Subject
title
Chapter 18 Update (Rental Facilities and Landlord-Tenant Relations)
end
Department
Housing and Community Development
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the Mayor and Council receive the presentation, discuss, and provide direction on updates to City Code Chapter 18, Rental Facilities and Landlord-Tenant Relations. The feedback received from the Mayor and Council will guide future work sessions and staff’s draft of the updated code.
The following feedback is requested from the Mayor and Council to guide next steps. Do you agree with staff’s recommendations for:
1. Alterations to the current code?
2. New policies to be added? These policies include Algorithmic Rent Pricing Ban, Court Costs and Legal Fees, Fee Transparency and Restrictions, Guarantor Requirements, and Repair and Deduct.
Discussion
PURPOSE
The purpose of this work session is to provide the Mayor and Council with an overview of the changes to City Code Chapter 18, Rental Facilities and Landlord-Tenant Relations under consideration by staff. Changes include minor alterations to the current code as well as significant, new city policies. This is the first of two work sessions on Chapter 18. Following the two work sessions, staff will present a draft of the rewritten code, based on Mayor and Council’s feedback, for review and approval.
BACKGROUND
In Fall 2024, a comprehensive rewrite of Chapter 18 was identified as a key action in the city’s Housing Strategies Work Plan. Research and engagement for the rewrite commenced in Spring 2025. The goals for the rewrite are as follows:
• Provide clarity on existing code elements.
• Consider alignment with surrounding jurisdictions’ codes.
• Improve housing stability and opportunities for tenant agency.
• Require greater transparency for tenants.
• Ensure alignment with the state of Maryland law.
• Review local and national best practices.
• Better connect data collection and city goals.
Staff have approached this project by grouping updates into two buckets: 1) alterations to current code and 2) new policies. As such, the following staff report is organized by that manner.
ALTERATIONS TO CURRENT CODE
Staff recommend the following changes to the current code. A copy of the chapter with alterations denoted will be available for full review following the two currently scheduled work sessions. Those changes that are found to be more significant are shared now for feedback and discussion.
1. Definitions: Update definitions to improve clarity and be aligned with the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite.
2. Purposes and Policies: Enhance purposes and policies in alignment with the established goals of the code rewrite. For example, staff propose adding “To improve housing stability and opportunities for tenant agency” to the underlying purposes and policies of the chapter.
3. General Clarifications: Add general clarifications to language and processes, including to the Landlord-Tenant Affairs Commission’s processes. For example, clarifying what constitutes as a quorum and adding a Vice Chair position for instances when the Chair is unavailable. Staff find that these and other adjustments would improve the functions of the commission.
4. Two-Year Lease Terms: Require a landlord to offer tenants a two-year lease term, rather than one year as it is currently. The option of a two-year lease term would provide additional security for tenants because they would be able to lock-in rental rates and lease terms for a longer time period. This practice would be in alignment with Montgomery County.
5. Early Lease Terminations: Add permissible reasons for the tenant to terminate the lease early, with proper notice. This is currently allowed in instances of involuntary change of employment from the Washington metropolitan area. Staff recommend new reasons as follows:
a. Domestic violence;
b. The unit being deemed unable to be occupied for a certain number of days;
c. The landlord’s rental license is revoked for reasons related to the tenant’s unit; and
d. The landlord failing to make certain repairs required to correct a violation of applicable law that affects the health and safety of the tenant.
Similarly to involuntary change of employment, these are reasons outside the control of the tenant that may precipitate a desire to terminate a lease early.
6. Lease Review and Receipt:
a. Require landlords to provide prospective tenants with a copy of their proposed lease at least two (2) days prior to the day of its execution, unless the prospective tenant requests a shorter time. This will allow tenants time to review the lease and its contents before committing to its terms. In some instances, the first time the tenants sees the proposed lease may be at the time of signing, when there is pressure to execute the contract as quickly as possible.
b. Reduce the amount of time the landlord must provide the tenant with an executed copy of the lease from 10 days of its execution to three (3) business days, so that tenants may be assured of their upcoming living situation as soon as reasonably possible.
7. Renewal Letter: Require the rental amount included in the approved renewal offer letter to match the rental amount listed on the renewed lease. Staff have encountered several instances where this is not the case, and providing this clarification in code will allow for easier enforcement.
