Mayor and Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening Rockville today is July 6 2026 and we're convening meeting 18-26 Please join me as you're able in the Pledge of Allegiance Thank you, everyone. We will now move on to agenda review. We have Sarah Taylor-Farrell.

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

Thank you. Mr. City Manager, City Manager's Report, Jeff Mihalik.

Mayor Ashton, members of City Council, I have no report tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. I just wanted to thank staff and everyone who came out for Independence Day, celebrating 250 years of America. As we know it, we know that there were indigenous people here before us. I want to acknowledge that as well. I just want to note that staff worked very, very hard to try to plan for wonderful festivities amid a lot of heat and thunderstorms and lightning. And we had a significant crowd that gathered at King Farm, Matty Stepanek Park, and just very thankful to. our city staff, Recreation and Parks, Communications, RCPD, and partnering agencies, Rockville Volunteer Fire Department. I saw Montgomery County as well as others out there. And also we had summer camps going next week for children. We had people working and doing sanitation work and the heat. So I just want to acknowledge everyone that it was not an unusual week last week and I commend all of their efforts. Okay. We'll now move on to boards and commissions. We have a nomination for appointment for the Boards of Supervisors of Elections. Councilmember Kate Bolton.

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

Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Thank you. And I understand Mr. Mullinax is here. Welcome. Thank you for serving. I also want to just acknowledge the current members of the BSE and two that we noted previously rolled off, Robert Kernick, as well as Steve Fisher. We had a lot of activity happening last election with a lot of hours, and I want to acknowledge their volunteer efforts. We'll now move to community forum. We welcome the ideas, concerns, and suggestions of all of our residents and stakeholders. Please address the mayor and council. Please speak in a civil and courteous manner and be respectful of other members of the audience as well. Each person is allowed three minutes and we ask that you adhere to the three minutes allowed. There is a time clock in front of you and you will hear an audible beep at the conclusion of your three minutes. Please state your name and if you live in the city of Rockville for the record. Okay, I'm gonna go with those who have signed up in advance. Welcome, Wendy Murphy.

Hello, I'm Wendy Murphy, and I'm a resident of Rockville and a member of Rockville Renters United. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight in support of stable rents, also known as rent stabilization, and multi-year lease terms as well. My husband and I are collecting Social Security a bit earlier than we had planned. I was laid off the last quarter of 24 and have so far only found part-time work. We did not realistically have time to rebuild what that cost us. For years, we were pretty much paycheck to paycheck, and that had just begun to ease as the last of four children became independent adults. There is no catching up, just what we have now. and whether it survives our next lease renewal. Every year, our upcoming lease renewal brings worry. Two-year lease terms could ameliorate this. However, it appears that The decision is that there will be no cap on the rent for the second year, which makes that tool essentially useless for renters. This isn't just a senior renter issue. I've watched families in the city get priced out of apartments they've lived in for years. That left kids switching schools mid-year as people find they must leave neighborhoods they've been part of for years. This is happening too often here in Rockville. Rent stabilization doesn't stop rent from going up. It stops the kind of sudden predatory increase that pushes people like us out with little warning or time to plan. Montgomery County already protects renters with stable rent legislation that became effective in 2024. Whether it's perfect or not, we don't know. But there's something there. the city of Rockville offers nothing of the sort. That gap in legislation is why families here in Rockville are getting displaced while neighbors only a few miles away are not. I strongly urge the mayor and council to discuss, consider, and pass rent stabilization in the city of Rockville. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Welcome Grant Sams, followed by Libby Adams.

Well, good evening, Mayor, Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I do highly value the opportunity that this has held open for any member of the community. For the record, my name is Grant Sams. I am a Rockville resident. I am a renter. I'm the president of the Reed Tenant Association, and I am currently chair of Rockville Renters United. First and foremost, I really want to thank city staff for their hard work in preparing this update. I know how much Work went into all the feedback sessions, and I'm very grateful for that. I also want to thank all of the renters whose continuing testimony and self-advocacy spurred this update for all of us in the city. And there's a lot of good here. To name but a few, the ban on algorithmic pricing, which, Madam Mayor, I know you've been a strong proponent of. and the ban on junk fees, which I would note is a part of the county's rent stabilization law when they pass that. So adopting those two things are fantastic. But even with this measure passed, there will still be a serious shortcoming in our city's laws that leaves renters vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. The removal of two-year leases as standard that would have given renters peace of mind and a measure of stability are one of those. Another is the removal of the requirements for landlords to report rent increases to the city, which is one of the few procedural protections that renters in Rockville had to keep abusive landlords accountable. And, of course, critically, the lack of rent stabilization protections at all. And that's after the majority of this council blocked further research and discussion on the single largest issue that renters have brought forward for three years now to this body. And that's after the majority of this council changed its own rules to prevent others of your colleagues from bringing this topic onto the agenda as been requested by the majority of renters. And finally, last year, this body voted to censor the topic A move that is likely unprecedented and is a troubling reflection of our federal government's increasing use of such measures. So all of the steps, all of these steps taken with the promise that developers would flood into the city and build more housing would be better for long term renters. So has that plan worked out? And the answer is no, it hasn't. Our rate of multifamily permits plummeted 70% from 24 to 25. And in that same time, we saw our evictions go up 4%. In the rest of Montgomery County, where they had rent stabilization protections, they went down 7%. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Welcome Libby Adams, followed by Chris Madden.

Hello, my name is Libby Adams and technically I hold a lease in Rockville City. I grew up in Rockville City and I loved it here. When I used to tell people where I was from, I always heard, wow, that's a really awesome place to live. My mom was a single mom with 10 kids in the house and over time ran into plenty of issues where she contacted the city and they were readily and eagerly willing to help. So when I found out I was moving back here in 2024, I was excited and bragged about the city to everyone I told. Sadly, my experience living here as an adult has been grossly different. When I found the toxic black mold on the wall of my immunocompromised children's bedroom, I never thought my story would go this way. I knew the city had many departments that could help me and had no worry at that point. Needless to say, I contacted the city by the way of multiple departments immediately. I contacted landlord-tenant Orner about June 20th, 2025, which was within weeks of discovering the toxic black mold, and have been in regular communication with them about officially filed complaint. Still, no investigation has been opened. I have written communication dated April 13th, specifically asking Trevor Stevens for him to proceed with the official investigation since a year of mediation with the complex has been unsuccessful. Despite that, an investigation still has not been opened, and the landlord-tenant department has completely ignored all of my attempts at communication since April 14th. Additionally, I have had an active and continuous complaint with the code enforcement since June 2025 as well. I have gone through them labeling it as a black substance and walking away, clearing my unit as habitable and free and clear of mold in December just because the drywall had been replaced, clearing my bathroom complaint despite slime growing in my toilet and termites coming up from the floor, releasing all violations on my unit and property repairs multiple times, and most recently, refusing to find the complex in violation because they cannot see any mold, despite me providing professional testing results showing mold still present in my unit on April 4th. I was told by Sharnita Jackson in code enforcement May 7th that the city only performs visual inspections, but even my kids know that mold can be very much present without it being visible. Considering the new Maryland Mold Protection Act to protect renters and Rockville City's responsibility to enforce this law within its municipality's jurisdiction, this type of inspection is insufficient by far for this and likely many other things. Rockville City has failed my family in many ways and as a whole. Tragically, I know there are more families in the complex who are still suffering, and no doubt even more across the city, due to the substandard enforcement and neglectful actions of the city. I have kept detailed accounts of all communications in action by the city and the blatant disregard of my looking for help and answers, and I will find a way to seek accountability and retribution for my family and any others who have sought help from the city but were dismissed like I was. my belongings are still being held hostage at fields of rockville and uh i don't think the city's doing anything to help me i haven't heard anything since april 14th everybody's ignoring me thank you guys very much thank you welcome chris adams

Hello, my name is Chris Madden. I am the co-chair of Rockville Renters United, and I'm proud to announce that I am a new homeowner in Rockville and also a new landlord over in the Twinbrook neighborhood. So now I am advocating instead of a for-renter as a landlord, I would like to talk about the Landlord-Tenant Code. One concern that I, the biggest concern I have is that the proposals don't really deal with renters' biggest issues, which is cost. With making, fee transparency is great, and I like banning junk fees so I don't have, so I can't charge my tenants a lighting fee for the light bulbs I provide in their rooms. But there's no cap on how much I could increase fees. So I could have my trash fee be at $50 and then, When it comes back around, I could increase it to 100. There's no cap. I can increase it by 100%, and there is no law preventing me from doing that. I'd also like to talk about the two-year leases. As a landlord, I love two-year leases. Two-year leases, I get a rental income for two years guaranteed. I do not need to go find another tenant in a year. I don't have to worry about that. But the fact that there's no cap on these leases rental increases for the two-year leases does concern me because other landlords could increase their leases to higher amounts, to have like an 8% increase in the initial and then 8% in the second year, which isn't really sustainable. Yes, the tenant knows how much is going to go up, but it's still a dramatic increase that could not be viable for that tenant. And lastly, I'd like to oppose getting rid of the reporting requirements for landlords. This is a crucial resource that we could be using to attack this issue. We could look at these rental increases and find out where rents are going up, what properties are increasing their rents by over the recommended amount from the city, and then we could address it. We could figure out Okay, that this we could go talk to that landlord and say, hey, why are you increasing this much? Like, what is the justification for this? And try to address the issue rather than just letting them increase rents and not use this crucial information. But the biggest thing that could help with costs is, I know it's beating a dead horse at this point, rent stabilization. Because rent stabilization has proven its best policy to bring down costs and to promote housing security. We've seen it in the county that the way they've implemented has helped to improve conditions, taking almost half of the number of troubled properties off the troubled property list by connecting, if you're on that list, you can increase rent. Boom helped clear that right up. And it has brought down evictions while our evictions continue to increase. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Welcome, Brad Oh.

Mayor and Council, my name is Brad. I live in Rockville. I'm here to discuss the Landlord Tenant Code. There are some good things, there are some bad things. I'm going to use my time to focus on two of the bad things. I am very concerned about eliminating the reporting requirement for landlords to Report rent increases to the city. This is a needed mechanism for the city of Rockville to understand what's happening to the roughly 50% of Rockville residents who rent their homes. And eliminating this requirement will make it harder for the city to advocate for renters who are being abused or neglected by developers who in many cases don't actually live here. And this is a needed component of our housing policy. And as a city, we need to find a way to make this happen. I strongly urge you to revisit this. The other issue is rent stabilization. This too is a needed component of our housing policy. We cannot have stable and affordable housing without stabilized rent. The primary objection I have heard to this is that if we enact rent stabilization, developers will not build here. This theory is not being borne out by what we're seeing right now. And furthermore, it is a remarkable coincidence if what is needed to make housing more affordable is to give the development industry a blank check. It is extraordinarily credulous to believe that they are not concerned with their multimillion dollar profits and really just want to help us out in the city. We've been doing this my whole life and it's not working. Housing costs are going up, not down. If developers insist that they need unlimited capacity to raise people's rents, that is not helpful. That's not creating affordable housing. If a new development goes up and after a year, half the residents have to leave because their rent went up by 10%, that is not a benefit to the people of Rockville. Moving is expensive, it's time-consuming, it's stressful, and moving every year is not sustainable. Rockville residents need to be able to depend on their rent staying within an expectable range. This is a necessary component of our housing policy, and we as a city will not be doing right by residents who rent unless their rent is stabilized. Otherwise, their housing will not be stable. Thank you.

Thank you. That exhausts the list of those who have signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Okay. Mr. Mihalik, there was a concern about safety raised, and I have two questions for you. Has the city staff responded to concerns that have been raised by the residents? We heard one today. And two, is the staff following the MOLD Act? Those are two critical things to ensure safety.

Yeah, thank you so much for asking those questions that helps put the truth out there. Yes, we absolutely are following all requirements of the state and local laws regarding the mold act in every single case. Secondarily, we responded to Ms Adams with a very detailed email on June 22nd, addressing all of her concerns.

I just want to say, if we could have staff available at the back in case she does have any more questions, because we need to make sure we're helping to address any safety-related issues, I would welcome that opportunity to just have her have an opportunity to meet with. Who should she meet with?

I reported a positive multi-step on April 4th, and no actions have been made.

Thank you very much. I was just going to ask if we could have staff available to support this need.

We will. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We're now moving on to our action item, which is adoption, potential adoption of an ordinance to amend chapter 18 of the Rockville city code entitled mayor and council rental facilities and landlord tenant relations. Welcome Jane Lyons-Rader, Housing Programs Manager, Housing Community Development, as well as Trevor Stevens, Housing Specialist, Housing Community Development. I know that we also have additional support from Ryan Trout, who's the Director of Housing Community Development, as well as Christina Shakur-Harris, who's the Assistant City Attorney from the City Attorney's Office. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Mayor and fellow council members. So just as a reminder, we are here for the reintroduction and potential adoption of the chapter 18 code update for rental facilities and landlord tenant relations. So to briefly go over the outline, the outline will be largely the same as our previous presentation with the notable exception of our notable changes to the draft ordinance. As a reminder, for some of the background, we know that housing is one of the five focus areas for for mayor and council. And we've had a number of different work sessions as listed here in order to address some of the concerns and targets for for housing within the city. And again, as a reminder for our project goals, they were to provide clarity, consider alignment, improve housing stability, require greater transparency, review local and national best practices, and to better connect a data collection with the city goals. And again, quick reminder of the project timeline. So this has been a little bit over a year now that we've been working on this project where we've had multiple different engagement section sections with the public. We've had two different feedback sessions from both landlords and tenants before finally arriving here at summer 2026. And then a quick reminder again for some of the work session follow-ups that we anticipate coming up here in the future, including for cooling requirements. We had our pre-eviction financial assistance go into effect on July 1. And we also plan to move forward with educational materials to be shared with landlords and tenants, including the Landlord-Tenant Handbook.

Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Trevor. Good evening. So with community engagement, we implemented a variety of strategies to make sure that we were hearing from all of the various stakeholders who are relevant to the landlord tenant code update. This included the virtual input meetings that we had at both the beginning and the end of the process. our Engage Rockville webpage, which included multiple surveys throughout the process. We interviewed stakeholder organizations, provided regular email updates throughout the process to those stakeholders, and also produced different educational materials about the code and what was being proposed, such as the fact sheet, which is pictured here. So some highlights of proposed changes. This is the same slide that you saw the last time that we were here. So this is a very, very high level overview of the changes that are proposed from the current code. to the draft ordinance that is being presented to you tonight. So this includes restrictions on certain things such as asking about eviction history, charging tenants court costs and legal fees, using algorithmic rent pricing systems, various new requirements for landlords to report certain things and to allow certain things such as non-electronic payment methods to provide relocation assistance, and things like allowing tenant organizations to use meeting rooms free of charge. Increased transparency is a theme throughout the ordinance. More options for early lease termination, policies like repair and deduct, Changes to how leases and rent increase information are provided to the city and meaningful fines for certain code violations that will be included in the fine resolution which will be presented to you later on I believe in the summer fall. So, notable changes to the draft ordinance since the last time that we were in front of you. So, we added definitions for written notice, tenant organization, and nonpublic competitor data. That last one is specifically only for the section of the code about algorithmic rent pricing. Then, as well, we clarified sections related to the enhanced inspections program. about what that baseline program is, as well as clarifications around security deposits, inspectors accessing rental units, secure storage fees, and more. I guess that's a good spot to say that all of the discrete changes that were made are described in the staff report, as well as responses to some of the questions from last time that we weren't able to fully have all the information to respond to then. So this is, again, as high level but providing the information that we can. This includes amending language to allow landlords to increase rents during a two-year lease, but that rent increase must be disclosed prior to entering into the lease. We added exceptions for landlords to charge fees for credit card processing and check bounces. introducing utility cost recovery structures or ratio utility billing, and for third-party websites to the disclosure of all mandatory fees whenever a price is advertised or disclosed. We increased the number of days that landlords are prohibited from charging a fee for any charge which the landlord failed to request from the tenant from 45 days to 120 to better be in alignment with the water billing cycles. And that was it for the notable changes to the draft ordinance. Next is the anticipated impacts. No environmental impact is anticipated. We anticipate a positive impact on equity. And this is because the new landlord tenant code is drafted with the intention of providing more housing stability to tenants. And tenants within the city of Rockville are disproportionately black or African American. And overall, when looking at the median income of renters compared to homeowners, renters make on average about $100,000 less than homeowners. And as we saw at the last meeting with the housing needs assessment, Over half of renters are cost burdened, and that breaks down as well along certain lines of particularly vulnerable groups who are even more cost burdened with their rent. Then with the economy, we anticipate a neutral impact. There are some things with the new code and the additional requirements that might cause landlords to need additional capacity in order to fully implement the code. And those compliance costs would put additional costs onto landlords, those costs could be passed on to renters. But there's also the widespread economic benefits that housing stability brings to a community. When folks are able to stay in their home for longer, they're able to invest in the community, to be less worried about needing to move away and being displaced. their children are able to stay in the same school and have the myriad of benefits that come from that. And then as well as having transparency measures may create a more competitive rental market resulting in slight downward pressure on rents. So this is a very high level economic analysis of the way that things could go and balancing those different factors is how we came to the neutral impact. And that brings us to the introduction and suggested motions. But of course, before that, more than happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, really appreciate all the work. I know there's been a lot of work sessions, meeting with community. I want to thank the community for sharing all the feedback that was provided. I personally listened in on at least two of the rental sessions and one of the landlord ones, and staff did an incredible job. I also just wanted to note that we had a really strong human needs, in addition to human needs, but a housing needs assessment that was shared last week. Would encourage people to do that. And then not part of our code, but part of a new program, we are piloting a rental assistance program that provides support pre-eviction. That was something that was mentioned. And should we pass the algorithmic pricing, we would be the first municipality in Maryland to do so. So I just want to flag that for the public and for my colleagues. I know that some of us sent questions in advance, and I know we have a lot to discuss. So I'm going to start with Dr. Miles. And see if you have any questions first, and then we'll go down the line.

I have no urgent questions at this time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Fulton. Thank you. One question for clarification. We heard a lot about concerns that the city won't be collecting information about rents or rent increases. I think we will be, just at a different point in the process. Can you help explain that for me?

Yes, so right now there is the requirement the landlords are supposed to provide a notice to the city when they also provide the notice to the tenant about the increase. This is something that has been on the books for quite a while, but to our knowledge has not been implemented due to staff capacity challenges. Um, and so, since we have not been able to properly enforce that, we want to streamline the process with our existing capacity. and incorporate the reporting of rents into the annual or semi-annual rental licensing process. So every time that a landlord is renewing their rental license, whether that's every one year or every two years, they would have to provide a long list of data to the city, which would include the rental amount. And so then the city would be able to use that information to calculate how much the rent has changed since the last time, that they renewed that rental license. And with that, we would be able to aggregate that information. And our goal is to post it on some sort of publicly available dashboard or online map.

I appreciate that. So just to clarify, the same information will be collected as was contemplated before. We didn't have the capacity or system and process to do anything with it before. Now we'd be collecting it through a regular process and be able to actually analyze and be transparent about that information with the public. Is that the plan? Yes. Okay, thanks. I just want to make sure I understood that appropriately. That's my only question for now.

Thank you. Council Member Valeri. Excellent. Thank you. So right now under the unimplemented, if that's a word, data collection, that was supposed to occur in theory every year. Am I correct in that?

The rent increase information was supposed to be sent to the city anytime that a landlord was increasing that so if they're increasing the rent once a year they would have been they are currently required to Notify the city as well as notify the tenant.

Okay, so the presumption would be upon, you know, when you're at least renewal, that would be every year. Under the new collection method, there are certain properties where we would only get that data every two years.

That is correct with the single family rental licensed properties.

Gotcha. So that is a little concerning to me, to put it mildly. I think that that actually allows for too much of a gap in information to the point of somebody during community forum, we need to be able to know who the bad actors are when they are the bad actors and maybe not a year later. So, if we could maybe have that conversation up here or among staff to look at that, look at that in a different way. I understand the need to streamline it, but I also understand, like, the gap in data by some properties every two years, some every one. I'm, as a data nerd, I'm challenged by that because I think it'll provide an uneven perspective on what is occurring with rents in the city. So I did want to flag that and I appreciate my colleague Councilmember Fulton getting the clarification on it. I think there may be other ways that we can streamline it. I think we were not able to implement it due to staffing issues if the staffing issues are eased. then we should be able to implement the initial code. So that would be kind of, I'd love to hear if that's possible, but that is troubling to me. The other thing that I noticed is that we had talked about a tenant bill of rights slash fee transparency that would be available to renters at the time of lease signing. that would outline, it's the flip side of outlining all the fees from the landlord to the city, but this would be from the landlord to a potential tenant, here's all the fees, here's our history on rent increases, and allow that market force or that tenant to know in advance of the lease signing. And I believe that this came up, I know it came up during our fees conversation. I believe that there were a majority of us that supported this idea, but I didn't see that in the code. So I would really want to include that because I think that that's another market pressure point. If people have the, You can either prepare or you can choose housing based on the information that you received prior to lease signing. After the lease is signed, it's too late in many ways. So I think more information, more transparency, the better up front. So I want to note that. I think that generally, and one of the areas where I think we heard a lot from Small landlords however we want to define that is the relocation assistance I think most telling to me and just broadly on the code is that we are treating large multifamily Buildings the same way that we're treating small single family home, single house landlords. I don't think that that's necessarily the best way that the code can address smaller landlords. I think the administrative burden is much more significant for small landlords. So I'd really like to see kind of that lens be put on this code. One of the areas is the relocation assistance, whereas I think that larger property management companies, developers can absorb and should absorb those fees. I think we want to allow for the smaller landlords to keep providing rentals for our market, and we may not get that if there is no exception for them in the code. I think the other thing that I heard that was distressing to me was hearing from a housing nonprofit that worked with people in the disability community that this, the relocation assistance provision was such a significant administrative burden that it could force them to stop providing low market housing for disabled. that is extremely distressing to me because already the number of properties for individuals with disabilities is way too low and to lose any accessible or adapted housing would be, I think, a big challenge. I'll do one more and then Madam Mayor, I'll yield. I think I think overall that we're headed in a better direction. I think the last thing I want to add in this section is on the repair and deduct, looking at some of the language in there, I absolutely agree with the policy. I would want to ensure that strongly suggest ensure that licensed contractors are the ones doing the repair portion of it. I think that that will prevent unintended consequences of unsafe housing that I know we've seen and heard from residents of the effects of that. So I will stop there, Madam Mayor, but I do have additional comments and questions.

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

Yes, I can respond to a couple of those things very quickly. In regards to the information of rent increases, I wanted to flag that one of the requirements in code would be that whenever the landlord is providing the rent increase notice to the tenant, that also needs to include the information for our department, which is a more reliable way for tenants to know that they have us as a resource, since if a landlord isn't reporting to the city when rents is being increased, we wouldn't necessarily know that unless the tenant also reported that. So there's some trickiness around ensuring that everything is enforced on that, but making sure that the tenant has our contact information would hopefully help them to know that we are there as a resource. And note that the State Tenant Bill of Rights is already a required document for any lease. So we would be concerned about being redundant with the State Tenant Bill of Rights if we had our own that had to be included. I think those are the things I'll respond to right now. But I wanted to clarify those few points. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, one more. And the contractor does have to be licensed for repair and deduct. That's included in the code. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you. And I appreciate many of the comments my colleagues have mentioned and concur. I did want to follow up on a couple of items on the reporting requirements. So and also speak about the rental license process. I do think that the rental license process can really be improved with, right now it's kind of more of you pass inspection versus Here's what the tenant needs to know. Here's the rules for the city. That is not necessarily conveyed in a way. So I think there just needs to be more cross-pollination between DHCD and CPDES so that the things that you want a landlord to know and a tenant to know is really conveyed as part of that process versus relying on someone to look on page X of our code. So I just really want to see us and make that a more robust opportunity to make sure that tenants know their rights and landlords know their responsibilities. In terms of the mandatory reporting, I did have several concerns and I appreciate you responding to my questions. So I know that a copy of the standard lease, that's going to go into the rental license process, correct?

That is already a requirement of the rental license process, so we're bringing code into alignment with that practice.

Excellent. And then it's written in code, in this code, that they have to do that as part of rental license process. I just want to confirm. Correct, yes. Okay. And also, it is already part of our process. I know this is something... some of us pushed for earlier in our term to make sure that the rental license process is collecting the data on rents now.

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

Ms. Excellent. And that, again, is that cross-pollination between CPDES and DHCD planning and housing. So, just wanted to call that attention. I, it's, in terms of the rental change, that section was struck, but I know you put in Section 18.195, individual unit information. So, that will, it's being, you struck it because it's going to be covered in another part of the code, correct? under mandatory reporting, there was some language that was struck, but it's because it's being replaced. And that that included the information about current vacant units, the most recent monthly rent.

Yes, that information is now addressed under 18 dash 195. A 10. So that says individual unit information, unit number, number of bedrooms, square footage, current or in the case of vacant rental units, most recent monthly rent, and whether or not the unit has any restrictions on its rent increases. And with those data points, we believe that we will be able to calculate a wide variety of things, including the aggregate year-over-year rent increases for a property.

Thank you. And since we're moving to two-year leases and there was concern about people front-loading the whole increase and making people pay that increase over the two years versus splitting it up and people can pay a lower amount the first year and then space that out. How will the rental license form collect the rents for leases that are two years that have that split? Well, that might require a change to the form because it's not currently filled up. It doesn't have lines that way right now, now that we're going to have two-year leases.

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

Okay. I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you. There's a comment in there about a survey and that's being struck. And the response I got is that in the current code, the survey was included solely to collect information. This information will be collected through rental license renewal process. Is there not any other information? I know the county was doing a rental survey and we were getting some of that data. Are there not other things that DHCD would like to know from landlords?

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

I just think that we want more data, not less. So that's something I just want us to really consider and to be thoughtful about being able to look at our data and report, as well as tenants, an opportunity to provide input. That gave me pause, so I just wanted to note that. and then there was also the in order to minimize reporting requirements language that the sorry moving on to the the reporting requirement from the dhd director to the city manager that we have in our code that it will be a quarterly report i understand that may not be technically feasible or you don't have the time. But I do think at least an annual report. I know there's going to be a portal at some point. We don't have a date on that yet. Do you have a date of when that data is going to be available?

So we've already started to work on a portal and some of that information is going to be available very soon. But we don't have a hard date on when all of the breadth of information will be included on a portal.

Okay. I do still think at minimum annual report to track trends and issues because the The portal is a data dump, but I think to be able to highlight what are the issues we're seeing in trends is something that could still come to report. So, I personally do not support getting rid of the report, but maybe adjusting it from quarterly to annual. So, I wanted to share that feedback. I do want to note that you mentioned it earlier, but the cooling requirement is maybe something in everyone's mind given this heat. And that is something that you're going to bring as a separate work session follow-up to us this fall, I believe.

So, yes, there's a work session scheduled in September. That will be led by CPDS since that will be a part of Chapter 5, the Property Maintenance Code, and not a part of Chapter 18. But, yes, that is on the calendar.

