Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Tenants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to set minimum winter indoor temperature for rentals; debate over enforcement and penalties
Summary
Representative Austin Foss introduced HB 1496 to define 'reasonable heat' as 68°F from Oct. 1–Apr. 30. The ACLU and tenant advocates supported the bill; members raised concerns about enforcement, building systems, and an amendment proposing an infraction penalty of up to $1,000 that was later withdrawn for further work.
Representative Austin Foss introduced House Bill 1496 to the House Agriculture Committee, asking the panel to add a clear, objective standard to North Dakota landlord‑tenant law by defining "reasonable heat." Foss told the committee the bill would require rental units to maintain a minimum temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit from Oct. 1 to April 30.
Tenant advocates, including Cody Schuler of the ACLU of North Dakota, testified in support, noting that the Department of Housing and Urban Development guidance for public housing has used 68°F as a minimum and that roughly two dozen states have similar statutory or regulatory standards. Schuler urged the committee to consider infrastructure limits and suggested the committee could adopt federal guidance language — including a "design day" temperature — to avoid penalizing landlords when systems are not sized to meet extreme historic lows.
Committee members asked practical questions about enforcement and effects on older housing. Representative Holly, Representative Twite and others queried whether buildings with central heating systems or without unit thermostats would be able to comply and how individual tenant preferences (for cooler temperatures) or landlords’ costs would be handled. Foss said the bill had no enforcement mechanism in its current form and that Representative Dovervich planned to offer an amendment to address penalties.
Representative Bridal offered an amendment to strike ambiguous seasonal language and add a penalty provision making violations an infraction with a fine up to $1,000. The amendment was seconded and prompted extensive committee discussion about scope: several members said the proposed penalty language as drafted would apply to all enumerated landlord duties (electrical, plumbing, cleanliness and other habitability items) and could be overly broad. Lawmakers asked which agency would administer such a penalty, whether existing statutes already give tenants remedies through the civil courts (see century code section 47‑16‑13.6 referenced in committee discussion), and whether tying penalties to security deposits or small‑claims enforcement might be appropriate.
After debate the sponsor and amendment author agreed to withdraw the measure for further consultation and the committee left the bill in committee for additional work. No vote was taken.