8. Tenant Organizing:
a. Clarify that tenants may form, join, meet, or assist one another independently of property management or ownership. This is to further protect tenants’ independence.
b. Prohibit landlords from charging tenant organizations fees for the use of meeting rooms or common areas. This is to support tenant organizations that may not have the funds to rent meeting spaces.
c. Allow tenants and tenant organizations to invite guests, including non-resident organizations, onto the premises to conduct activities related to the tenants’ concerted activities, unless an individual has been otherwise prohibited from the property. The purpose of this addition would be to ensure that organizations that assist tenants or tenant organizing activities are allowed on the property to provide support.
9. Non-Electronic Payments: Require landlords to offer a method for tenants to make payments via non-electronic or web-based methods without being charged any additional fees. Some residents may not have access to the internet and should not be penalized as such.
10. Rental Payment History: Tenants shall be able to request and receive their entire rental payment history. Staff have encountered instances where this is not provided by the landlord.
11. Notice Requirements: For all notices required by law, the landlord must provide the notice to the tenant in a hardcopy, written format rather than provided exclusively electronically. Not all tenants have regular access to the internet and may miss certain notices if not provided physically rather than digitally.
12. Rental Inspection Frequency: Remove the requirement to inspect single-family dwellings when the tenant changes because these properties are already inspected during rental license renewal every two years.
13. Data Collection, Reporting, and Posting Requirements: Changes as discussed during the June 16, 2025 Mayor and Council work session on data collection, reporting, and posting requirements:
a. Lease Collection: Require landlords to submit standard leases, but not individual leases for each tenancy, to the city. These will be collected at the time of rental license renewal.
b. Applicability: Apply mandatory reporting requirements to all apartment complexes which contain eight or more units. There would be no more exemption for complexes owned by non-profits.
c. Notice of Requirements of Rent Increases: Remove the requirement for landlords to provide the Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) with rent increase information for individual units. The department would be able to receive the information necessary to monitor general rent increase trends by collecting other data. Landlords would still be required to provide rent increase notice and information to the applicable tenant, even if they are not reporting it to DHCD.
d. Mandatory Reporting Requirements: Alter the mandatory reporting requirements to include the data listed below.
i. A copy of the standard lease;
ii. Information of the owner of the property, including the entity’s name, mailing address, office address (if applicable), and phone number;
iii. The location of the rental facility;
iv. The type of structure;
v. The year the structure was built;
vi. The total number of units in the structure;
vii. The availability of amenities;
viii. The utilities included in rent;
ix. A schedule of possible fees charged in addition to monthly rent charges;
x. Individual unit information, including unit number, number of bedrooms, square footage, current or in the case of vacant units most recent monthly rent, and whether or not the unit has any restrictions on its rent increases.
e. Reporting Frequency: Change the reporting frequency from monthly to annual at the time of rental license renewal and collect the data through the regular rental license process.
f. Record Holding Requirement: Allow the DHCD to request records on the landlord’s actual monthly utility costs including gas, electric, heating, fuel, trash removal, water and sewer, and any other expense which is passed onto tenants in the form of a one-time or recurring fee. This allows the department to check whether tenants are being overcharged.
NEW POLICIES
Below are only some of the new policies that staff recommend incorporating into Chapter 18. Additional new policies will be presented at the second work session. These are anticipated to include: Background Check Restrictions, Relocation Assistance, and Requirements for Properties with Many Code Violations.
Algorithmic Rent Pricing Ban
Background
Rental pricing algorithms use extensive market data to predict and recommend rents that will maximize profit. While this may increase efficiency in the rental market, some argue that this can also facilitate price coordination and erode market competition. The most prevalent algorithmic rent pricing software is distributed by the company RealPage, whose clients comprise nearly 90% of the U.S. market for multifamily rental housing with 50 units or more. The White House Council of Economic Advisors estimates that one in four multifamily housing providers use a RealPage pricing algorithm.
In 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), with eight State Attorneys General, filed an antitrust lawsuit against RealPage for its alleged monopolization of the market for software that landlords use to price apartments and for thus decreasing competition among landlords. This was supported by research from the White House detailing the impact of rental housing price algorithms on the cost of rent, finding that they add an average of $70 per month to the cost of rent, though the estimate is much higher at $112 per month in Washington, D.C. metro area. This came after an initial lawsuit from the District of Columbia attorney general in 2023 and was followed by several other lawsuits from state attorney generals and private renters against RealPage and property management companies who use algorithmic price setting software.