Okay. Thank you very much. I had some concerns about, we had a very strong work session, and this, I know I've been raising a lot of issues about quality housing and the inspections process. We had a whole work session. We adjusted the process. I appreciate what staff has done to increase inspections, in particular to have an enhanced inspections program. One of the things that we wanted to see was radical transparency. And so I do think that that should be a published list. That's something we talked about in our work session. And the county has a published list. Other jurisdictions have a published list. If you look at healthcare, there's something called hospital compare, nursing home compare. People can see which hospital is more likely to contribute to or bed sores. Same for nursing homes. I do think that people, want to be able to see what they're walking into when they're signing a contract, and housing is one of those areas when you're a renter, you don't get the full information until you're in, and you might have signed a two-year lease. So I just think that people should be able to see whether a property they've considered renting is on the enhanced inspections list. In addition, I think that it might encourage more people to move faster to clear that issue so that they're not on that list. Can you share why we're not pushing to have that list published or noting that we'll be publishing that list?

Mayor, let me try to address that. That's, again, not as part of the discussion tonight. It's part of this code. That wouldn't be part of it. It could be.

It could be if we put it in code.

I suppose it could. I mean, it's a brand-new program. It's not even – I'm not sure it's even six months old. First getting into it, But I want to hear more discussion from the Council on exactly what you mean by posting someone that's under enhanced inspections. I mean, at the point in time, they're in the enhanced inspection program. If they've ever been on the enhanced inspection program, how many of the units are in the enhanced inspection program? For what violation, et cetera, there's a lot that could be posted or could not be posted. So, when we have the annual review of that program, that's when I recommend that you guys give me. Some more specific direction, or we could bring forward some different options, but right now the program is just so new and so young. We'll still gathering the data. There have been a lot of units in the enhanced inspection program, but some of them got into it for a violation such as not having a battery in a smoke detector, which is an issue, but that would automatically get them into the program. So I just would want to hear more about what violations you'd like to see, if it's cured, et cetera.

Do you have a target date for that discussion?

Sometime early winter.

Okay, I do think that's something that I know a majority of us discuss at the time of having transparency there. And I do think that we should. Put it in protocol, even in code, so that is available. I do appreciate that. You need more specificity on what qualifies as. something that would be posted publicly i'm not necessarily looking at if someone ever had an issue if they've cured the issue great but if they're still on the if there's still issues in that unit in that apartment building and we can see that they're a majority of the units then people should know that before signing a lease that's exactly the kind of clarity i need and i'll make sure when we have um that reporting of the program that we'll come up with a couple different options for you guys Okay, so you'll include options that we can then say this will be reported publicly?

Happy to do that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right. The other thing I wanted to note was the transparency. We are going to have transparency on fees, and that's now clear. In terms of the rent information, people will be able to go onto the portal at some point and see what the history of rent increases are, correct?

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

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

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

OK, that's something that we discussed previously in our workshop. So that's another thing that I'd love to hear from my colleagues on what they think about that in addition to the enhanced inspections approach. I have many more comments, but I will pause to allow my colleagues to speak. Council Member Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor. The beauty of actually going down the line is that many of the questions were already asked, and I want to thank my colleagues, especially Councilmember Fulton, for asking the question about the reporting rents and rent increases because I think that's important for people to know that we're still collecting that information the proposal in front of us today goes back a long way I mean we had an engagement we had feedback I mean it's I said it before but you know the engagement and outreach that the city does and city staff and you and um the department and the city manager should be commended for that is really extraordinary um you know sitting up here on the on the dais and uh being privy to uh staff but also all the reports um it really makes me really thankful to live in rockville because i think that we have a city that cares about what presidents think and goes out and does surveys, does open houses, and collection of data to then inform the policies that are put before the mayor and council. And I think that this is a really good example of such a process, this landlord tenant code. So I just want to thank staff for an excellent job. You know, most of my questions were answered either before, like I said previously, or by the city managers through an email. So I really don't have too much, but I want to just drill down on the single room rentals that I could, because I have people ask me all the time, living in HOA and you know when people are required to have a rental license or not so could you explain single-family homes or when people have like a room to rent without a kitchen or To register do they have to register as landlords or or not and if not Why not?

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

And is it because we just feel like there's too much of a burden or, I mean, why would that not be something that we would regulate? And I don't know we should or not. I'm just asking the question.

I believe part of the thinking behind that might be that especially if the landlord is living in the property themselves, they are going to upkeep the property in a way that they would want to live in and be safe in. Because the requirement there is that they don't have the rental license, meaning that they don't have to necessarily have the inspection. But other elements of the code, I believe, would do still apply to landlords, such as if they have a lease with the tenant, that still applies. All of those different requirements of what needs to be in a lease still applies. It's really just anything that is relevant to receiving the rental license does not apply.

the mayor reminded me. So what if somebody rents a room in a basement without an egress window?

If they're renting a room in a basement without an egress window, that would be a question that code enforcement would be better positioned to answer than I would. But if the room is not fit to be used as a bedroom, because even if they weren't using it as a rental unit but they just had family member using it as a bedroom I believe that that would still not be up to the property maintenance code and up to building code but I am not the authority to speak on that and they could still go through the normal process of reporting to either us or code enforcement in order to have an inspection done to determine whether or not there is a property code violation no that's perfect thank you for that

I really don't have anything else, but I'm really excited about the algorithmic pricing ban. This is something that I worked on for two years. We talked about it at the council level, but then I went and testified in favor of the bill. That Julie book out the lock of his car was sponsoring and even Testified in favor of it in front of this County Council along with the mayor and Grant Sims So I was really really enthusiastic and I hope that we finally get it done tonight. So, thank you Councilman

I wanted to thank staff for all of your hard work. I know this has been a long time coming and especially want to thank the community that prompted this process, especially the years asking for rent stabilization and the recognition of us having to do something. So I'm glad that we are updating our code. I have lots of questions about this. So, going through the reporting. I know I have been asking about this section of the code since 2024 currently in the code. The city manager is required by the code to report. quarterly the rent increases and I know at this point it's not in the code that the staff actually has to do anything except for report but simply receive the rent increases correct yes I believe that that is correct that the requirement is on the landlord to provide that notice to the city okay In the absence of rent stabilization, and as we know, that is the number one thing tenants have been asking throughout the community engagement process for several years in the absence of not having rent stabilization. This is the number 1 protection for tenants to make sure that there is at least some. possibility that they can have the city help to mitigate their issue. Currently, outside of that, the only thing I think is just asking the city, so it's complaint driven, to help them with voluntary rent guidelines, correct?

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

And I know this sounds pretty simple in practice up here on the dais, but I am someone that has a 100-page lease with 8-point font. So it's not that easy for most tenants, I think, to actually find the number and have the means to call. And even the way that it's written on the lease that this is recommended, I think we're talking here about what's happening in theory and not what's really happening in practice. And I think one of the ways that we can resolve that is by rent stabilization, but in the absence of not having rent stabilization, I think it's really important just to make that language a lot clearer and add to the least that the city of Rockville does not have rent stabilization. I think I was looking at my lease the other day and I saw that the recommended was in bold and I found it on like I think page like 50 or so But just making sure that tenants at least know In advance as well before they sign their lease that the city of Rockville doesn't have rent stabilization I know we have that I think on one of the FAQs But I've been to so many leasing offices where tenants think that they have it and they start communicating with the leasing office, thinking that that is their right because we are in the middle of Montgomery County that has rent stabilization. So it makes sense that they think that they have it. And so I think it would be, very helpful for tenants if in the absence of passing it um that uh that tenants are well aware that uh it is a policy decision that we don't have rent stabilization in the city of Rockville just so they know that in advance um also in in regards to um the removal of the protection to alert the city when they have a rent increase, and the new system that it's being replaced with, the big difference I see, and I've shared this since 2024, and I've in fact used this myself and checking to see if my landlord was reporting the rent increase that I've received. The big difference is that learning about the rent increase at the time it is happening is very different than months later down the line after, during the renewal, I'm sorry, during the lease, during the license renewal process, right? Because that's not, a protection for the current tenant dealing with the rent increase when there's no rent stabilization. That's not a protection. That may be good for us to have that data, but even the way that the data was voted in, I think it was last year where the majority of the body voted to have the data reported in five-year averages, Is that correct, five-year averages? I voted against that, but I think it was voted it would be five-year averages. That hides a lot of information. My other question with that would be there's a lot of, I think, offers provided to tenants. like with a new lease, they may have various term leases month to month, two years, 14 months, 16 months. It's been a long time since I've seen a year lease. But is that also collecting all of that information? Is it collecting the offers or just the ones that they sign? And the reason I'm asking that is because sometimes tenants will just take the offer and then leave and that information of knowing the offer because that could be the offer that displaces someone that's the offer that they can't afford and they move out and that is is that being collected as well

That is not one of the data points that we have proposed to include in code to collect, but if there are other data points that we find would be useful to collect through the rental licensing process, there's nothing that would necessarily stop us from including those administratively in the rental license renewal process in that data reporting process.

Because if the point of this is stability, and tenants are deciding to move based on the fact that they can't afford an offer, and that never gets collected, and that's then within the five-year average, I mean, we're not seeing that. It's data that we don't have. On top of the fact that we are removing the number one protection that tenants currently have that I've used myself, And I think that I would amend this, the updated code back to where tenants have that protection, especially if we're not going to pass rent stabilization. And I had some questions about equity. I know that you mentioned that this would advance equity slightly. I think there's a, you said small, I think in the presentation, I'm not sure if you can go to the page, the slide. Oh, I think this was actually in a staff report that it said that there would be a small positive increase to equity or advancement of equity. Would you be able to share what created that calculation, especially considering that this is not tied to cost in any way? Although we have limited the amount of fees, which is based on the excellent work of the rent stabilization bill in Montgomery County, I know that we have limited the amount of fees, but there's no actual cap and cost, right? So how was that small calculation? I'm sorry, how was that small advancement in equity calculated?

So there's, as you've seen, a lot of different changes that we're making to the landlord-tenant code. And those changes are in alignment with the goals that we set out, with the number one goal being tenant stability. This is one of the key action items under our housing strategies work plan when looking at supply, stability, subsidy. This is a key action around stability. So with improving tenant stability, there are a lot of benefits that come to tenants from that. It's not all necessarily going to be in terms of cost of dollars, but there are increased benefits to having the stability that would come from the two year lease term, having the stability and the protections that come from relocation assistance, the benefits provided through banning algorithmic rent pricing. All of the things that have been included here are set with that goal. And because tenants have that are disproportionately from historically marginalized and vulnerable groups, those benefits will be seen more to those groups. Although I understand what you're saying that this won't necessarily lower it will lower costs in certain ways through banning of junk fees, and algorithmic rent pricing might contribute to that as well, but we're not able to provide a concrete number per se.

And in banning junk fees, in the absence of rent stabilization, banning junk fees, I mean, rent is going to be likely the highest cost, right? And so just because we're banning junk fees, which is something we definitely should do, doesn't necessarily mean that the overall cost to the tenant is lower. And also, you, I think, noted that there's a potential for rent to go up, right?

There is a potential. We cannot guarantee that it will go up or down.

That would disproportionately impact who?

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

And that is related to cost.

Certainly.

Yeah. Okay. My other question about algorithmic pricing, that is typically with larger landlords, right, using that software.

Typically, yes.

And typically newer buildings as well. From what I've researched, I've seen it's mostly applied to newer buildings, larger buildings, buildings that usually have more corporate landlords, right, because they need the economies of scale for it to make sense economically. I think within the staff report, it noted that algorithmic pricing would disproportionately benefit particularly, I just want to make sure I'm saying this correctly. I think it was saying that it would disproportionately benefit tenants of color, correct?

Yes, and I believe that in that report as well, some of the estimates from the White House when they did the analysis showed that algorithmic rent pricing is estimated in the DC region to increase rental costs by over $100 a month. So by banning that, that would be beneficial to all tenants who are impacted, but disproportionately beneficial to tenants who have that higher cost burden.

The only thing that I would just question particularly about Rockville is that the algorithmic pricing, which are typically for the larger buildings, some mostly the newer buildings, especially the newer buildings that have a higher rent just based on. the average income of black residents, particularly black tenants, there's a smaller amount of tenants in buildings that are newer or the larger buildings. And so was that calculated into the equity impact analysis as well?

No, we haven't looked at building age or building size and broken that down by race, so that analysis has not been completed.

Okay, because I know it impacts 2,000 units, and it would be interesting to know, because if those units are, especially from the newer buildings, I think that it would actually disproportionately benefit... just based on income within the city, it may not disproportionately benefit black renters that may not be in those buildings. So I think that may offset. But I would just like to get a little bit more information on how that equity analysis was done. Because I just want to make, I strongly, strongly support algorithmic pricing. I've supported it since 2024. I felt like when we were testifying in the state, I felt like we should have done our own a long time ago. And I'm glad that we're doing it now. But I just want to be clear with that statement about equity and how we're calculating equity. And I saw that there was a lot of attention to how housing stability can benefit people within the equity statement. And I'm well aware of that. And that's really important to share. But it just wasn't sharing specifically where like you were getting the data, the calculation that made that quote, small positive impact. So just having a better understanding of that. um for um oh the two-year leases um and i've shared this before um it's i think it's great that we're talking about two-year leases um i think that's really important um I would say that in the absence of rent stabilization, in practice, when your landlord provides you your lease renewal and provides you with month to month, 14th month, two years, one year, they provide it typically all at the same time, so there's less back and forth, whatever lease agreement the landlord desires will usually have a lower percentage, and then the one that they don't desire, let's just say month-to-month, is usually unreasonably high. I think mine for month-to-month... was like 107% rent increase, right? Because they don't want me to pick that one. So in the absence of rent stabilization, when you have a two-year lease, because we can talk about two-year leases all day long, but if in the absence of rent stabilization, they're just going to provide a crazy percentage to make sure that you're not picking that. So I just want to provide some like, kind of a bit more reality and in practice of what is going to happen in the absence of rent stabilization. And I think that context needs to be clarified over and over again of what is going to happen in practice. And yes, two-year leases can provide more stability if you can afford it. And let me see here. I had some additional questions. I had some additional questions, but we can circle back. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Council Member Van Graaf.

