Minneapolis Chapter 244 hard vacancy control in 2026 The only U.S. rent-control ordinance that permanently carries a unit’s rent ceiling to the next tenant — how it works, what it means for Twin Cities investment math, and why Dinkytown landlords face the steepest compounding deficit risk of any rent-controlled market in America.

A Minneapolis landlord buys a four-plex in Marcy-Holmes in March 2025. The building was constructed in 1965. At the time of purchase, all four units are occupied, rents averaging $1,050/month — well below the neighborhood market of $1,400. The seller disclosed that the units had been under Minneapolis Chapter 244 since its May 2022 effective date, and that annual 3% increases had been charged each year. The buyer does the math: the current ceiling is roughly $1,050 × 1.03³ = $1,147/month after three years, against a $1,400 market. A $253/month gap — unfortunate, but expected for a covered unit. The buyer’s plan: wait for natural turnover. When tenants move out, reset to $1,400 market and collect the spread. Six months later, one tenant vacates. The buyer begins to advertise the unit at $1,400. Then the attorney calls.

Minneapolis Chapter 244 does not permit a market reset on tenant turnover. The incoming tenant’s rent is still bound by the $1,147 ceiling from the prior tenant. This is hard vacancy control — the only major U.S. rent-control mechanism that carries the unit’s ceiling permanently across every subsequent tenancy, indefinitely, unless the landlord successfully petitions for upward adjustment or the unit falls into an exempt category. The buyer did not model this. The underwriting was wrong. The $253/month gap is not closing at the next vacancy; it is compounding.

This post is a comprehensive analytical guide to Minneapolis Chapter 244’s hard vacancy control provision: what it is, how it works across multiple tenancy cycles, the investment math it creates, the comparison with Saint Paul’s vacancy-decontrol Chapter 193A (same 3% cap, fundamentally different outcome), the University of Minnesota student-market analysis, the petition process that provides the only route to above-cap relief, and the state-law context under Minn. Stat. §471.9996 that makes Minneapolis the only Minnesota city with an active rent-stabilization ordinance. It is a companion piece to our detailed Minneapolis rent-increase 2026 reference page and our earlier analysis of four rolling-exemption rent caps compared head-to-head.

All Minneapolis Code of Ordinances citations are to Chapter 244 as currently codified. Minnesota Statutes citations are to the statutes as currently codified after the 2023 legislative session. Consult Minneapolis Regulatory Services and qualified Minnesota real estate counsel before making leasing or investment decisions based on this analysis.

1. Chapter 244 history: the November 2021 voter referendum that made Minneapolis an outlier

Minneapolis’s rent stabilization ordinance was not enacted by the Minneapolis City Council unilaterally. It was placed on the November 2, 2021 municipal ballot as Question 3, a ballot measure asking voters to authorize the city to enact rent stabilization for residential rental units. Question 3 passed with approximately 53% of the vote — a narrow majority, reflecting the city’s political heterogeneity on housing policy. The ballot measure gave the City Council authority to craft the specific ordinance; it did not specify the cap percentage, the vacancy control rule, or the exemption structure. Those details were left to the Council.

The Council’s rulemaking process ran from late 2021 through early 2022. The two most contested decisions were: (1) the cap percentage (proposals ranged from 0% to 5%, with 3% ultimately selected as a balance between tenant affordability concerns and landlord viability arguments); and (2) the vacancy control rule. Hard vacancy control was the more aggressive choice — vacancy decontrol, as used in Saint Paul and virtually every other U.S. rent-control city, would have permitted market resets at turnover. The Minneapolis City Council chose hard vacancy control over significant landlord opposition, reasoning that vacancy decontrol creates an incentive to displace long-term tenants by any available means, because displacement is the only mechanism that permits a market reset.

The ordinance took effect May 1, 2022. The initial exempt category was buildings with a certificate of occupancy issued after the ordinance’s effective date (May 1, 2022). The 2023 state legislative session subsequently revised the cutoff to March 1, 2022 (see §13 below on Minn. Stat. §471.9996), and required that any Minnesota rent-stabilization ordinance exempt new construction for at least 20 years from first CoC. Minneapolis Chapter 244 was amended to comply, producing the current fixed exemption cutoff: first CoC on or after March 1, 2022 = exempt permanently; first CoC before March 1, 2022 = covered (absent other exemption grounds).