Eight multi-family properties in the City of Rockville have been identified as being managed by companies named in the U.S. DOJ lawsuit. Together, this represents nearly 2,000 market-rate apartments in Rockville - meaning there are nearly 2,000 families who may be paying higher rents than needed due to this sharing of non-public competitor data and algorithms that have an unfair impact on renters.
Many of the lawsuits have begun to settle. As of October 2025, 27 property management companies submitted preliminary class action settlements totaling more than $141 million. This does not include the lawsuit from the U.S. DOJ. However, in August 2025, the U.S. Justice Department “filed a proposed settlement to resolve claims against apartment manager Greystar,” which would, among other conditions, require the company to “refrain from using any anticompetitive algorithm that generates pricing recommendations using its competitors’ data.”
These lawsuits jumpstarted a national conversation. In response, the states of New York and California and eleven cities have banned algorithmic rent pricing. More legislation is under consideration throughout the country, including the Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act, introduced to the U.S. Senate by Senate Amy Klobuchar in February 2025.
Enacting similar legislation was brought up by the Mayor and Council as a possible topic for the Chapter 18 rewrite at previous meetings. Additionally, in the 2025 legislative session of the Maryland General Assembly, the Mayor and Council of Rockville testified in support of Senate Bill 609, which would have which would have prohibited a landlord from using certain algorithmic software that leverages non-public competitor data to set residential rents. Neither SB 609 nor the House version made it past committee.
RealPage sued Berkeley, California in response to the city’s ban on algorithmic rent pricing technology on grounds that it violates First Amendment free speech rights. Berkeley’s ordinance went further than other similar ordinances “by banning any rent-setting algorithm regardless of whether it uses nonpublic information like competitors’ rates.” The ban was scheduled to go into effect in April 2025 but was postponed until March 2026 due to the pending litigation, which has also since been paused by the court.
Recommendation
Given the unsure outcomes of the various lawsuits against algorithmic rent pricing, staff recommends moving forward an ordinance to ban the practice in the City of Rockville, in alignment with best practices from other jurisdictions. Below are points for consideration when crafting an ordinance to ban algorithmic rent pricing.
• Be broad enough to cover not just the use of algorithmic devices, but also noncompetitive rent pricing agreements in general.
• Algorithmic devices should be defined as one that uses non-public competitor data. Non-public competitor data is defined by Minneapolis and Philadelphia as “information that is not available to the general public, including information about actual rent prices, occupancy rates, lease start and end dates, and similar data, regardless of whether the information is attributable to a specific competitor or anonymized and regardless of whether it is derived from or otherwise provided by another person that competes in the same market or a related market.”
• Address not only price collusion on rental rates, but also price collusion on fees or any other rental term for residential units.
• Ensure to exempt owners of multiple properties for actions related exclusively to multiple properties controlled by the same rental property owner.
• Craft the language in such a way that the city’s planned data reporting on rental increase rates would not be in violation of such an ordinance.
Court Costs and Legal Fees
Background
In Maryland landlord-tenant cases, court costs include filing and service fees, while legal fees are for attorneys. The cost varies: filing fees for a Failure to Pay Rent case are $50 to $60 (depending on the county), and a Warrant of Restitution costs around $40. Legal fees are separate and depend on the complexity of the case, potentially ranging from a few hundred to over a thousand dollars. Court costs and fees are set at the state level and are intended to be uniform throughout the state for a given type of case. Maryland counties or municipalities cannot regulate court costs.
A landlord may be able to recover court costs from the tenant if the court rules in their favor, but only if the lease allows it and the total amount cannot exceed the security deposit. To stop an eviction, a tenant must pay the judgment amount, court costs, and any Warrant of Restitution fees by cash, certified check, or money order before the eviction begins.
Recommendation
Staff recommends prohibiting residential leases from requiring a tenant to pay legal costs or attorney’s fees other than those awarded by a court. In addition, any lease that requires a tenant to pay legal fees must:
• specify that the attorney’s fees are not part of the tenant’s rent and need not be paid to redeem the property in a failure to pay rent action; and
• obligate the landlord to pay the tenant’s attorney’s fees if the tenant is the prevailing party in a legal action and the court awards legal fees.
This is modeled after Montgomery County’s lease prohibition on court cost and legal fees.