Thank you. I first want to commend staff, because I know we've had a number of different work sessions, and there has very rarely been as detailed a comparison of what we've done, what we've asked for, the changes therein. And I looked and kind of compared with my notes what we said. almost everything that we said from the Deus was put in there and put in there nicely. So huge kudos to staff for really getting into, because we've had some hours and hours long work session on this issue. So a great job by staff. One thing I did want to get into, because you've heard it from, I think, just about everyone up here so far, and that does deal with the reporting requirements. And I want to talk a little bit about that, because I know in response to some of my colleagues, you guys have talked about how we've gotten the information regarding some of the rents from the landlords and we if the question is more about how we Do it ourselves and how we use those that information is that basically how you're interpreting how we might use the information Yes, I think that that's one of the things that we've thought through with that part of the code is what is the goal and

Because if the goal is that any time that we receive notice from a landlord that they are proposing a rent increase above the voluntary rent guideline, if then the expectation is that then we are stepping in to take action and to reach out to the tenant and to inform about the voluntary rent guidelines, if that's the goal, that's not something that we currently have the capacity for. And so positioning ourselves around what is the goal, if the goal is to better understand which properties are having larger rent increases, In the aggregate then that's why we turn to the rental licensing process to collect that data so that way we can see those properties see who the actors are that are Time after time increasing rents above the voluntary bank guidelines so then we can still do that targeted outreach to landlords But in a way that is a little bit more streamlined so

I actually agree very much with my colleague, Councilmember Shaw, in saying that this is actually one of the ways that we can provide the most transparency and market forces with regard to rental increases. And if our issue and our concern is about staff capacity, which has been in the past, I think we need to require more information from the landlords. I don't want to have us having to extrapolate the data when we have the ability to have reporting requirements. This is in 18-148 and 18-149. We're already requiring landlords to give us reporting requirements. I think it makes sense for us to let them do the work as opposed for us to say we're going to extrapolate the data and I actually think you know we've talked about this I agree that from a unit by unit or house by house information it's important but I think it's also when you have multi-units a building overall because you could see clearly have a situation where maybe one unit has only gotten incremental but the building overall is having significant increases And I have to tell you, if I'm a renter looking at a building, I don't just want to know about my unit. I want to know about what the landlord's doing with the building overall. So I think having those reporting requirements that are a necessity, not just to tell the potential tenant. And I think it should be, I know I've talked about this before, not just the unit, but the building overall increases I think the city should have that information as well. Just as you've said, and I've heard it from the city manager, I've heard it from others, our staff's pretty taxed when it comes to what's going on, and we really, really want to have a lot of implementation. You've heard it from my colleagues with regard to issues with regard to code enforcement. We've got issues with regard to a lot of other issues where our staff is thin. I want to make it so that staff is having to extrapolate less and less. Let's let the landlords do the work for us with regard to information regarding rental increases. Again, not just for the unit, but if there is that unit that's part of the building, have that building as well. And to the extent, I know we've talked about whether it's the green, yellow, and red different notations on the website. Information is king. And, you know, just as Councilmember Shaw was saying, I've heard it from, you know, Councilmember Fulton, Councilmember Villegas, I mean, pretty much everybody here, we've talked about these reporting requirements and wanting transparency. And the more information we get from them, the potentially less information and work it is for us, it only makes it better. So I know that's kind of a lot to put out there, and I don't necessarily, I think that's a lot to potentially put in there with regard to amendments here and now. But I really think we need to kind of put our thinking caps on with regard to getting the information from the landlords to the city, making sure the landlords are giving that information to the tenants, and making sure that that information is transparent as possible. I don't know if you want to respond.

Can I ask a clarifying question? Yeah, of course. Okay. So you're saying that that information about rent increases needs to be reported to the city, but you're saying that that should be included in the code differently than what we currently have in the mandatory?

Well, for example, we don't talk about buildings at all. We're just talking about particular units. And I think we've talked in the past about just overall as well as in the particular units. And quite frankly, I want to make sure that not just the individual. I mean, Council Member Shaw has talked about this as well, putting like a two-year versus five-year. What are the incremental increases in could and how we're dealing with that. I think we really need to have that. Again, I know you and staff have talked about, well, we're just going to take the data that we get as we go to relate to it. We've also got an issue is what is the penalty if they don't report? Because that's another issue that if they report everything except for their increases or I guess it seems that there's a little bit less of a bite and we're putting a lot of the onus on the city as opposed to the landlords. I know city manager sounds like you wanted to respond.

That's okay, Mayor. I think our goals are exactly the same. We're just modifying and taking out of this current code and putting more of the burden in our landlord tenant code licensing process. I actually think we're gonna get more data, more consistent data for it. And I'll be honest with you, landlords are absolutely going to want to give us that information because guess what? They don't get that information, so we're not going to give them the license. So now we have a hook relative to the process that was before. It's like, would you please send us the data? But with no hook on it, right? But that license is going to be really important. Then I think how we use the data is going to be critically important. You're absolutely right. It's going to take us a while to develop. Enough data points, unit by unit, et cetera over a course of years. But I think the portal that staff is in the process of developing is going to be really huge. And we'll have direct access to it for anybody that wants to get into that portal and take a look at it. I would encourage you guys to let us build collect the data as we proposed. Build out the portal, and if you're not liking what you see, or we may have things that we need more data in a certain area, then we can come back and amend that. That's my answer. I don't know if Jane wants to add anything to that or not. That was great. Okay.

Okay, that's great. All right, my next few are talking about some of the areas that we've talked about in the past work sessions. I'd be looking at some targeted questions that I had. And first it goes with section 18.115 and section G, when we're talking about the specific section that talks about the, let me get to it in my code section. the authorization for the deducting of the rental, reducting of the rent based on repair. We had talked about in the past having some type of clause within there, and everything you have here is good, but with regard to tenant-caused damage, And I know we were going to potentially talk about, like, even within that first section, excluding tenant-caused damages. Now, again, tenant-caused damages, still there must be a repair if it's not a livable condition. But the right to deduct rental from that as an exception, do you think that's going to be a concern if we did that? Is there a reason why we didn't put that in there? And I just wanted to get your thoughts about that.

Thank you for that question. No, I don't believe that it's going to be a concern and the reason why is because in order for the tenant to be able to exercise the repair and deduct ability the landlord first needs to The city would first issue an NOV And provide the landlord with time to make that repair. That's only after the landlord does not comply with that Comply with the correction within that specified period of time and that then the city would say to the tenant, you are now allowed to exercise your repair and deductibility.

But within that first clause, when we're talking about the city manager, it doesn't address that if it's a tenant caused damage. So are we saying there's going to be discretion within that decision? I mean, how is that applied?

So the city is not making the determination as to whether it's tenant caused or landlord caused or whoever caused, who caused the damage. We're just making the determination of is this a violation? And no matter who caused it, the landlord at the end of the day has that responsibility to provide to comply with the property maintenance code. And so that is why we would not necessarily have that concern because the landlord is supposed to do this one way or the other. The only thing that we're adding onto it is that if they don't do it,

tenant can exercise for parent so you're basically saying the reason why we don't have a tenant caused or landlord caused clause in there is because there's already a double step process and they would have already not met that so it's not an immediate right to deduct and there's already a process within there when they should have done it whether it's tenant caused or not yes there's already that rigorous process and if there is question or debate over to who caused what

that's then something that could go to the Landlord-Tenant Affairs Commission, and they could help to make that determination. That's not necessarily a determination that staff is making.

Excellent. That takes care of the issue. I'm fine with it as drafted. The next issue that I had, and I know we talked about it a lot during the last work session, was the algorithmic price ban, which is key. I mean, I think we have specifically talked about this from the state level. And heck, if the state's going to do it, we're going to take care of it. And I know that one of the things that I was very concerned about is I don't want to see there any lawsuits. And I want to make sure that we're structured. And I want to commend staff. You guys really went through and made sure this is as bulletproof as it can, which is exactly what we need it to be. I want to make sure this sticks. I want to make sure that the renters are protected. So I just want to give a phenomenal, because I even went back. to all the different complaints that I saw. And I think we're as bulletproof as we can be. So phenomenal job. The only one clause I said in kind of going through some of the complaints and seeing some of the language, I know that there were some intervening courts that talked about kind of subjective language and how we're dealing with the exception. And one thing that I saw in ours that I didn't see in others, and I didn't know if it's something that we can just trim to get rid of, or there was a serious rational basis. And it's, obviously within Section 18.148, but in the, I guess it's the latter part when we're talking about what it does not include. And we're talking about generating a report, and it says publish not more than once a month. And I noticed that we're talking about kind of a time limit here. Would it be viable for us just to eliminate that time period and just say generating or using a report, bam, of existing and continue there? Do you see any concern with doing that so that it just covers all such reports and not just a report of a temporal basis?

I'm going to defer to Attorney Christina Harris to see if she has anything that she would

like to share about that question um i don't necessarily see an issue with removing that i didn't see anything saying we had to have that oh can you hear me sorry yes perfect we can thank you that we had to have that provision um our intention was to try to match what the county might be doing um for that provision and use their language so there wouldn't be confusion um especially if the um websites or algorithms are being used across the board. So we wanted to make sure we tried to match, but I did not see anything in other jurisdictions that would make us require that. We tried to look at what lawsuits had been or settled and what language was agreed to and the ones that clearly had settlements and we could remove that.

All right, so my proposal would simply be to make this, I guess, as strong as it can be to eliminate that one clause that starts with a report, get rid of published not more than once a month, and go right to of existing. Just to make, again, I'm trying to make this as strong as possible. I want to make it effective and court-proof. So that would be my only, that's the only amendment that I would be proposing for the code, at least at this point. A few other things, but I'd move over.

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

Okay, and that's all I have for now. We can always go back.

Thank you. I'm going to go back to Council Member Fulton. I'll just note, it might be worth checking in with the city, with the county's attorneys, to see if they included that for, because I know there was a lot of sensitivity on this topic, and people were trying to be very, very careful, so that would be helpful to check. Council Member Fulton.

I got you, sorry. I actually have really benefited from the conversation here from my colleagues and I wanted to circle back on a couple things. One, we've all talked about this reporting requirements and I think about it in three ways. What do we need to collect? How do we collect it? And then what are we gonna do with it? The prior code didn't really say what we're gonna do with it so we didn't really do anything with it. I do think that collecting it during the rental license renewal makes a lot of sense to the point the city manager made, like there's a hook, like we're gonna get it. And I think that helps. I do also think that Council Member Schell and others made a point. There's things that the code doesn't say that we're collecting that we might as well. I think it says most recent rent. Why don't we just add to that section? I think it's an easy amendment, 1895A10, where it says most recent monthly rent. We should talk about what my colleagues think. Any offers of rental increases, whether accepted or not? I think Council Member Shaw made a good point there. um for these two-year uh leases like any increases that happened between like i think we just build on that to collect all of the information that would be useful um offers and any rent increases that occurred between license renewals are two that i offer um And then the question of what do we do with it? I do hear, I think the portal's great. I think that'll serve the transparency need, why we collect it. And I understand why we're not talking about a portal in the code, I get that. But I do wonder if in order to have something in our code that sort of makes it a requirement that we're transparent, we do add back in, like that we do a report, like that we publish a report on it. I think, as I was listening to my colleagues, I think, so I'm proposing those two amendments. One, we add stuff into 18-95A10 to cover whatever we think it might be useful to collect. And we do commit to, at a minimum, annually reporting on that information. 18-195? Yeah. So that was the one thought I had. Thank you to my colleagues for raising some of those issues. So I propose that. The other thing that I wanted to bring up was some of my colleagues mentioned there's burden on the landlords for a lot of costs in the relocation, in a lot of places. And yes, large corporate landlords can probably carry that burden in individual small you know, single unit landlords probably can't. And I know we've talked a lot about how to make that distinction. And I think it is a good idea to make that distinction. But I also think it's like the inverse is true, right? Like there ends up being less protections for tenants of small landlords if we make a distinction there. So it's not just that larger landlords can eat the cost. It's that tenants are then on an imbalanced level of protections provided by the city. I'm struggling with that. And I think you all struggled with that for a while. Can you help me get comfortable with not making that distinction?

Yes. So in terms of, you mentioned relocation assistance specifically, I think in that instance, in that cost to landlords, which certainly could be a significant cost burden, all of those situations in which that relocation assistance requirement is triggered are situations in which the landlord has neglected their responsibilities in a pretty significant way. So the so to the degree that the unit is no longer habitable, something that luckily, we don't see very often in Rockville, but we want to be prepared for situations when that does happen. And so to us, because it's such a high standard of neglecting that responsibility, we feel more comfortable placing that burden onto landlords in that situation.

Yep, that helped, thanks. I don't have any other questions.

Just to clarify on that point, what about if someone is doing a substantial renovation on a property? Because that is one of the relocation assistance items, so it's not necessarily neglect, but you have to the property needs a lot more work.

Yes. So that's why I neglected to say that all of the reasons would trigger that because I do think that that is the one exception that if you're doing substantial demolition renovation onto a property with that situation, that's really if they're interrupting the tenant's lease term. If not, then they have the decision to not renew the tenant's lease. And so that situation the tenants lease wouldn't renew and they're not responsible for providing the permanent relocation assistance and then there is also the option to to just relocate the tenant within a property. So if you're doing substantial renovation on a part of the building or just that one unit, but you have another unit that you own as a landlord that is comparable, that the landlord and the tenant both agree to that lease transfer, then in that type of situation, there's no permanent relocation fee that the landlord would have to provide.