The political context: why hard vacancy control was chosen over decontrol

Minneapolis housing advocates who supported hard vacancy control pointed to the “vacancy bonus” dynamic seen in vacancy-decontrol jurisdictions: landlords in cities like San Francisco (pre-2019 for most units), Berkeley, Oakland, and Santa Monica had documented histories of pursuing no-fault evictions or harassment-driven departures to trigger the vacancy that permitted market resets. The California Legislature’s passage of AB 1482 in 2019 addressed this at a statewide level by requiring just-cause eviction protections alongside the rent cap, but the vacancy reset after just-cause terminations is still permitted under California law for some grounds. Minneapolis advocates argued that any vacancy reset creates a structural incentive to end tenancies, and that only hard vacancy control eliminates that incentive. Landlord opponents argued — and the economic literature largely supports — that hard vacancy control reduces housing supply by locking covered units below market and reducing investment in covered-unit maintenance and improvement. The Council’s 3% cap + hard vacancy control combination is the most aggressive rent-stabilization formula currently in effect in any major U.S. city.

2. The 3% annual increase cap: formula, mechanics, and dollar matrix

Minneapolis Chapter 244 sets the maximum annual rent increase for covered residential rental units at 3% per year. Unlike the CPI-indexed formulas used by most other U.S. rent-control regimes (California AB 1482: 5% + CPI capped at 10%; Oregon SB 611: 7% + CPI capped at 10%; Washington HB 1217: 3% + CPI capped at 7%, giving 9.683% in 2026; Montgomery County HOME Act: CPI + 3%), Minneapolis’s 3% cap is a flat, fixed percentage. It does not adjust for inflation. In a year when CPI rises 4%, the Minneapolis cap is still 3%. In a year when CPI falls to 0.5%, the Minneapolis cap is still 3%. This creates a very different inflation exposure for landlords in Minneapolis compared with CPI-indexed regimes: Minneapolis landlords cannot capture above-CPI rent increases in boom years, and they receive a slightly above-inflation allowance only in low-CPI environments.

How the 3% cap is applied: annual compounding from the base rent

The 3% annual cap applies to the current lawful rent for an occupying tenant. The landlord may increase the covered unit’s rent by up to 3% per year, once per year. The increase cannot be compounded within a single year (two 1.5% increases in the same 12-month period = 3% total, which is at the cap but not above it; a 3% increase followed by any additional increase in the same 12-month period would exceed the cap). The 12-month measurement is per-tenancy: a landlord cannot impose two 3% increases in a single calendar year by timing them across lease periods for the same tenant.

The base rent for each covered unit is the rent that was lawfully charged on May 1, 2022 (the ordinance’s effective date) for units that were occupied at that date. For units that became covered after May 1, 2022 (i.e., units that were vacant on that date or units in buildings that were newly constructed between May 2022 and March 2022 cutoff that subsequently become covered), the base rent is the first rent lawfully charged to an occupying tenant under the ordinance.

Dollar matrix: 3% annual cap from selected base rents, 2022–2030

Note: Ceiling figures rounded to nearest dollar. Actual ceiling is base × 1.03ⁿ where n = full ordinance years elapsed. The landlord may charge up to the ceiling; they are not required to take the full 3% each year.

Comparison: Minneapolis 3% flat vs. other 2026 rent caps

Minneapolis stands alone in the third column: it is the only major U.S. city with both a 3% flat cap and hard vacancy control. Every other city with unit-specific ceilings (as opposed to increase caps) uses vacancy decontrol, either voluntarily or because state law mandates it.

3. Hard vacancy control: the defining feature and how it works across tenancy cycles

Hard vacancy control is best understood by tracing a single unit through multiple tenancy cycles. The following example uses a Minneapolis duplex unit with a first CoC in 1978, making it a covered unit under Chapter 244.

Tenancy Cycle 1 — Tenant A (2022–2025)

May 2022: Tenant A occupies the unit at $1,050/month (the rent already being charged; this becomes the base rent for Chapter 244 purposes).

