SB1567

Covered cities may not limit how many people occupy a dwelling based on age, family status, occupation, relationship status or whether occupants are related by blood or marriage, subject to the act’s size-based rule and preserved health-and-safety authority. A city may impose a limit no more restrictive than one occupant in a sleeping room of at least 70 square feet, plus one additional occupant for each additional 50 square feet in that room. This is not permission for unlimited occupancy. The act preserves occupancy limits based on health-and-safety standards in specified building codes, fire codes, Department of State Health Services standards and affordable-housing program guidelines. Final law; Residential building-code framework; Commercial building-code framework.

The rule covers houses, apartment units and units in multiunit residential structures; it excludes units in hotels, motels and other establishments where more than half the units are intended for transient accommodation. Covered cities may not require a broker, agent or other third-party fiduciary to provide a lease or related document to determine unrelated occupancy for enforcement. The act does not prohibit owners from enforcing association rules, deed restrictions or other private agreements. It limits municipal power, not every private restriction on roommates. Final law.

An adversely affected or aggrieved property owner or resident tenant may sue the municipality or its officers or employees in their official capacities. Suit must be brought in a county containing all or part of the property. Courts may declare the parties’ rights, order an official to comply, or enjoin a violation. A prevailing claimant must receive reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs. The Fifteenth Court of Appeals has exclusive intermediate appellate jurisdiction for appeals or original proceedings arising from these suits. Unlike earlier versions, this section does not list damages as a remedy or retain the earlier express immunity-waiver clause. Final law; Earlier House committee text.

The introduced bill covered all home-rule municipalities. The Senate committee substitute narrowed it to cities with a university campus, added the sleeping-room rule and protected lease documents from the specified review; the Senate-passed and House committee texts retained those provisions. Introduced; Senate substitute; Senate-passed; House committee; Version index.

All four indexed House amendments were adopted and checked against the final law. Vasut’s second-reading amendment replaced the earlier owner-only damages provision with the owner/tenant enforcement, mandatory fees, venue and appeals provisions described above. Schofield’s amendment changed the defined term and proposed an enrollment threshold over 5,500; Tepper’s amendment added the under-250,000 city population limit. Vasut’s third-reading amendment retained that population limit but replaced the enrollment threshold with over 20,000 and added cities adjacent to the qualifying campus. Thus 5,500 is an adopted intermediate proposal, not the enacted threshold. Vasut, second reading; Schofield; Tepper; Vasut, third reading; Amendment dispositions; Final law.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Owners and tenants in qualifying cities may gain room-sharing options and an express way to challenge prohibited municipal restrictions. Those benefits depend on the dwelling, applicable safety standards and private agreements; the act does not guarantee lower rents or establish that any named city meets the population and enrollment tests. Cities must comply with the limits and may face litigation and prevailing-claimant fees. Final law.

The March 16 introduced, March 24 substitute and May 29 passed-second-house fiscal notes anticipate no significant state fiscal impact and assume state costs can be absorbed with existing resources. They flag possible local costs if cities violate the bill, but provide no dollar estimate or multiyear cost table. The May 29 note still refers to damages even though the final civil-action section replaced the earlier damages language; that fiscal wording is not proof the final act awards damages. Final-text fee and court-cost exposure remains. The act makes no appropriation and supplies no estimate of household savings. Introduced fiscal note; Substitute fiscal note; Passed-second-house note; Final-index fiscal note; Final law.