Fee Transparency and Restrictions
Background
In addition to the monthly rent and utility payments, many landlords charge other fees that can drive up the cost of living for tenants. Sometimes, fees are undisclosed, unpredictable, and arbitrary. Such fees are commonly referred to as “junk fees” and can increase overall monthly payments above what some households can afford. For example, a sample of rental ledgers by the Urban Institute found that non-rent fees added 10 to 30 percent to renters’ total monthly costs.
In the past several years, states and localities across the country have sought to ban or significantly restrict junk fees. Jurisdictions have also placed limits on common fees, such as security deposits and application fees. For example, Maryland recently set maximums for both types of fees at one month’s rent and $25, respectively.
Recommendations: Fee Transparency
Staff recommend requiring landlords to disclose all fees to tenants when advertising rental units and at the time of lease signing, as well as including mandatory fees in the lease agreement.
• In Advertising: Require landlords to disclose all mandatory fees whenever a price is advertised or displayed, including online, as well as whether utilities are included in the monthly rental payment. Monthly mandatory fees may be included in or stated with the monthly rental rate. If mandatory fees are due at a different time from the rent, the amount of the fee and the time at which it is due must be separately stated.
• Prior to Lease Signing and At Lease Renewal: Require landlords to fully disclose all fees prior to the lease agreement being certified by both parties and at the time of lease renewal. This may include disclosure at the time of lease signing. The disclosure should include whether the fee is mandatory or optional, the basis for the fee, the amount, and the frequency at which the fee must be paid. Additionally, the landlord should disclose estimated utility costs.
• In Lease Agreement: Require residential lease agreements, including lease renewals, to define mandatory fees and note the total monthly charge including rent and any mandatory fees. Landlord must also clearly state which utilities the tenant is responsible for, if utility payments are not included in the monthly rent payment.
Furthermore, staff recommend that if a landlord violates fee transparency requirements, the tenant may recover up to three times the amount of any fees charged to the tenant in violation of the code, plus reasonable attorney’s fees, as well as that any action related to fee transparency may be brought at any time during the tenancy, beginning upon the effective date of the new ordinance, or within two years after the tenancy’s termination.
Recommendations: Fee Restrictions
Fees are a policy area where general alignment between the county and city may be easiest for landlords’ compliance. As such, staff recommend adopting a similar practice to the county of prescribing what types of fees are allowed to be charged rather than establishing general parameters, while still allowing fees for services opted into by the tenant. This includes fees for rental applications, late payments, pets, lost keys, lock outs, secure storage units, internet or cable television, motor vehicle or motorcycle parking, and bicycle parking. Establishing what fees are allowed provides for more straightforward compliance for landlords and staff and would also be easier for tenants to interpret. Staff recommend that this requirement apply to all rental units.
However, staff do not recommend setting maximum fees that must be adjusted annually based on inflation, as the county does. This practice is necessary for the county to prevent landlords for circumventing their rent stabilization ordinance. Since Rockville does not have a rent stabilization ordinance, this would not be of a concern, although staff do suggest adopting some general cost parameters for fees, as described in more detail below.
Table 1 describes staff’s full set of recommendations for what fees should be permitted. As stated, much of this is in alignment with Montgomery County’s regulations but also incorporates national best practices.
Table 1. Recommendations on Permitted Fees
|
Type of Fee |
Fee Details |
|
Application fee |
May initially charge more than $25, but any amount above $25 or the actual documented cost of credit check and other screening costs must be refunded to the tenant within 15 days of either: 1) the tenant moving into the unit or 2) the landlord or the applicant gives written notice that the applicant will not rent the unit. Allow for prospective tenants to provide their own portable screening report and to allow portable application fees that can be used to cover multiple applications. |
|
Bicycle parking fee |
Permitted for tenants who have opted into use of parking facilities. Cannot exceed one-sixth of any motor parking fee for a secure, fully enclosed bicycle locker or one-tenth and motor parking fee for any other bicycle parking space. |
|
Common ownership community penalties |
May pass on the penalty cost if the tenant is found in violation of the bylaws of a common ownership community, provided that the rental unit is located in a common ownership community. |
|
Internet, technology, cable television |
May charge the actual cost to the landlord, divided by the number of rental units voluntarily opting in, without any additional fees. Cannot be mandatory and cannot include any common area services. |
|
Lost key fee |
May charge the actual cost to the landlord, plus $25. |
|
Lock out fee |
If a third party is used, charge may not exceed the actual charge for the service. |
|
Motor vehicle or motorcycle parking fee |
Permitted for tenants who have opted into use of parking facilities. |
|
Optional fees |
May charge reasonable fees for other services after a tenant affirmatively opts in via written, informed consent after receiving a disclosure containing: 1) a description of the service or amenity, 2) the amount of the fee for the service or amenity, and 3) how the tenant can cancel or opt out of the service or amenity. An optional service does not include a service required to ensure unit access, maintenance, or lease compliance. |
|
Pet fee |
May charge a refundable deposit, held in escrow by the landlord, and non-refundable monthly fee. |
|
Secure storage fee |
No fee for storage located within, attached to, or associated with a unit. |
Other general provisions related to fees should include the following:
• Landlords may not charge fees for services and amenities previously included in the rent for the rental unit or provided to current or prior tenants at no cost.