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

Correct.

Yeah. Council Member Fulton.

No, this is helpful. So you've helped me understand that it is a pretty narrow, at least with respect to relocation. So to play out that specific situation, there's a landlord that wants to do substantial renovation. If it is a small landlord, the relocation, it is a lot. It would be a burden on a non-corporate landlord. But if we don't have that requirement, then that tenant of the non-corporate landlord doesn't have the same protections as the tenant of the corporate landlord.

Okay, thanks. It's hard. Council Member Valeri.

As a connecting to rejoinder, I don't know if I'm using that word correctly, I think actually in the examples that I heard, that we heard in getting the feedback, there was a distinction, it wasn't small versus large, it was corporate versus non-profit. So we do have non-profit partners that have entered into agreements and they are the primary property manager, maybe that's the distinction, because I think I can hear both sides, but I think that I think there are other ways, there are grant avenues and other sort of things that non-profits actually have greater access to than corporate landlords, property managers, so I'm just throwing that out there, I'm spitballing from up here, because I agree that this is all very tricky. Okay, I'm gonna try to, in summation, I think I struggled, and I have several notes in here on Where is the teeth of enforcement? Because everything sounds great until. What happens, I understand connecting a lot of the reporting to the license renewal process. What happens if they don't report? Do they not get a rental license?

Correct.

Okay. Are they notified that at the time of the license renewal? I presume like what is the window of?

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

And really, as we all got a deep dive into municipal infractions, when that does go forward, it's really about resolving the issue and not a punitive. So we're not, we're still kind of not looking at, you know, a punitive and two things, the actual teeth, right? Like if it, a municipal infraction basically delays the process to the point where finally somebody complies because That means basically we've done, the city has taken on all that work to get it to this point of they should have been doing this from the get. So what is the stronger hook there then? I think we should talk about those sort of, you know, including a specific time period of compliance. And honestly, if you're a larger corporate landlord, you could just do that every year and just keep delaying. Because there would be nothing in our code that says, OK, they have not complied. It goes through the municipal infraction process. Send a lawyer. No offense to lawyers that are up here. Send a lawyer. Get it dealt with. Oh, we're going to comply. Rinse and repeat. In theory, there's nothing that could prevent it in our code. unless I'm missing something, I don't, like repeat offenders, I hate that phrase, but really there's nothing that prevents that.

Mr. Mihalik. For the rental, Well, the rental license, they have to do that every year. They have to go through the inspection process. But now we're adding this extra layer, which we think is a very good layer, based on comments we've heard from the community and the council, that they have to provide this data. That data is going to have just as much impact as someone who doesn't pass all the property maintenance inspections. We'll give them a reasonable time to give us the data, just like we give people reasonable time to correct a code violation. But if they don't give us that information, council member, they will not get a rental license.

Which, and apologies, I'm struggling a little bit to hear you, Mr. Mahalo. I apologize. You know, up late watching the World Cup. Anyways, but no, I hear what you're saying. I'm trying to see what's in the actual code. That would be the... the hook, right? Like, I get what you're saying. I think we need to outline what the actual penalty is. I see, I think that that's also the challenge of the algorithmic pricing component as well, right? Like, what is, if somebody, let's see, I'm looking for my question. Here, what is the penalty for a landlord found using prohibited algorithmic pricing software? It's not in the code right now.

So the fine resolution that is attached to Chapter 18 will be coming to you later when the fine resolution for the full city comes to the Mayor and Council. Right now, any infraction of Chapter 18 is $100, although every day of that, which we understand is not a meaningful fine, which is why we want to update it. Every time that that citation is issued, we can issue that citation as many times as they are in... found to not be in compliance. And the other note about rental licenses is that if you do not have an active rental license, you cannot collect rent. So that is the real kicker when it comes to rental licenses.

Thank you for that. That is helpful. I understand, but I think it is that how much time do they have to get that if they do not have it at the time of the rental license renewal? Is there like, you know, are we providing a grace period? Or is it, am I making sense? Hopefully I'm making sense. I may not have had enough caffeine today, and hopefully I'm making sense. But, you know, hopefully somebody, Mr. Mihalik.

Yeah, it comes from you're making perfect sense. We would apply a reasonable standard, right? And that's 30 days. If it's for data, that's 30 days.

Okay. I hate that word, the reasonable. I understand it's a lawyer word. I get it. But it always seems to be my idea of reasonable. It's probably not like everybody's identification of reasonable. Okay. I appreciate that. And I appreciate that we're going to, I think, probably strap hold some stuff that we've all been talking about or there should be. I have just a couple things, and perhaps this is for Madam Acting City Attorney, or anybody, honestly, in the City Attorney Office. Under Section 18-115, the rental facility inspections, in clause F, It says the city manager may require the rental facility to be re-inspected to verify the violation has been abated. Is there a reason that we don't have should language there? It says may require the rental facility to be re-inspected to verify the violation has been abated. Is that one of those weird may and should things?

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

I'm trying to recall back. We were working with CPDS on that. I think there were certain situations in which re-inspection wasn't occurring. But I do believe it happens almost 100 percent of the time that we go back out. We won't issue the license if they fail the inspection until we have gone out and re-inspected. So we can change that to should. I cannot recall why it was made, because I do believe it happens near 100% of the time, if not 100% of the time. Thank you so much.

Mr. Mihalik.

The only time it could actually happen is if there's such a minor repair, in terms of actually physically getting it done, but it's still a violation of our code, that someone could make the, let's just say we're going to three or four units.

Mm-hmm.

And three of them pass, one doesn't, but the first one is a battery in a smoke detector, which really is one that happens quite a bit. If they pop in a battery and we look at it again, it's good to go. We won't go out and re-inspect it because they've cured it.

Okay. And that makes sense. I think just wherever there are may words, I tend to look up these things that we should be doing. And I can never remember off the top of my head the should versus could language. Going to section 18-129 on ADUs. I think that it might have been an extra word here that got crossed out. I think it still needs to be clear that we're looking at a ADU rental license because not every ADU will be a rental. So I think in the interest of clarity there, we refer previously to rental licenses can be obtained by XXX and ADUs are under that, but I just think for clarity purpose in Section 18-129 that we include language that we're only looking at ADU rental licenses. Okay, bear with me, Madam Mayor and colleagues. Oh, here we go, all right. Section 18-149, Miscellaneous. A landlord must provide a tenant with the tenant's entire rental payment history within seven business days of the tenant's written request. I think if there's a significant history, I think a kindness would be to increase that to 14 to 30 days, especially if it is a smaller landlord that is not using a tenant portal or other electronic record keeping. I think that that could take more time. It's similar to medical record copy requests. It's one thing if you have older records that are paper, you're given more time under state law as opposed to electronic records. So I just want to make sure that where we can be kind. Madam Mayor, the last one that I'll end on and then, of course... Oh, last two, I promise. Okay. I'm trying to go in order, but my brain doesn't work that way. Under Section 18-194, the Voluntary Rent Guidelines and Notice Requirements of Rent Increases, I would put forward to my colleagues and... to staff, I think the intent is that landlords are strongly encouraged to hold rent increases, not just encouraged. I like stronger language whenever we can use it. I don't know if that has legal weight, but if you look at our code, I think it definitely indicates an intent, so strongly encouraged, I'd like to do that. I understand what you were saying about not having the staff to follow up on VRG out of basically being out of compliance with the VRG. I think if, and thank you to Council Member Van Graak for talking about through this issue, I think that that is what the VRG is for. So I'm not quite sure why would we even have it if we're not actually going to create the infrastructure to follow up on violations of the VRG. I think those are questions that need to be asked. I think that if this body is sincere about housing as a strategic priority, which I believe that we are, that we would want to investigate every outlier and see what are the instances. And again, going to the listing of facilities and buildings and so forth with the problems, I think it would be good for residents to know before they sign a lease that this individual's last rent increase was outside of the limits of the VRG. I don't know why we wouldn't share that. to the point, sorry, on the public posting of the enhanced inspection list. This is akin, if this is helpful for anyone else, it's been helpful for me. I like to think of it as that list that they used to have in the Washington Post about the health code violations. Like that was a quick list that was always there that kind of told you, hey, I'm gonna avoid that to-go place or restaurant for a little while until they got their health inspection violation mitigated. Why would we not do that for housing? It's kind of my intent, so... Lastly, and I defer to my colleague council member, actually, just about all my colleagues, I am, I struggle with creating under Division III tenant rights and obligations. I could absolutely see where it would be possible for HOAs or co-ops to not adhere to these tenant rights and obligations? And what protections? So, for instance, the landlord may not prohibit tenant organization activities from occurring on the premises of the rental facility. I could absolutely, I mean, as part of a shared agreement, what if there is an HOA covenant that includes anti-organizing language And it's a process, the legal process to go through that. We don't have, as Council Member Jackson and I have talked about, we don't have a really good program in place where somebody could dispute these sort of problems or get it mediated. Basically, long story short, looking at all the tenant rights and obligations, how can we... protect tenants in rentals that are covered by HOA and co-op rules and covenant.

So any tenant that is in a HOA or a co-op situation, Chapter 18 does apply to them. I think we would have to research a little bit more into that specific question around if an HOA banned tenant organizing activities, how that would impact us.

Yeah, I'll add to it that I mean, HOAs can have more restrictive language. They can't have least restrictive language. So if the city changes its codes to say that HOAs can't ban a tenant organization from organizing and have a meeting, that's what it is. They can't over the top and just say, oh, wait, there's HOA guidelines on this. They can't do that.

Sorry. My binder did that. So I guess my question then would be, do we need to... above and beyond, let's see, I don't see it explicitly in the tenant rights and obligations part except for complying with all covenants, rules, requirements and the like. I don't see specifically like language that would say that this section applies to tenants, rental facilities covered by HOA or co-op. rules and regulations. So just for consistency and as our colleague says, clarity is kindness. Would it be helpful to, oh I'm sorry, everybody, everybody's hopping on the clarity is kindness. Would it be something that we could add to, specifically to the enumeration of rights in section 18-161?

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

But it has no weight of enforcement if it's in educational materials. It has a weight of enforcement under our code. Right? Unless I'm mistaken.

As a general principle, HOAs can't, again, make something legal through their association that's illegal in the city. I think that's implied overall. I'm sorry if I'm not speaking well enough. So that's why I think it's better in the educational materials than calling that specifically out because that's generally implied throughout all the city's ordinances and codes.

I don't know. I don't think that that's necessarily the case, though. Like, across the board, that... And again, I defer to my colleagues up here on the dais that fall under HOA covenants, but here's a great example of one. We just allowed for more than four freestanding temporary signs in someone's yard. And I know that there are HOA restrictions that allow much less than that.

Or no signs.

Or no signs, exactly. So I think, while I appreciate the idea of putting it in educational materials, to have the weight of something that tenants can use as, this is my right as enshrined in the city code, that it has to live there. Otherwise, it can be ignored. And that is where I will end for now, Madam Mayor.

Thank you. I appreciate the comments of all of my colleagues, very thorough. I wanted to specifically go to the reporting, because I think almost every one of us spoke about the annual reporting. I mentioned maybe the annual. Councilman Fulton also named a particular frequency of annual. I wanted to just see among my colleagues if you would support keeping the reporting requirement and doing annual. Sure. Go ahead.

Madam Mayor, are you saying What essentially I was proposing is just keeping that reporting requirement as is in the code and not updating it, or you're talking about updating it with the removing that protection that they have right now?

So right now, there is a reporting requirement where there's a number of mandatory reporting items. Let me just clarify that. But specifically, there is a report that the DHCD director must give to the city manager And that has been stricken. My suggestion, and I know Councilman Fulton said a specific frequency, is that that be done at least annually. To the City Manager, and then the City Manager will give that to Mayor and Council.

And I saw four hands go up.

Just so I understand. Council, go ahead. So you're saying that we are removing that current protection?

That's not what I'm saying.

No.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Staff is supposed to strike the section, and we are wanting to put it back in.

You're referring to 18-195D? Yeah, do you want to read it? Sure. The current code language is the director of housing and community development shall provide a quarterly report to the city manager, summarizing the information accumulated from the required reports submitted by each landlord of licensed rental facilities in the city. So what I'm hearing you say is that we would bring back that language. But instead of a quarterly report, it would be an annual report, right?

Because it was been struck out again. And this is not speaking to the other items of mandatory reporting of what landlords have to provide. That is totally separate. And we'll get to that later. But at least I my goal is to get the language back in so that there is some level of reporting from the DHC director to the city manager and we would get that report. Thank you.

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

Council Member Mishra, that's a totally different issue. We did a poll on just The frequency. This is not related to what a landlord has to provide. This is what the DHC director has to provide to the city manager. And that is a separate issue from the reporting requirements of the landlord. So let's deal with that first. And then I saw Council Member Valeri just left, but she had her hands up. I didn't see if everyone had a chance to have their hands up. I'll call up on you in a second, but let me just finish this piece here.

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

Yes, and we clarified.

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

Okay, last question, thank you, and then I'm going to have staff respond.

So, Council Member Shaw, the section that you're referring to, I believe, is 18-194B in the section that Mayor Ashton is referring to as 18-195D. So two different sections. Okay. which have language that in the draft ordinance we have struck from the current ordinance um so yes two separate issues 195 194 b 195 d okay but both sections do have that the um the director of housing should be reporting to the city manager 194B does not have a requirement for the department to report to the city manager.

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

Would it be helpful if I read that section? Please do.

