Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegates debate timeline, costs for new apartment air‑conditioning requirement; June 1 start for new construction upheld
Summary
Delegates on March 5 debated and ultimately kept a June 1 implementation date for new-construction apartment air‑conditioning requirements, rejecting amendments that would delay the date or shift utility payment responsibility to landlords.
The House debated House Bill 339, a measure setting perinatal cooling standards and air‑conditioning requirements for residential rental apartments, and rejected amendments that would delay the compliance date or shift utility payment responsibilities.
A sponsor’s amendment sought to move the implementation date for new-construction compliance from June 1 to Oct. 1. The subcommittee chair urged rejection, saying the June 1 date applied only to new construction where permits have not yet been applied for and gave developers adequate time to plan. The sponsor argued the 90‑day lead time could undermine financing and push projects into the red. The amendment failed on a roll call reported as “there being 95 votes in the negative.”
Another floor amendment sought to clarify that tenants, not landlords, would be responsible for air‑conditioning utility costs. The floor rejected that amendment; the subcommittee chair said lease templates already allow allocation of utilities. A third round of questioning focused on whether the bill’s standards would allow low‑efficiency window units, with a delegate warning that such units can sharply increase tenant utility costs. The committee chair replied the bill’s purpose is health and safety—keeping units at 80 degrees measured three feet above the floor—and not to prescribe HVAC efficiency or refrigerant standards.
Why it matters: The bill affects developers, landlords and renters across the state. Delegates repeatedly raised concerns about upfront construction costs, financing timelines for developers, tenant utility burdens, and the absence of explicit energy‑efficiency standards in the text.
What happened: Committee amendments were adopted and the bill was ordered printed for third reading. Multiple floor amendments were considered and defeated; the June 1 date for new construction remained in place. No final third‑reading passage appears in the transcript excerpt.
Key quotes: “June 1 date is for new construction only,” the committee’s subcommittee chair said when urging colleagues to resist the delay. A delegate representing developers warned the short timeframe could “undermine funding” and “put the project in the red.”
Ending: The House sent the bill forward to third reading with the committee’s changes in place. Lawmakers signaled continuing concern about energy efficiency, refrigerant standards and tenant utility costs, issues that may reappear in committee or later floor debate.
