I'm always tempted to jump into these issues because I'm an attorney in this area, but this is really a state-wide issue because of the state law that governs this. Though, now that I think of it, the local ordinance differs from state law. The local ordinance states:
244.270. Liability for utility service payments. No person shall let for rent any dwelling, dwelling unit, or other structure for the purpose of living, sleeping, cooking or eating without first giving to the tenant or lessee, written notice of who the bill payer is for all public utilities to be used by the tenant or lessee. In the absence of a separate utility meter which accurately measures the amount, quantity or extent of electricity, gas or water consumed on the premises leased by the tenants or lessee, the owner or lessor shall contract with the utility for utility services and shall be the bill payer and the customer of record of the utility. Nothing herein shall affect the validity of a written rental agreement, executed on or before the effective date of this section, requiring a tenant to contract directly with a utility for utility services. (Code 1960, As Amend., � 70.010; Ord. of 7-26-74, � 1; 78-Or-244, � 5, 11-22-78; 87-Or-058, � 1, 4-10-87; 87-Or-179, � 1, 10-9-87) State law now allows a landlord to "apportion" single-metered utilities in an "equitable" manner (note: not "equal" as in the case Brandon describes here), but there are some strict prerequisites to doing so and many landlords choose not to try this option because of those prerequisites. In my mind, the landlord lobby made a big mistake when it lobbied to change state law in 1999 to do this, in effect now differing from Minneapolis ordinance and creating more problems and regulations than necessary. Because the state law, however, "does not limit other rights which may be available to the tenant in law or equity" under this section, there's a damn good argument that city ordinance controls and would not allow the situation Brandon describes, with the exception of charging more for the air conditioner if the lease otherwise allows it. As with the law, however, it all depends. With respect to the list, I assume discussion should focus on the local ordinance and, if anyone has specific questions about state law, feel free to e-mail me off-list. Gregory Luce Project 504/Minneapolis (North Phillips) >This raises all sorts of questions concerning codes, health risks (this >summer has been extremely hot), etc. Can anyone comment on the legality of >these provisions? Or perhaps even how these provisions hold up against other >leases? My partner is going to take his lease to the University Legal >Services and have them check it over, but I'd like to get some feedback from >folks here about extra-legal options he may have, for example a fair housing >coalition he could hook up with, etc. > >Thanks in advance. > >-Brandon Lacy Campos >-Powderhorn Park > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
