There are only two bills on the Senate daily debate calendar today, and SF 2300 is not one of them. Therefore, SF 2300 is now dead for the year.
- HF 2323, the city enterprises bill, is on the agenda for the Senate Local Government Committee today at 1:00 p.m. We know that the 3 subcommittee members voted for the bill. We need 3 more committee votes to get the 6 votes necessary to get out of the committee and stay alive for the session.
Let’s make the final push this morning! If you have one of the Senators in your district that is on the Local Government committee, please call them this morning to support HF2323.
[private]Here is the list of Senators on the Local Government Committee. Senators Wilhelm, Bartz, and Bowman were the subcommittee members. The rest of the list are open game for your calls!
- Mary Jo Wilhelm (D, District 8), Chair
- Daryl Beall (D, District 25), Vice Chair
- Merlin Bartz (R, District 6), Ranking Member
- Robert Bacon (R, District 5)
- Tod Bowman (D, District 13)
- Thomas G. Courtney (D, District 44)
- Joni Ernst (R, District 48)
- Shawn Hamerlinck (R, District 42)
- Herman C. Quirmbach (D, District 23)
- Tom Rielly (D, District 38)
- Brian Schoenjahn (D, District 12)
TALKING POINTS FOR: HF 2323 City Enterprise Services
HF 2323 is the same language that was in HF 783 from 2007.
HF 2323 does the following:
- It changes the registration of tenancy in the code (384.84 [d]) with a one time registration of the property. If the property is registered with the city utility, the landlord would not be responsible for paying the tenant’s bills and the property could not be subject to liens by the city.
- HF 2323 also expands the list of protected city enterprise services in the code from water to all pertinent city enterprise services such as sewer systems, storm water drainage systems, sewage treatment, and solid waste collection.
Governor Culver vetoed HF 783, citing the security deposits granted for the extra city enterprise services.
Since landlords believe that city enterprise services should be managed like a business, we believe that municipal utilities must have the option for a security deposit. A 90 days’ deposit was suggested because some municipal utilities need this amount of time in that they bill only on a quarterly basis.
If the law does not provide for a security deposit for municipal utilities, then all taxpayers would have to pick up the tab for delinquent renters. We don’t believe this is good public policy.
Landlords believe it is good public policy to require residents, including renters, to be responsible for their usage of city enterprise services.
The legislature in 2007 agreed. HF 783 was voted on twice in the House. Each time in the House, no Representative voted against the bill. The first vote was 98-0. The Senate passed the bill with an amendment. The vote was 48-2. When the House voted again, the vote was 94-0.
HF 2323 passed the House 97-0 on March 7, 2012.[/private]