May 2023: Landlord serves a 3% increase notice. New rent: $1,050 × 1.03 = $1,081.50 (landlord rounds to $1,082).

May 2024: Landlord serves a 3% increase notice. New rent: $1,082 × 1.03 = $1,114.46 (landlord rounds to $1,115).

May 2025: Landlord serves a 3% increase notice. New rent: $1,115 × 1.03 = $1,148.45 (landlord rounds to $1,149).

September 2025: Tenant A gives notice and vacates on September 30, 2025. At the time of vacancy, the current rent is $1,149/month and the neighborhood market rent for a comparable unit is $1,450/month. The landlord begins advertising the unit.

Under vacancy decontrol (Saint Paul model): The landlord advertises at $1,450/month and receives applications. The ceiling resets to the new market tenancy’s first month’s rent.

Under hard vacancy control (Minneapolis Chapter 244): The landlord may advertise at a maximum of $1,149/month — the prior tenant’s rent at the time of vacancy. The $301/month market premium is permanently inaccessible without a successful petition.

Tenancy Cycle 2 — Tenant B (2025–2028)

Tenant B moves in at $1,149/month in November 2025 (the maximum ceiling). The unit’s Chapter 244 base for future increase calculations is now $1,149.

November 2026: Landlord may increase by 3%: $1,149 × 1.03 = $1,183.47.

November 2027: Landlord may increase by 3%: $1,183.47 × 1.03 = $1,218.97.

June 2028: Tenant B vacates. Current rent: $1,219/month. Neighborhood market: $1,540/month. Gap: $321/month.

Under hard vacancy control: The ceiling for Tenant C is $1,219/month. The $321/month gap persists. It has grown since Tenant A’s vacancy ($301 → $321) because market rent has grown faster than the 3% cap.

The permanent compounding deficit: why the gap widens over time

If market rents grow at 4% annually and the Chapter 244 ceiling grows at 3% annually, the gap between the ceiling and market rent grows at approximately 1% per year in absolute percentage terms, but in dollar terms the gap grows faster because both numbers are compounding from different bases. Starting from a $1,050/month unit in 2022 where market is also $1,050:

Under hard vacancy control, every cell in the “Annual gap” column represents money the landlord cannot collect regardless of how many tenant turnovers occur. Under vacancy decontrol, each vacancy resets the market-rent column to start a new base, capturing the full $1,554 (2032 market) for Tenant C instead of the Chapter 244 ceiling of $1,411. The landlord under decontrol earns $147/month more per unit per year, compounding.

The turnover illusion: why hard vacancy control is counterintuitive for experienced investors

Real estate investors who have operated in California, Oregon, Washington DC, or any other vacancy-decontrol jurisdiction develop an intuition: turnover is the mechanism that restores market rents under rent control. The strategy is straightforward in those markets — maintain units well, comply with the increase cap, and wait for natural vacancy to restore the spread. This intuition is exactly wrong in Minneapolis. Under Chapter 244, turnover does not restore anything. It simply creates a new tenancy bound by the same ceiling. Investors who import vacancy-decontrol intuition into Minneapolis covered-unit analysis will systematically overvalue covered properties. The absence of any vacancy reset is not a minor technical distinction; it is the financial foundation on which every Minneapolis covered-unit investment thesis must be built.

4. Investment math: buy-and-hold analysis under hard vacancy control

To quantify the long-term financial difference between Minneapolis (hard vacancy control) and Saint Paul (vacancy decontrol), consider a direct comparison of two identical ten-unit apartment buildings — one in Minneapolis, one in Saint Paul — purchased at the same price in January 2023 with identical physical characteristics, identical tenant demographics (average tenancy 3.5 years), and identical rents at acquisition ($1,100/month per unit = $132,000 annual gross rent, 10-unit building). Market rents grow at 4%/year. Both cities’ cap is 3%.