I know this is, these are, I just want to clarify that is a, as you said, as you said, um, Ms. Jane Lansrader, this is a separate issue and I just want to deal with the fact that there, it has been stricken to do an annual report, uh, from the DHC director to the city manager that would then get to the mayor and council that would be able to share information with us, like trends and issues that we may have concerns about. Um, and the separate issue, that Council Member Shah is referring to relates to what the landlord has to provide. So if you could please read that separate section and know that that is a separate topic for us to discuss.

I just, I mean, I just wanted to.

Let's, Jane, Jane Lines Raider, please.

Sure. So section 18.194 says 90 days prior to the effective date of any rent increase, The landlord must provide to the tenant and the director of housing and community development the information set forth below, except that landlords of single dwelling units need not provide this information to the director of housing and community development. And that information is the recommended voluntary rent guidelines and the current language is information prepared by the city and furnished to the landlord with respect to rent subsidy programs, which might be available to the tenants.

Thank you.

Councillor Machado, did you have a follow-up question? Yes. So that section originally had in there the rent increases.

That section, you know, the language that's currently in there now says the recommended guidelines.

The original.

If that section doesn't have it, let me see if there's another section that does.

Okay, I'm going to continue on with my section, and then I'll come back and I'll call on you again, Council Member Shaw, but I think there was at least a majority to at least have that section reinstated with, at minimum, an annual report that would then come to the Mayor and Council. And I'll come down, so if you have additional questions for clarifying, we'll get to you and make sure we get through all those. Okay. Mr. City Manager, is that clear? yes okay thank you all right um so uh i did want to pull the the the thread on what councilmember jackson was also asking about which was relating to the um if someone is renting um out rooms in their home and there are people who are renting out three rooms in their home which that's, you know, that's people are, it's helping them to afford to live there. Um, and that is, we have a provision for that. My only concern is that, uh, in our comprehensive planning goal six of the housing section, it says ensure a safety of rental units. And so if we're not inspecting the rental units, we don't know that that's safe for tenants. Um, There could be basement apartments. There could be other code violations that we just don't know. So that's something that gave me pause. And the other thing that was interesting is that someone may have an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit, and they're required to get a license, even though it's on the same property or could be even within the same house. So why is it treated differently? If you have an ADU in your house, an attached ADU, and now you're required to get a rental license, but if you just rent a room in your basement, that doesn't, and it's not officially labeled an ADU, that doesn't require a rental license. Can you just help us understand why that is?

So an ADU is its own separate dwelling unit, and because of that has to adhere to a more stringent set of requirements for what needs to be included in a full standalone dwelling unit. And so that is why there are those different requirements for a room and a house versus an ADU.

And an ADU can be in a basement correct correct yeah so i just that that to me is just it's it's a odd differentiator i just i want to make sure all renters are in safe places that's the bottom line of this and it just seems like there's a loophole to me uh and i'm aware of certain situations actually prior to this the current housing director there were units and I won't name particular names of some of the houses that have been given where people were being charged excessive fees they there were issues with you know Code compliance and they just would say this is my house. I'm living here You know, they were just all kinds of things that were happening and it was an issue from 2019 till about 2023 I don't know if it still is but I'm concerned that that we are abdicating our responsibility to ensure that there's a safe rental unit for every tenant. So I'm curious as to how we reconcile that.

If I may, Madam Mayor, we do have... issues or cases as dealing with municipal infractions coming from code enforcement, where we get reports as to people being in uninhabitable dwellings or units or, you know, in a garage or in a basement. And when we do get that report, whether it's from the neighbor or from the unhappy tenant, then code is sent out. And we have very recently taken them to court and required them to evict that tenant because of the unsafe and unlicensed facility, whether it doesn't have an ingress or egress. So that's for clarifications on to what we do regarding if the unit is not safe and we rely on reporting. But CPDES would know that more than I do.

Yeah, I will just note that particularly some of the units I'm talking about, they were vulnerable residents and they knew that. They either did not have papers or they were workers. There was a range of situations where tenants were in concerning, and they would not feel comfortable to report. And so I just, I may be, I'm happy to stand alone here with some of my colleagues, but this is a concern, and I just don't think we've solved it here. And I just raise that for the rest of the body as well. So I'll leave that there. I did also want to go to the break of lease provisions. I do really appreciate that we've added a number of opportunities to people because of situations beyond their control to be able to break their lease. Some of the things I've just been struggling with, as Council Member Fulton noted, in terms of the single-family homeowner who has a mortgage to pay, what happens if... someone breaks the lease and I think we're requiring now a 30-day notice. And does that mean that once that 30-day notice is given, there's one final payment because it's up to one month? How does that smaller landlord deal with the fact that, shoot, I don't have time to get this place advertised and it could take 90 days on a surprise like that to get it re-rented? So how has staff contemplated that issue?

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

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

Yes, but so there's the discrete list of situations in which we're saying that tenants can terminate the lease with 30 days written notice. And so with that, we are balancing wanting to give tenants the flexibility because of those unique situations that we've outlined here. versus balancing giving the landlord enough time to turn over the unit and to find somebody else. With that situation, if a tenant provides the 30-day notice for one of the listed reasons or other reasonable cause beyond the tenant's control, the lease may provide that in the event of that termination for such cause, the tenant is liable for a reasonable termination charge not to exceed one month's rent. So they would be responsible for the next 30 days of rent and then potentially an additional termination charge of one month's rent.

Okay. Yeah, I was just thinking of, for example, I do know of federal workers who have rented out homes that they have previously lived in, and they are also affected by loss of a job, and they have mortgage to pay And they would be in a tough situation in that regard. So that's where I was struggling. I totally agree with it with multifamily. But if someone's allowed to break their lease for loss of a job, pay 30 days and get out, well, what happens to that small landlord who may also be in a similar situation? Would the city be willing or is there to use the rental assistance or is there a way to make the situation whole? I'm just trying to put in real situations of... who we know because I think that we don't solve the problem fully for those unique small mom and pop shops.

That's something that we would deal with on a case-by-case basis and talk with the landlord and tenant about what may make the most sense for both parties and we would consider whether it makes sense for us to provide city resources in that situation. But I will note that the cause with employment, there's not necessarily a cause for unemployment It's involuntary change of employment from the D.C. metro area. So there is no cause listed here for unemployment specifically.

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

If their job is moved involuntarily, yes. Okay. That is one of the reasons.

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

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

And people change. I always say this almost every session. We'll change. The team may change. We've seen a lot of change in the Department of Housing and Community Development. Would you be putting that in a protocol just to align with this? Because it's not written in code.

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

Okay, that would be very helpful. Okay, and then I raised the issue about the landlord requiring the history. Is that something you need us to pull, the increase history directly to the tenant?

Is that? So just to make sure I understand, the landlord in the lease providing the previous rent increases to the prospective tenant of both that unit and the full property. Yeah. Yes, I would love to know if there's a majority on that one.

Okay, so just to describe, we have the city putting, and this also speaks to some of the comments I heard from my colleagues, that the city is planning to put out a report that has the five-year averaging, and some of us have raised we need to also get to the unit. But one of the clearest things that we can do to put the onus on the landlord, I started mentioning during my previous comments, is that they could be required to provide the tenant with the increased history as well for that unit or building. So I just wanted to propose that among my colleagues. That is a requirement that the landlord would have to provide that history.

Council Member Fulton. Just a clarifying question. If we were to do that, do we know where, like, it helps me to look at, like, where we're making a change. Like, is there a specific place that we would be wanting to insert that, or?

I think it could go in the section that talks about increases or even, like, the lease requirements. Okay. But I would, we've had a number of proposals up here, so I just want to allow staff so we may need to take a break.

At some point. Yes, we can look to see where it would make the most sense to put that in. And is there a time period for how long you would propose they provide that history for? I would maybe suggest the last three years.

That's fair. Is that number fair? That's fair. Council Member Valeri.

Yeah. Thank you for raising that. I just want to also flag that when I raise this during one of my go-arounds, that we're also including, you know, these should be occurring before lease signing, so not just embedded in the lease, and that it should also have reflect the list of fees as well. Because I think that's where we started on all of our fee discussion was in listing that out. So I just want to flag that in addition to the rent increases.

Agreed. And these came out of some of our comments in previous work sessions as well. So I just want to make sure we're You know leveraging the well of the body. So colleagues. Are you good with this?

Oh council member Shaw So this would be the average of three years over three years So I don't because there's different lease terms There's there's a lot of different lease terms and we were also talking about including offers so for this one this one in particular it's

is I'm gonna separate out because I think we're gonna come when I when we get back to you of what the city is provided in our surveying tools with the rental licensing on offers etc this is literally what has the increase history been and we could either do an average or just people provide here it was in the last three years a year one year two year three I mean that that's I'm open to either Did you have a question?

The only complication I see with that is similar to the portal idea where there's so many different lease terms. I mean, yes, I agree with this conceptually, but I think there's just some nuances that I think should be worked out.

I think it's a good point. They could just say we had a one-year lease or a two-year lease. Here was the increase. It's literally what was the lease term, what was the increase. Councilman Van Graak.

Well, I know specifically, I don't think it should be averages. I think if there's been any increase over the past three years, whether it's through a two-year lease or one-year lease, we want the history. And again, I think it should be units and buildings. And I don't think aggregate. I think they need to know what the increases have been, period. And we go three years and whatever information is in there for the building and the unit.

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

Okay, so for the individual unit information, it would be for the past three years, the lease term and any associated rent increases at the end of that lease term. And then property-wide, what would you like to see there? Because for the property, that would have to be an average across the property? That's correct. Okay, over year-to-year or over a year-to-year average over a three-year period? Right.

Yeah, I was going to say, again, we've got a one year. I mean, what we're trying to get at is what happens at the end of a year or whether it's a two year. So I don't think it should be average of three years. We should find out over the course of the terms that happen with that building, what is the average increase over that period of the three years. So I don't think it's an average of three years. If they're getting one year leases, what is the average increase? If they're getting two year leases, what is the average increase? We're trying to give as much information, and that's why I think aggregate numbers over the course of the three years, the reason we're elongating it over three years is to catch the outliers, not to streamline it over the course of the three years. Does that make sense?

That's exactly what we discussed previously. Thank you. Council Member Fulton.

Yeah, clarification slash proposal, because I think I think what what you're asking on right now is what is provided prior to signing the lease to the to the prospective tenant. Correct. We are we're also talking about making sure we the city are collecting the right information along with the license renewal. So yes, I do support what you're saying. But I would also add on to that whatever we put in whatever provision we're saying here on what goes to the tenant. should also be added to that 18-195 on what we collect at license renewal. MS. Agreed.

MR.

Exactly.

MS. Council Member Shah. MS. And so just to clarify, I think what I'm hearing from my colleagues that there is a majority to change, which I think is 18-195, to change that. landlords would no longer be required to share the rent increase at the time of that rent increase.

That's not what we're addressing at this time.

I understand the first piece, but I think this segues into that second piece, the portal information.

I would love to have you raise that when we come to, because I'm almost done, but I would like to separate that out because I think that may have a more robust discussion.

Well, no, I was just following up with Council Member Fulton's comment, because that is connected to the portal information. So that's why I was raising that, because I don't agree that we should be collecting information after a rent increase happens. I think that we should be collecting it at the time. And I understand that you're speaking about something different. I'm just responding to Council Member Fulton's comment.

Okay, let's deal with this issue. And then we'll come back to that other issue. But team, do you understand what we're trying to address in terms of what the landlord has to provide the tenant pre lease, I feel clear about the information about the individual unit.

I think there's still additional considerations with the property wide average information. I think the main thing that I'm thinking through now is when saying the year to year increase, When are we defining the year? Is it from the month?

What do you recommend? Annual?

Annual, yes.

Because CoStar tracks annual, right?

But how do we define annual? Is it from June to June? Is it from January to January? I think that would be one of the considerations that we would make.

What's up? How does CoStar track it?

CoStar, you can ask it whatever you would like to ask it.

When you did the housing needs assessment and we were told that rents were flattening and were going down, what term were you using?

I'll have to look into that and double check. But we can put that together.

Whatever your current practices, I want to leverage that I'm just trying to make sure that tenants before they sign a lease, that they know what the average increase is, and they can make informed decisions about the pricing history, how this landlord tends to price as well as eventually, the inspections and whether that's quality housing, that's the kind of consumer information we're trying to give to people. Based on the comments, I think that we have four on this, but just to confirm. Okay, and Dr. Miles, yes, okay. And we'll come back to the more complicated issue. All right. The attorney fees, just to confirm, this one, I know, I'm just, there have been some situations on family, friends, and the attorney fees would be a licensed attorney in Maryland.

Yes, if they are representing a tenant in court, then in order to legally do so, they would need to be barred and licensed in Maryland.

Okay, because we specifically say licensed contractor. Why wouldn't we want to say licensed or barred attorney, just to be clear? There have been some issues on the immigration case where people are being taken advantage of with attorneys. So I'm just trying to be very clear. If we're being clear on must be a licensed contractor, should we also be clear?

In that situation, we would be applying that part of the code after the representation has already occurred. the representation would not be able to have occurred if that lawyer was not Not in good standing.

So if someone doesn't go to court, but it's just asking advice of an attorney That wouldn't apply. It's just within court fees, correct?

I believe it would just be the court fees because the court needs to make a decision in that case. They need to They need to

Should we clarify that it's related to the specific court case?

So in that section, which is 146, the obligation for the landlord to pay the tenant's attorney fees is if the tenant is the prevailing party and the legal action and fees are awarded by a court. So there must be a court hearing in which the tenant is the prevailing party.

Correct. So it'll only be the attorney fees associated with litigating that case, not I ask. other attorneys. Correct. So, but do we need to clarify that or do you think it's clear enough from the attorneys?

I believe it's clear enough.

