Tenant raises hot-water, code-enforcement concerns; city says ordinance audit underway

A Bedford tenant told the City Council on March 25 that she has lived for weeks without adequately hot water at the Canopy On Central apartment complex and asked the city to strengthen property‑code protections for renters.

Precious (no last name given), identified during the public‑comment period as a tenant at Canopy On Central, said she first reported inadequate hot water through the city portal on Feb. 3 and that a city inspection on Feb. 27 confirmed water temperatures were “in fact below the required 100 degrees Fahrenheit.” She told the council the problem persisted and that on March 13 a reinspector again confirmed the unit did not meet code. “By this point, I had been living in these conditions for over a month, bathing in water temperatures as low as 68 degrees Fahrenheit,” she said.

Precious asked the council to “consider amending the Bedford property code to raise the minimum required water temperature in apartments to 110 degrees Fahrenheit,” and said neighboring cities — which she named as Hurst, Euless, Dallas and Fort Worth — use that higher standard. She also told the council, “In the state of Texas, the minimum required water temperature to be provided by landlords is 120 degrees Fahrenheit.” Precious said she had difficulty getting timely follow‑up from the city after her first report and that a case record could not be located on one call.

Mayor Dan Kogan thanked the speaker and said, “we will definitely look into it.” The city manager then told the council the city is conducting “a full ordinance audit at the present time,” and that multifamily requirements are part of that review. The city manager did not set a timeline during the meeting for any code changes or follow‑up reports to the council.

The discussion during public comment is distinct from any formal council action. No ordinance or amendment was proposed or voted on at the March 25 meeting; council members and staff responded by saying the matter would be investigated and by noting the broader ordinance audit already under way.

Clarifying details provided at the meeting include the dates the tenant said she first reported the problem (Feb. 3), the date of the first confirmed inspection (Feb. 27), a subsequent reinspection date (March 13), and the temperature the tenant said she experienced (as low as 68°F). The tenant requested a 110°F municipal standard and asserted the state standard is 120°F; the transcript records those claims as the speaker’s statements.

Staff and council members said the city is reviewing property‑code language citywide and checking multifamily requirements as part of the ordinance audit. No formal directive, ordinance amendment, or timetable was recorded on the council floor during the meeting.