Senate committee advances manufactured‑housing bill after hours of resident testimony and owner opposition

The Minnesota Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee on March 17 voted to recommend Senate File 2691 as amended, a bill aimed at limiting sharp lot‑rent increases in manufactured‑home communities, strengthening enforcement of owner maintenance obligations, and creating structured opportunities for residents to purchase their parks.

Senator Bolden, who carried the bill, said it addresses the state’s affordability crisis and the unique vulnerability of manufactured‑home residents who own their homes but rent the land beneath them. He told the committee the bill establishes a presumption that rent increases above 3% annually are unreasonable, creates a formal process through which residents can seek to purchase a park or form a cooperative, and clarifies owner duties around maintenance such as tree care and utilities.

“We have been listening to people who have been affected by this issue,” Bolden said, noting the legislation contains exceptions to allow higher increases when necessary for health and safety or significant infrastructure investment.

Multiple residents testified in favor of the bill. Jilene Christensen, a North Creek resident, recounted accompanying neighbors through evictions and described the emotional and practical harms when homeowners must move from a house they own. “Today we’re asking you to be at your best and vote yes on this bill,” she told senators.

Brie Maffei, president of the Cimarron Residents Association, told the committee her park’s lot rate has increased more than 35% in five years and that 400 families are at risk of losing homes. “This is a vote about accountability, fairness, and whether Minnesotans get to stay in the homes they own,” Maffei said. “A no vote is a vote for corporate greed.”

Local leaders spoke in support as well. Taylor Hubbard, mayor of Chaska, contrasted a family‑owned park that invests in infrastructure with another park owned by an out‑of‑state firm where maintenance and communications had declined.

Several private community owners opposed the measure. Michelle Carlson, a long‑time community owner and dealer, said the bill unfairly assumes owners will always raise rents abusively and warned that a strict cap would impair owners’ ability to respond to variable costs such as utilities, taxes, permits and tree removal. “This is rent control,” Carlson said, adding that right‑of‑first‑refusal and first‑opportunity language would limit property rights and delay legitimate sales.

Other owner witnesses—including Dustin Brockmire, Dave Zek and Mark Lambert—raised operational concerns and legal risks. Lambert warned deletion of certain statutory exceptions could force otherwise negotiated resident purchases into additional notice cycles and litigation.

The committee considered several amendments. Senator Bolden’s A4, a technical amendment refining opportunity‑to‑purchase language developed with a national organization, was adopted. Senator Dames’ A5, which would have removed the 3% presumption, was rejected in a recorded division (4‑in‑favor, 6‑opposed). Senator Rasmussen’s A6, which would have removed the right‑of‑first‑refusal language on constitutional takings grounds, also failed.

After debate the committee voted by voice to recommend SF 2691 as amended and refer it to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

The bill moves forward with a presumption that a 3% annual increase is reasonable but with statutory exceptions for health and safety and other allowed operating costs; the committee record shows robust disagreement between resident advocates and many private owners about whether the measure appropriately balances consumer protection and owner rights.