Okay. Okay. Um, I'm just looking at my other list here. I did also, um, ask about the sample lease issue. Montgomery County does provide a sample lease, and I wanted to re-raise the idea of including a sample lease. I know the city attorney's office had to take some time to evaluate that, but we'll get an answer on that in the future.

Yes, we will come back to you with that.

Okay. And then lastly, the county has, and other jurisdictions I've checked, have clear delineations on enhanced inspections. I just want to flag. So they literally talk about a troubled property is one where there's rodent or insect infestation affecting 20% or more units, extensive visible mold growth, windows that do not permit safe means of emergency escape, pervasive recurring water leaks, lack of one or more utilities that are not shut off due to tenants' nonpayment. So we have a nice framework here that we can leverage to be able to delineate. My goal is get the enhanced property list published along with the portal so that people can see and make informed choices before they sign a lease. So I just wanted to clarify this reference point because there was some discussion during my last go-round as what qualifies as an issue. Mr. City Manager.

Are you asking us to define that right now?

No, I'm just asking to say, let's look at this. We don't have to wait six months.

We'll look at it.

Okay. And then see how we can implement, along with the portal, posting something, leveraging already approved, already vetted kind of parameters for what needs to be published and made available to tenants. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I have a few others, but I'm sure my colleagues will catch it. Council Member Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor. So first I want to say you're not alone. So I really, I think that it's important that the single landlord who's renting out a room or rooms, I could definitely see some cases where there would be issues, whether it's access, egress, whatever. I struggle with that because I know that the regulatory burden, both from the city standpoint is high, and it would cause additional staff time. But I do see the mayor's point in that we would have tenants potentially staying in places that are substandard. So I struggle with that. I struggle with that greatly. I want to ask a question, though. just for my own edification, but when we were talking about these rooms that are rented, and there's a code violation, and whether they're brought up by the tenant or by neighbors, but I forget who was speaking, I'm sorry. You said that they would typically find the landlord in violation and then evict the tenant? Is that correct?

There might be a situation where we have and we have had a situation where someone was living in an uninhabitable part of a property where we got a court order that they needed to stop having people living there. where it wasn't safe. And the person's, it actually was a family situation, the person wasn't able, refused to move out, so they did have to go to court to regain access to the property, to the part of their property. So yes.

But if they're living in a room, and I realize this is in the SAC situation, but bear with me. So if they're living in a room, and they have a leash, and then they're evicted because it's unsafe, I mean, don't we talk about the same thing in the landlord-tenant code? we pay for, we require the landlord to pay for relocation. But in this case, the tenant is evicted and there's no recourse.

So the situation would depend whether there's a lease or not, whether, you know, there's just outstanding situational things that might go into to play. And it's once we have the relocation assistance in place, then they might be able to have that recourse. But when we were dealing with this in court a couple months ago, we did not have that.

So, I mean, my thing is, I don't want to belabor the point, but I do agree with the mayor. I think we have a large portion, not a large, but a portion of housing that the owner is living there renting out rooms and I think most of the time it works out fine but there's some substandard places like we've mentioned that we have problems with and so we should just investigate whether or not we should have some requirement for those those arrangements those those leases I'm not sure we could solve it right now, but just put a pin in it because I think that definitely that's one thing that we've discovered. In terms of the enhanced enforcement, I definitely agree with the mayor on that. The common ownership community, so 18163C3, I was reading it and reading it and I had a issue, I think I found a fix, but just to back up for a second with the tenants organization. I agree that we have some education, if we pass this, We have some education to do because I don't think that HOAs and maybe condos would realize that they're under what we're now going to have as an ordinance. That's one thing. But to your point, Mr. City Manager, about the – if the city passes it, then – It's law, and the HOAs have to follow it. It may be true sometimes, but I know in certain cases, as Council Member Vallee was saying, in one case, the state HOA law applies and trumps the city's ordinance. So, signs, political signs, for instance. So, They can regulate those signs up to one month before an election. And the city obviously has no ordinance. So there is a state law that maybe trumps what we're trying to do. I don't know. We should look into it. But for that instance, there is a law that trumps what the city is trying to do. Now.

Do you want to ask a question? Okay.

constitutional case. It's not a state law. No, it's honestly a law as well. But anyway, so 18.163 , common ownership community penalties. A landlord may pass on a penalty issued by a common ownership community if the tenant is found in violation of the of a common ownership community for which the dwelling unit is located. Now, I have been struggling with this because it's not really written as clearly as I might want it to be. And I think basically what we're saying is if the tenant did something to violate the bylaws of the common ownership community. So maybe to have that section changed to say that a tenant has caused a violation. because what I found when I read that, whether it's the second time, third time, and I was really confused, when they find a violation of the by-law, when the HOA finds a violation of the by-law, they typically find the violation to the homeowner. So, I think that then, if it's something that the tenant caused, they pass it on to the tenant. But we should just be clear, because the finding of the violation actually goes toward the homeowner, not the tenant.

That is correct, which is why then we would allow the homeowner to pass that on to the tenant, but only in those cases where the tenant is found in violation. So it's not whether the rental unit is found in violation or the property is found in violation. It's if the tenant is found in violation.

Yeah, and so I think maybe just to clarify, maybe this is my own problem, is to say that the tenant is found to have caused a violation of the bylaws, because that, to me, just kind of clears it up. Otherwise, it's unclear. It's just maybe a wording. Maybe I'm thinking too much about it, but it just struck me as problematic.

Thank you. Can staff confirm whether, just to Councilmember Jackson and Councilmember Valeri's question about the HOA, who trumps who? Because when it comes to planning authority, we don't always trump HOAs. But are you saying when it comes to the rental license requirements that we will trump HOAs?

Just to be safe, let us research that piece of it.

Okay. I think that's important because when the state did trump HOAs related to ADUs, they actually put it in the language that said we would trump HOAs. So I just, I think it's an important distinction.

Yeah. And the one thing that I would just reiterate, you know, this is new, this landlord-tenant code. and some provisions of it are new. They're needed, but they're new, and especially the tenant organizations. And so we really have to do some outreach to HOAs and other organizations to let them know that they have these requirements now to let the tenants organize and have a space to organize if they so choose.

Thank you very much. Council Member Shah, I know you have some clarifying questions about the reporting.

Well, actually, first, I just wanted to, I was looking back at the county's racial equity and social justice impact statement for the algorithms. And it confirms that it says it's indeterminate. And I think for ours, it's non-conclusive if it either advances equity or not. And I think for ours we're saying it does and so just at another time I would just like to have some more detail on why there's a difference in with our statement versus the county's.

Sure, we can provide that.

Okay. Because I found that to be very interesting. And then the thing that I am just most concerned with of all of the code is just removing the requirement for landlords to provide the rent increase. And because of that being such a strong protection. And... I think that overall that I think that also may impact equity as well. But that is the thing that I am most concerned with because considering it's the strongest protection. And I know that currently in the code, it does say that that information when they before they make the increase before or while the tenant receives it. that information should also be shared with the director of housing.

Yes, and if I could provide a clarification from earlier when I read the language. I was reading from the ordinance, and because of the way that that's formatted, it was a little bit different. But it is Section 18.194, and that is what says, the 90 days prior to the effective rent increase, landlord must provide the tenant and the director of DHCD the information set forth below. That information includes old rent, new rent, effective date of the increase, percentage of the increase, the recommended guidelines, information about subsidy programs, and such other information that's useful to explain the rent increase. So that is what the code currently says.

And just noting that there is, I think, a preventative measure if landlords do want to increase rent or gouge rent or any of that or provide an unreasonable increase. The fact that currently the landlord must report that increase, I think, is an overall preventative measure. If it's not being enforced, that's a different conversation. But I think that... That's a pretty powerful protection in the absence of not having any anti-rent gouging. And I would also just not now but just like to just understand why this hasn't been enforced. Just like around the capacity of staff. Because I think it is a pretty powerful measure for tenants.

Sorry, did you want me to address that now?

I mean, you can, but I didn't know if you needed more time.

Sure. I mean, with that, again, I think it goes back to what the goal is, enforcing that part of the code and making sure that the landlords are sending us that information for every single rent increase that they are providing to a tenant. That means that we would need to be reaching out to of the landlords across the city to ensure that they are doing that and then checking back in with them to see uh hey are you renewing that lease if you are make sure you send this to us and if they don't following up with them doing that follow-up work we have um thousands of landlords in the city So doing that and thousands more rental units that that would apply to so doing that level of enforcement to make sure that not just each landlord but for each tenant in the city that That that is happening would require a significant portion of staff time Please proceed I think one of the

I think the biggest difference between what's currently in the Code 18-194 and what is being proposed with reporting this information at renewal of the license is that it's happening after the fact. And so there's less of a protection there. So they're not equal. And so I think that is, if there was another way that we could do this, but providing that same type of protection.

So the protection comes into, sorry.

And I understand that you're not going to be able to follow up with everybody, but I think what we're asking in the code is that we're not following up with everybody, but we are just requiring landlords to provide that information just so we have it. It's up to staff if they want to follow up or if they need to follow up.

We can certainly do that. In that case, I think the protection comes in when we come in, And so if we're not able to do that, then we're not able to provide the level of protection that you're talking about here. And so with the goal of providing that protection to tenants, we've recommended going the route of transparency. And with that route of having the online portal that has that information readily available, even further expanding on that with the information in the lease beforehand. So I think the question to us was, Like, where does that protection come in, and are there other ways that we can provide it if we're not able to intervene in every situation where a tenant receives a prospective rent increase that's above the VRG?

Just go ahead. So I don't, I still see, we're talking about two different types of tenants here, because we're talking about folks that haven't signed their lease yet, and then we're talking about folks that are living there. Right? And we're most more so serving those that are current residents right now. And so I see that that's a big difference in who we're protecting. And so I want to make sure that we're reconciling that. I think removing the fact that I was just sharing that like forcing, like if a landlord wants to rent gouge their tenant and they are then required to share that, that increase with the city, I think that is helpful and, and and somewhat preventative. So I, there's a difference between what is be there's a huge difference between what is being proposed and what we currently have, as well as who we are choosing to protect, and who were less protecting. And so it looks like the changes that we're making, it looks like the new tenants that don't yet live here almost have a level of more protection in the way that we're changing this.

I think that with this, it still comes into that question of how do we best protect tenants who are renewing their lease? I think that's the goal that we all want to achieve there. And for us, we just want to make sure that we're best positioned to actually provide that protection for them.

But it's after the fact that they've renewed their lease, right? Because of the timing and the annual, right? So it's after the fact that they renewed their lease.

Yes, for the information that they would be able to look at. Although if they are negotiating their rent increase, they would then be able to look at the portal. that we have with that real-time information, providing those averages to say, hey, the whole building's aggregate increase over this time period has only been 3%. Why are you trying to increase my rent by 10%? Or they could look at other nearby buildings and say, normal increases in this comparable building just across the street has been 2%. Why are you trying to raise it 12%? So that information would be useful to a prospective tenant, but it could also better equip tenants who are renewing their lease with the information to enter into that negotiation process. Because at the end of the day, we can come in and say, hey, that's a pretty big increase. That's above the voluntary rent guidelines. But at the end of the day, it's going to have to be that negotiation between the landlord and the tenant coming to a decision together.

Yeah, especially since, I mean, the voluntary rent guidelines... are not that helpful in practice. Thank you. Councilman Van Graak.

Only have one other thing that we haven't discussed before. And there was, when we discussed the last work session, section 18.146.16, regarding the requirement of allowing for subleasing. And you guys did a great job explaining the definition of unreasonably withheld. and kind of the staff report basing it on case law. The one thing that I know was a concern to me that I don't know that it would be included under our definition is not allowing subleasing for short-term rental and transient occupancy. We potentially could have a situation where someone is, by our law here, allowed to sublease for short-term rentals. And I can see why we might want to allow someone to say, hey, no, you can't sublease on short-term rentals. Is that something we could potentially add here by using unreasonably withheld per the definition, as you said, in case law, but also adding short-term rental or transient occupancy, which could be another reason that allows someone to not have a sublease?

That's something we could consider, including, um, although with the language currently there, we are placing the onus to decide whether. They want to allow that on the landlord, but including that in the code would be the city saying that that is never allowed. Whereas right now a landlord could decide that they are okay with that. Um. As well as other subway same situation. So.

If I'm looking at sex missing, containing a permission, permitting the tenant to sublease with the landlord's permission, which permission must not be unreasonably withheld. But on the same vein, can't they say that it can be withheld on the basis of short-term rentals or transient occupancy? Not saying that it can never be allowed, but saying that the landlord has the right to withhold it for that reason, which under this law they wouldn't be allowed to.

Oh, I'm sorry.

So you're saying to add into which permission must not be unreasonably withheld, like allowing them to use that as a reason to withhold the ability saying that a landlord might say, I don't want to allow them to sublease if it's going to be a short term rentals or transient occupancy.

We can discuss that. I can discuss that with Christina. I know that we want to make sure that we are staying in the lane of what is allowed or what is precedent from case law. And I know that she did the research into that case law. So I would want to, Christina, if you have anything to add to that.

I don't know if it specifically addresses your direct question, but for generally in the case law, what cannot be unreasonably withheld is if the prospective subtenant doesn't meet the landlord's reasonable rental qualifications. So if the landlord, you know, that's based on the landlord's rental qualifications that they require for regular tenants. Okay. So I don't know if that answers your question or not. If you have further clarification, I would need to do more research on that.

So are we saying that if the landlord in there only says no short-term rental, that can be a basis to withhold under the unreasonably withheld standard?

Yes, if they're saying that they're using the same rental qualifications.

Or not just qualifications, but also standards. Because it's one thing to have a, I qualify you as a renter X, Y, and Z, but also the terms and how it's applied if they're saying no short-term rental in their own lease.