• Landlords may not charge fee for services or amenities related to “the performance of any repairs, maintenance tasks or other work for which the landlord has a duty to perform to maintain the habitability of the dwelling unit.”
• If a landlord neglects to charge a tenant a fee, the landlord may not back-charge for that fee.
• Any tenant money not used to pay a rental fee or found to be more than what is owed must be refunded to the tenant.
• Fees may only be increased at the time of lease renewal and a 90-day notice must be provided ahead of time.
• In addition to stating that only the above fees may be charged, also clarify that the landlord may not charge any administrative or processing fees for utilities, including for trash.
• Landlords must provide a way for tenants to pay rent that 1) does not have additional fees and 2) does not require access to the internet.
Note that the above allowed fees would not preclude a landlord from collecting late fees or requiring tenants to purchase renters insurance. Maryland caps late rent penalties at 5 percent, with weekly leases capped at $3 per week with a $12 per month maximum. Recent state law no longer allows landlords to charge late payment penalties based on the full rent amount. Landlords must now calculate late fees only on the unpaid portion of the rent. Because of Maryland’s strong state-level protections for late fees, staff do not recommend taking further policy action.
Guarantor Requirements
Background
A guarantor is a person or company who agrees to take on financial responsibility for a tenant's rental payments if the tenant is unable to pay. Landlords may require prospective tenants to have guarantor if the applicant is determined to be at-risk of not paying rent. A landlord may accept an additional fee in place of a guarantor, which ranges depending on the landlord and situation. Tenants typically will pay the fee themselves or pay a company to act as a guarantor.
Guarantors provide housing opportunities to tenants who may otherwise be rejected from an apartment. However, the practice can also place low-income tenants in a difficult position when looking for a home. In addition to a security deposit, the fee from a guarantor company can cost anywhere from four to ten percent of the annual rent. For a $2,000 per month apartment, the guarantor fee could be as much as $2,400.
There are no localities that have placed restrictions on when a guarantor is required.
Recommendation
Staff would like to balance the financial risk of landlords while curbing potentially predatory behavior against low-income tenants. As such, staff recommend only allowing landlords to require a guarantor when the tenant has indicated financial risk due to insufficient income, a low or nonexistent credit history, unstable employment, or having no rental history. If a guarantor is required by the landlord for one of these reasons, the landlord must provide the prospective tenant with the reason in writing, as well as information about how to file a complaint with the city’s Landlord-Tenant Affairs Commission, should the prospective tenant disagree with the landlord’s finding of financial risk.
Repair and Deduct
Background
In cases where landlords are not responsive and efficient at making repairs, tenants have a few courses of action to hold landlords accountable. One is to file for rent escrow, which while a valid recourse can take time to go through the full court process. If the tenant’s maintenance issue makes day-to-day life difficult, then any kind of delay can be untenable. Another option currently available to tenants is to file a complaint with the city’s code enforcement division.
Increasingly popular in some jurisdictions is to offer a “repair and deduct” option to tenants. With a repair and deduct policy, if a landlord fails to make a repair within a reasonable amount of time, then the tenant (or potentially an acting agent) can make the repair at their own cost and then deduct the cost of repairs from the rent.
