to fees and fee restrictions is meant to match the county. We wanna make this as simple and as streamlined as possible, so that landlords, aren't necessarily confused when they're trying to when they're trying to implement the policy. So that is why that and all of the other language around fees is what it is, is because we are trying to match the county.

I agree. We do have some differences with the county though. We've been clear about that. I do think that if it's in the unit, attached to the unit, yes, but the associated width is so broad that it could cause problems for us in the future.

So what this section is saying is that a landlord may charge a fee for secure storage units accessible only by the tenant, and that the landlord must not assess or collect from the tenant any fee for storage located within or attached within the dwelling unit because that would be seen as already a part of the rent. If it's attached to or associated with, then that's a part of the rent. But if it's not associated with that unit in particular, then the landlord could charge a fee for it. That's all that that section is saying.

Except that it says a landlord must not assess or collect from the tenant of a dwelling unit any fee or charge for storage located within I agree or attached I agree the associated with is what's the challenge.

And so you're saying that the landlord should Right.

If they have a basement and they have numbered storage opportunities, that's not necessarily a guaranteed storage, but it's how they organize. So that's where I'm saying that the associated with is too broad.

Okay. And that a landlord should be able to assess a fee for a storage unit that is associated with a unit. Like if you are renting a unit and it's always a part of the lease, that if you're renting Unit A, you get Storage Unit number six. That's a guarantee. You're saying that in that situation, the landlord would be allowed to charge an additional fee for that storage unit.

In some buildings where there are so there are marked parking sections. Right? And it's a choice whether you choose to actually park there and you have a vehicle, or if you wanna have a designated space, then that's your choice and that's an extra fee. So that's it seems to be similar to me. The associated with, I just think, is broad.

I think in that situation with parking, in those situations, you are reserving a parking space, but the parking space is not typically associated with the unit until you make that reservation, if that makes sense.

Yes and no. I I I totally agree with the attached. I totally agree with the located within. It's the associated with that is so broad that could be caught to me, cause some challenges. If Okay.

We we tightened up the language, I'd be fine. But I think it's the associated with is is just so broad, in my opinion. Tenant organizing, fantastic section. How do you deal with the fact that it's kind of the language a little broad on, like if someone I know sometimes those rooms are used for baby showers and events and things like that. Like, they would still have to go through the reservation process.

Right? And it's not gonna knock out other uses for for residents who just wanna use it for family life things.

They just wouldn't the tenant organization just wouldn't be allowed to be charged a fee, but they could still go through the typical reservation process.

And they can just is it unlimited per month?

I do not believe we have placed any restrictions on the number of times per month.