Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
- A bill requiring landlords to give tenants 60 days' notice for rent increases stalled in a Utah House committee.
- It's the fourth straight year lawmakers have considered the proposal without it passing.
- A landlord group argued against the bill citing flexibility; supporters say it would help renters who face rising costs.
SALT LAKE CITY — Lawmakers paused a bill that would require landlords to give tenants 60 days' notice if rent is increasing, likely blocking the proposal from moving forward for the fourth straight year.
HB478 would require landlords provide two months of notice before residential rent increases take effect. The bill exempts tenants who are renting on a month-to-month basis or in cases where the tenant already agreed to an earlier increase in writing.
This is not the first, second or even third time that lawmakers have heard this proposal. It has failed each year since 2023. Rep. John Arthur, D-Cottonwood Heights, is the latest lawmaker to give it a try.
"I am excited to be the person who now gets to pick up the baton," Arthur told the House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee during a hearing on Tuesday.
Arthur called a 60-day notice a "best practice" that is already used by many landlords. But he was not able to convince his fellow lawmakers that it should become law, and he struggled at times to answer questions about how the bill would actually work.
He even appeared to sabotage his own bill's future progress by suggesting it be studied over the next year, which prompted one lawmaker to move that the House committee immediately move to the next item on the agenda. The committee first heard from the public and then moved on without taking any action on the bill.
During public comment, advocates for both property owners and renters spoke about the impact this bill would have.
The Rental Housing Association of Utah, a group that represents landlords, came out in support of the proposal in 2024. But last year, the organization suddenly reversed course over concerns it would "swing the pendulum" too far.
That opposition remains this year. Justin Allen, the group's government affairs director, said landlords prefer to be able to set contract terms.
"Many of those are managed and owned by mom and pop landlords, and they do like to have the flexibility to be able to make a decision with their property, sometimes in a time that is shorter than that 60 days," Allen said.
Zoe Newmann, who works at the Utah Housing Coalition, argued the bill would buy valuable time for tenants who have faced rising costs.
"Moving is expensive and a lot of renters are going month-to-month on a budget and they're rubbing pennies together trying to make it happen," she said. "What I think this bill incentivizes is allowing tenants to have the autonomy over their own budget, over their own housing situation."
Multiple lawmakers seemed skeptical about the proposal. Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, asked Arthur if it would apply to lease agreements that already include annual rate increases.
"As I understand it, this is just telling all the landlords to go out and change their agreements," he said.
Rep. Cal Roberts, R-Draper, said there are reasons why a landlord might not be able to give a tenant that much notice.
"When you try to prescribe in law what you should do in contract, it can just get difficult," Roberts said.