Many of the repair and deduct laws require that the tenant not only give the landlord the appropriate amount of time to make the repairs, but also that a formal inspection be conducted for the local governing body to provide a reasonable timeframe for the repairs-depending on the scope. In Montgomery County the standard is 24-48 hours for life-threatening repairs and can vary from 15-30 days for all other repairs. California was among the first to put forth a law regarding repair and deduct and this provision has been replicated by many jurisdictions since. Under that code the tenant may only deduct after the reasonable amount of time has been given and they can only deduct up to one month of rent. Alternatively, the tenant can immediately opt to cancel their lease after this grace period expires. However, the provision of repair and deduct can only be used twice per year.
Virginia law furthers this law in addressing specifically pest issues as an extension of the repair and deduct scope. Of note, tenants are not allowed to do the work themselves but expected to go through a licensed third -party contractor. It does not have to be a contractor approved by the landlord so long as the contractor is licensed through the state or local authority. Montgomery County’s repair and deduct law also includes the caveat that if the landlord has received two or more violations of the same variety in a 12-month period, then the landlord has only 48 hours to correct the violation. However, all jurisdictions that have implemented repair and deduct laws mandate that the lowest possible cost must be sought and that only a maximum of one month of rent can be deducted.
Recommendation
Staff recommends modeling a repair and deduct policy off Montgomery County law. However, staff recommends raising the maximum allowable deduction to two months of rent in instances where a larger repair might be required. With the average rent in Rockville being over $2,000, this could be expected to cover repairs over $4,000, although would depend on the rent of the tenant.
Mayor and Council History
Housing is one of the Mayor and Council’s five focus areas. In June 2024, a high-level briefing was presented outlining the city’s housing crisis and policy landscape. Later in 2024, there were three work sessions on the city’s housing strategies, during which updating City Code Chapter 18, Rental Facilities and Landlord-Tenant Relations was approved by the Mayor and Council as one of the strategies.
An initial work session specifically related to transparency was held on June 16, 2025. During that work session, staff presented preliminary recommendations on data collection and reporting requirements, lease requirements, and other posting requirements. Mayor and Council feedback was incorporated into this work session.
A work session on rental licensing inspections was held on November 10, 2025. Staff recommended enhancements to the program that will be codified in the updated chapter.
Public Notification and Engagement
Staff hosted two virtual input meetings - one with landlords on May 20, 2025 and one with tenants on May 27, 2025. During these meetings, participants received a presentation about the landlord-tenant code update project, answered polling questions, and participated in breakout rooms where staff members facilitated discussion with preset questions. Additionally, staff held interviews with and received feedback from stakeholder organizations.
Since the spring, staff have also solicited feedback through the project’s Engage Rockville webpage. The webpage includes project information, a survey, comment form, and question portal. An email sharing information about the December 8, 2025 Mayor and Council work session on the landlord-tenant code rewrite was sent out on November 24, 2025 to those who had registered to receive updates about the project.
Feedback from meetings, interviews, emails, and the Engage Rockville tools has been thoroughly reviewed and taken into consideration in forming staff’s recommendations for the Chapter 18 rewrite. Below is a summary of the feedback received:
Tenant concerns primarily included:
• Rising rents.
• New fees, including but not limited to technology, amenity, application, hold, court, eviction, and month-to-month fees.
• Discrepancies between the city and county can be confusing and result in fewer protections for tenants.
• Lack of information, including but not limited to rental license status, code infractions, landlord contact information, and past rent increases.
• Desire for a relocation assistance policy, but recognition that the county’s policy has had implementation challenges.
• Neglected or untimely maintenance.
• Protection against retaliation.
• Lack of an air conditioning requirement.
Landlord concerns primarily included:
• Increasing costs, including but not limited to taxes, fees, and HOA/condo payments.
• Length and difficulty of eviction proceedings.
• Difficulty of applying for a rental license, particularly when compared with Montgomery County.
• Responsiveness of city staff and lack of clear points of contact.
• Keeping up with and adhering to code requirements, especially when differentiating between Montgomery County and City of Rockville.
• Confusion around Voluntary Rent Guidelines.
Next Steps
The feedback received from the Mayor and Council will be incorporated into staff’s final recommendations for the comprehensive update to City Code Chapter 18, Rental Facilities and Landlord-Tenant Relations.
The next work session is tentatively scheduled for February 23, 2026. At that work session, staff intend to present research and recommendations on additional new policies and recommendations for programmatic enhancements, such as strategies to increase landlord and tenant education and ways to support tenant outreach and organizing, as well as share suggested reviews of other sections of city code that impact landlords and tenants, such as the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase ordinance.