A BILL to direct the Board of Housing and Community Development to convene a stakeholder advisory group to evaluate changes to the Uniform Statewide Building Code addressing temperature regulation.
HB119 directs the Board of Housing and Community Development to convene a stakeholder advisory group to study possible changes to the Uniform Statewide Building Code related to indoor temperature regulation in apartment buildings. The proposal focuses on Group R-2 apartment buildings and would evaluate a requirement that owners and operators provide cooling from May 1 through October 15 so that habitable rooms do not exceed 77 degrees Fahrenheit, and provide heat from October 15 through May 1 so that habitable rooms remain at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit.
The bill does not itself amend the building code or impose the temperature standards immediately. Instead, it creates a process for review and recommendations, with the advisory group required to include tenant advocates, landlords, residential real estate representatives, public health professionals, and other stakeholders. The group would report its findings to the Board and legislative committee chairs by November 1, 2026.
If enacted, HB119 would affect the Board of Housing and Community Development and the Uniform Statewide Building Code by initiating a formal stakeholder review of temperature standards for rental housing. Its practical impact would be indirect at first: it would not change landlord obligations immediately, but it could lead to future code amendments affecting apartment owners and operators, especially those managing Group R-2 multifamily housing. The bill also implicates tenant habitability, housing quality, and public health considerations.
The bill appears to reflect a generally reform-oriented and tenant-protective policy approach, with an emphasis on studying minimum cooling and heating standards in rental housing. Because there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available record. The bill’s referral to Rules and subsequent lack of further action suggest it did not advance, but the text itself indicates an intent to gather broad stakeholder input rather than impose an immediate mandate.
The main likely points of contention are the proposed temperature thresholds, the seasonal cooling requirement, and the potential cost and operational burden on landlords and property owners. Tenant advocates and public health professionals would likely support stronger habitability standards, while landlords and residential real estate interests may raise concerns about compliance costs, building-system limitations, and enforcement. The bill’s focus on multifamily rental housing may also prompt questions about whether the standards should apply more broadly or be tailored by building type and climate control capability.