Housing: other; requirement for certain rental units to be equipped with a carbon monoxide device; provide for. Amends 1972 PA 348 (MCL 554.601 - 554.616) by adding sec. 1e.
Summary
SB 515 would amend Michigan’s landlord-tenant law to require landlords to install at least one operational carbon monoxide device in every rental unit that has a landlord-provided or landlord-owned fuel-fired appliance, or that is adjacent to an enclosed garage. The bill defines the required device as one that detects carbon monoxide, gives an audible alarm, and is certified to recognized safety standards. It also defines “fuel-fired appliance” broadly to include appliances burning gas, oil, coal, kerosene, biofuel, or wood.
The bill creates a state civil infraction for noncompliance and authorizes a civil fine of up to $500 for each violation. In practical terms, it adds a specific safety requirement to the Michigan landlord-tenant statutes governing rental agreements and related duties, expanding landlord obligations for certain rental units and giving the state an enforcement mechanism for violations.
Impact
The bill would add a new section to 1972 PA 348, the Michigan landlord-tenant act, creating a statutory duty for landlords of covered rental units to provide carbon monoxide detection. This would affect landlords, tenants, and enforcement authorities by establishing a minimum safety standard in qualifying rentals and exposing landlords to civil penalties for failing to comply. It would not broadly require detectors in every rental unit, but only in units with landlord-owned or provided fuel-fired appliances or those adjacent to enclosed garages.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, though not unanimous. The Senate committee reported the substitute favorably by a 9-2 vote, and the full Senate passed the bill 23-12. That pattern indicates support for the safety objective of the measure, with a meaningful minority opposed or unconvinced.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether the state should impose this specific equipment mandate on landlords and how broadly the requirement should apply. Supporters likely view the bill as a straightforward tenant-safety measure aimed at preventing carbon monoxide poisoning in higher-risk rental units. Opponents may have concerns about compliance costs, maintenance responsibilities, the scope of covered units, or whether existing building and safety codes already address the issue sufficiently. The split votes indicate disagreement over the balance between tenant protection and landlord regulatory burden.