That would be my understanding.

I was just going to, can I add a question? Short-term rentals don't have a legal framework in the city of Rockville, so it shouldn't be allowed. Isn't that correct? To Councilman Van Graak's point.

Well, if we're doing the code, I want to make sure that that's something that is protected. But if we're saying that the lease can withhold it, I guess I don't want a situation where we're forcing someone in to be able to have their tenant sublease on short-term rental or transient occupancy.

Mr. Mihalik? Or you maybe want to phone an attorney?

I mean, there is no short-term rental framework in the city. So they are patently illegal. I don't know if it helps us to add the language, but I also understand the concern. But my bigger concern, and I'm just curious if others here at the dais or even Council Member Van Grank have a concern, being as consistent as we can with current case law is what we've really strived with this code. So making modifications would make them a little nervous, but we can certainly consider it.

Why don't we just say this? If we end up making, let's maybe flag this area, if we end up making any future laws related to that, we'll work to be able to potential flag this and address it as a potential sublease issue. That makes a ton of sense to me.

Does that work?

Yes, sir. Okay, all right. That addresses the concern. As long as we're flagging it and we can come back to it if we ever address it in another way, that addresses my concern.

Thank you. Dr. Miles. Just checking. Dr. Miles, let's see if you have anything. It's your turn. If you don't, it's okay.

No, I'm good. I thank the staff for answering questions in advance. I have nothing to add at this time.

Okay, thank you. Council Member Fulton was talking about some of the specifics of the rental license process, and I know we tabled the discussion, but just wanted to get back to that. Council Member Fulton.

Thank you. Hopefully I can be crisp in this. What I'd like to propose and see what my colleagues think responsive to we want to collect as much information as possible is in Section 18-195 on page 53. Keep all of the existing enumerated collections. So we would keep the distribution of units. We would keep the vacancy rates. We would keep the rent charge for each unit. So we would keep all of it. And we would add any offers that were not accepted for Council Member Schall's good point. We would add any rental increase that occurred between lease renewals. That should catch some of the stuff we would have to extrapolate. And add information about evictions that have occurred in that unit or others. If we do that, we've collected all of the information we currently collect, plus more, at a time when it's got teeth and it can be standard. So to my colleagues, does that work? Or any questions on my proposal? Or can you tell me what you all think?

Listening to the body, I know that Council Member Shaw has a preference for something different, so I want to respect and acknowledge that.

But from the rest of the body I was hearing that captures it, but let's just double check Okay Councilmember Shaw So I do agree with the portal idea as I shared before also including the offers But I was just I agree with adding that but I was just concerned about taking away 18-194 Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying.

Excellent.

Council Member Valeri.

Last thing, I promise. In... Section 18-195. Actually, I want to make sure I have it correct. Yeah, it's the page 35 of 35 in the red line version. Under Section B, the each landlord must maintain records, et cetera. I think that, obviously, this is in no way questioning Mr. Mihalik on this, but I think that to codify that the city manager, in coordination with the director of HCD, working together, that the information is relevant and necessary to carry out the purposes of this article, to me, makes sense. It is kind of a shared responsibility, and the director of HCD is very close to the staff working on this, and then, in that same section B, number three, if we're going to have an enumerated list of certain amenities, I would add in gym and or fitness facility. I feel like a lot of multi-family buildings do have a weight or gym equivalent, so to include that there as well. And Yes, that is my last actual edit. And I think an overarching comment, no matter where things end up, I think it's always helpful to have a series of community education webinars. They can be recorded just as a way to outline, level set, all these new processes and rights and what's coming up on the horizon. And as much as we can get kind of in front of things to keep people up to speed, there's going to be a lot of new avenues. So, I'm very excited about this, but just wanted to flag that.

thank you i have two last comments one is not necessarily something to be solved today but just an observation given some of the i sent this question to staff but um i just note that we haven't specifically noted in this draft that short-term leases short-term rentals are not allowed and there are i just want to acknowledge there are at least 150 in rockville And it appears that there are real estate companies buying up properties, particularly in East Rockville, and marketing them, which is taking them off the rental market, taking them off of the homeownership opportunities. So I do think this is something that we may need to revisit in the future to see how extensive the problem is to decide whether we want to put a policy proposal to it. I know we don't address it here, but I just wanted to raise the issue because it does have an impact on long-term rental opportunities. My last comment or question is for, we know that at least two different large non-profits who need to seriously upgrade their properties and they're planning to move tenants from one unit to another, renovate the units and then move them back. And I just want to clarify how our relocation program works in these. There's one senior housing facility that may be doing this and there's one that is for low income. So I just wanted to make sure we're thinking through those issues because the tenants say, I'm not going to participate in this. You have to send me to a hotel or send me to outside of this property. How does that work? We do want to incentivize and encourage these nonprofits to upgrade their properties. It's needed desperately, but I just want to make sure we're not creating any issues that are going to keep that property, those properties in the,

a situation that we don't want to see in terms of quality housing sure so in that situation um if they are able to do a lease transfer then there's no requirement for permanent relocation assistance and the landlord would also have the option if they don't think that it's going to be possible to do a lease transfer to wait to the end of the tenant's lease term and then to not renew that lease

Mike, from your perspective, this will not be an issue?

No, we don't anticipate that to be an issue.

Okay, because we definitely want to see these properties get renovated.

We do as well.

I think everyone in this room does. Very much so. Okay. All right. I want to suggest, I see, I'm looking, I'm not seeing any additional hands, but do you need us to take a break? Would you like to come back with this? Just want to see what you all as staff want to do.

So, I think we received when you guys pull that's always extremely helpful. So we know those areas where you wanted specific edits that you pulled that will come up with some language. I saw Jane taking some diligent notes, but to make sure that. Staff is consistent with the city attorney's office. I think it would be good because what we would recommend mayor if it's okay is to come back and just see if there is an appetite. to move forward tonight, and then if so, we throw up some recommended motions tonight with some edits that we heard. So you guys could vote on those one by one and make sure everybody knows exactly what we're approving tonight, if that's what you choose to do. But I don't think we need more than 15 minutes or so, 20 minutes? 20 minutes, if that works for everybody.

Councilman Van Graak.

I was going to say, presuming the city attorney staff are okay with it, I'd still like to propose that amendment of removing of the published not more than once a month in 18-148 to the extent.

Yes, that was on the list. Thank you for flagging it.

It's on there.

Okay.

Yep.

If that works, Mayor, that works for us.

Okay, so you need 20 minutes.

20 minutes. And I'll come get you guys when we're ready if that works for you guys.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

So the listening public will take a brief break for about 20 minutes and come back. Thank you. Good evening Rockville, welcome back. We are reconvening meeting 18-26 and today is still July 6, 2026. We are moving forward with the conclusion of our action item related to potential adoption of an ordinance to amend Chapter 18 of the Rockville City Code entitled Rental Facilities and Landlord-Tenant Relations. We had a robust discussion on what is being proposed over a number of work sessions. And we had some final tweaks that staff worked on during the break. And I'm going to turn it back to Jane Lyons-Rader to give an overview.

Great. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So here we have the introduction and suggested motions. And with the move to adopt, that would be with an effective date of January 1, 2027, with the following amendments. So first, we have an amendment to Section 18-195D, and that's adding back in that language about the Director of Housing and Community Development providing a report to the city manager. In the current code, I believe it was quarterly, but adding back in that language, we would amend quarterly to annual. Amendment 2 is Section 18-195B3, And this is just adding in with that list of different amenities that we can ask the landlord to provide information on whether they have. Right before a swimming pool, we've added in gym or fitness facility. Amendment 3, Section 18-195A10. With this, we have added in And this is the information that the list of mandatory data reporting that all landlords must do. This is the list of individual unit information. And so with that, we have added any offers of rent increases, whether accepted or not, between lease renewals. Any rental increases between lease renewals. any evictions which have occurred. So that is the new language that has been added to that list. Amendment number 4, 1880D, the landlord must disclose over the previous three years rent increases for the dwelling unit and the length of lease terms and average year-over-year rent increases for all dwelling units within a rental facility. And that is that prior to lease signing, the landlord must disclose that information. And then Amendment 5, 18149A, this is changing. A landlord must provide a tenant the tenant's entire rental payment history. Right now, the draft ordinance says seven business days. We have changed this to 14 days of the tenant's written request.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, do you have any questions about this? Council Member Fulton. Sorry, I do have one question.

It may be fine. In the Amendment 3, we talk about offers of rent increases, whether accepted or not, between lease renewals. Is it license renewals? Because I meant to make sure we're capturing everything between when we captured it last time at the first license and then when we capture it again. Do we mean lease or do we mean license?

Any offers of rent increases, whether accepted or not, between... I believe, I do see what you're saying. I believe it should be license renewals then. I think it should be license.

It's in two places there. Any rental increase between license renewals and offers between license renewals. Cool.

Yes, I'm not able to live edit the slideshow that you're seeing, but we will capture that. I'll say it on the fly when I read it.

Oh, you're excellent. And I just want to acknowledge that we had a discussion about a potential amendment on algorithmic pricing staff has requested additional time. So we'll potentially move forward with that. And then staff will come back comes from event crack.

Well, I mean, and I understand what staff's saying coming back, but since we're looking to pass it now, and every single algorithmic pricing that I saw passed that had passed muster did not have the clause, unless there's a reason that I understand behind it, I'd still ask for it just to be removed because I don't understand why we're having that time period there when it covers everything.

I have a strong desire to pass this and to get it right. I do hear my colleague. I just do have concern that staff is asking us for time. Mr. Mihalik.

I think we're going to be okay. I think we're going to be okay.

Colleagues, what do you think? Councilman Fulton. Go ahead.

I think in either case so there's a just make sure I understand right there is a question over whether this clause is appropriate or not and either it's six and one half dozen of another we either pass it with it in and we change it if we need to or we pass it with it out and then add it if we need to it's if that's if what I just said is true then I'm okay with not adding the amendment as long as we

As long as there's some clarification It's just if the only rationale is the county included it in their proposed law I mean that and if that remains the only justification I don't see it as valid Especially because everything that I've read in similar languages across the country didn't have it so if the if the only rationale remains just because the county had it, then I'd ask that if we do pass it this way, that it be removed, just because I'm not comfortable with that rationale alone.

I think that's fair, although I want to hear from the attorneys as well, because I do respect the fact that you may need more research, although I would love to get it perfect tonight. I know that it may not be possible. If you could just share your opinion on this.

I'm sorry. I do believe, candidly, that was the only reason, you know, the county put it in. I think we wanted to check with them to see what the rationale was. I agree with Councilmember Fulton. You know, either way we do it, we can either amend it one way and add it or take it out. So whatever is the pleasure of the body tonight, I think we could do. And if there are some valid reason to change it, we would amend it later.

Okay. Do we have a motion? Let's do the introduction first. Council Member Valeri.

Introduced the ordinance amending in City Code chapter 18 rental facilities and landlord-tenant relations Do a motion to move the whale wave of a look period?

Councilmember Jackson, I move to waive delay or period.

Thank you. Do you have a second? Councilman bank rack seconds All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. All right. It is unanimous Do we have a motion to adopt the ordinance I Council Member Bolton.

I move to adopt the ordinance amending City Code Chapter 18, Rental Facilities and Landlord-Tenant Relations with an effective date of January 1st, 2027 with the following amendments. Amendment 1, Section 18-195D, the Director of Housing and Community Development shall provide an annual report to the city manager summarizing the information accumulated from the required reports submitted by each landlord of licensed rental facilities in the city. Certain data points collected under Section 18-195A will be made available online and by request. Amendment 2, Section 18-195B3, the availability of certain amenities, including air conditioning, wall-to-wall carpeting, dishwasher, garbage disposal, washer-dryer in apartment unit or on site, patio, balcony, gym or fitness facility, swimming pool, and tennis courts. Amendment 3, Section 18-195 , individual unit information, including unit number, number of bedrooms, square footage, current or, in the case of vacant units, most recent monthly rent, any offers of rent increases, whether accepted or not, between license renewals, any rental increases between license renewals, any evictions which have occurred, and whether or not the unit has any restrictions on its rent increases. Amendment number four, section 18-180D, landlord must disclose over the previous three years, one, rent increases for the dwelling unit and length of lease terms, and two, average year-over-year rent increases for all dwelling units within a rental facility. Amendment five, section 18-149A, a landlord must provide a tenant the tenant's entire rental payment history within 14 days of the tenant's written request.

Council Member Valeri. I second. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Excellent. Wow team, thank you so much. We've kept the housing team very busy and we appreciate you. There's a lot in here and we'll see how it all goes and I just would like to say if you're hearing issues, please raise with the city manager so that we can address policy considerations. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. We'll now move on to mock agenda. We had a leadership plan team meeting this morning. It will be posted online. And we went through six month planning calendar. So I'm gonna assume we're good here. Old new business. I have just quick announcements. We're very proud in Rockville to be hosting the US Adaptive Open. It is at Woodmont. There are many people with eight different categories of disabilities and top athletes all across the country. Over 90 athletes from over 30 states and nine countries are competing in Rockville this week. So it just really shows we can all do anything. And I just appreciate the spirit of these athletes and what they're bringing to the table. Very inspiring. Feel free to check it out. I think it's going to be covered on Wednesday live as well. And I also want to acknowledge Peace Day in a world where there's so much hate, we need peace. And we're gathering together with the J.T. Stepanek Foundation, at world to be here on july 11th from two to five and wanted to support that and i think that's all i have i won't talk about the world cup tonight all right do we have a motion to adjourn councilman valeri do you have a second no one wants to leave councilman jackson seconds all those in favor please raise your hand and say aye aye excellent thank you all have a good night next week