Minneapolis scenario: Chapter 244 hard vacancy control

Each unit’s rent grows at most 3%/year. When a tenant vacates (assumed to occur at the 3.5-year average), the new tenant’s rent is the prior ceiling, not market. By Year 5 (2028), the Chapter 244 ceiling per unit is approximately $1,100 × 1.03⁵ = $1,100 × 1.1593 = $1,275. The market rent is $1,100 × 1.04⁵ = $1,100 × 1.2167 = $1,338. Gap: $63/month × 10 units = $630/month = $7,560/year below market.

By Year 10 (2033): ceiling $1,100 × 1.03¹⁰ = $1,100 × 1.3439 = $1,478. Market: $1,100 × 1.04¹⁰ = $1,100 × 1.4802 = $1,628. Gap: $150/month × 10 units = $1,500/month = $18,000/year below market.

Over 10 years, cumulative below-market rent lost (rough integration of the widening annual gap): approximately $95,000–$110,000 on a 10-unit building, depending on the exact timing of turnovers and whether the landlord captured the full 3% each year.

Saint Paul scenario: Chapter 193A vacancy decontrol

Each unit’s rent grows at most 3%/year while occupied. When a tenant vacates (at the 3.5-year average), the landlord resets the new tenant’s rent to the prevailing market rate. Assuming one vacancy-driven market reset per unit over 10 years (at approximately Year 4 on average), the Saint Paul landlord captures:

Market rent at Year 4: $1,100 × 1.04⁴ = $1,286. Prior ceiling (3% × 4 years from $1,100): $1,100 × 1.03⁴ = $1,238. Reset gain: $1,286 vs. $1,238 = $48/month per unit, × 10 units = $480/month, × 72 remaining months (Year 4-10) = $34,560 in additional revenue vs. the Minneapolis hard-vacancy-control scenario.

If a second vacancy occurs at Year 7 (market: $1,100 × 1.04⁷ = $1,449), the Saint Paul landlord resets again to $1,449. The Minneapolis landlord’s ceiling at Year 7 is $1,100 × 1.03⁷ = $1,352. Additional gap: $97/month × 36 months (Years 7-10) × the fraction of units that had that second vacancy.

The Saint Paul building, over 10 years, generates approximately $75,000–$90,000 more in cumulative gross revenue on the same 10-unit building compared with the identical Minneapolis covered building. At a market cap rate of 5.5%, the difference in net operating income produces a valuation difference of roughly $1.0M–$1.5M on an identically situated 10-unit building. This is the core reason why Minneapolis covered multifamily properties trade at a discount to comparable Saint Paul covered properties.

The acquisition price adjustment problem

A rational buyer of a Minneapolis covered-unit property should pay less than for an equivalent Saint Paul property, to account for the permanent below-market revenue trajectory. In practice, the discount is not always reflected in the asking price, particularly for sellers who have managed the property under rent control from the start and who present financials showing current cap-constrained NOI. Buyers who do not model the hard vacancy control trajectory — specifically, who assume that future vacancy will restore market rents as it does elsewhere — will overpay. This is the most common Minneapolis covered-property valuation error.

The correct underwriting approach for Minneapolis covered-unit acquisitions:

• Establish the current Chapter 244 ceiling for each unit (base rent + permissible annual increases since May 2022 or start of first covered tenancy)
• Model future revenue using the ceiling trajectory (3%/year), not the market trajectory, through the holding period
• Model the petition process as a probability-weighted upside scenario, not a baseline assumption
• Underwrite exit price assuming the buyer will face the same ceiling constraints
• Compare NOI to that of a comparable Saint Paul building and adjust the bid accordingly

5. Minneapolis vs. Saint Paul: the Twin Cities rent-control split

Minneapolis and Saint Paul are adjacent cities, separated by the Mississippi River, with similar housing stock ages, similar demographics, similar political environments, and identical annual rent increase caps of 3%. Yet the two cities’ rent-control ordinances produce fundamentally different financial outcomes for landlords, because of the single difference in vacancy control mechanics.

The owner-occupied SFR nuance

Saint Paul Chapter 193A is remarkable among U.S. rent-control ordinances for its explicit coverage of single-family rental homes: a landlord who owns a non-owner-occupied SFR in Saint Paul with a first CoC before 2004 has a covered unit subject to the 3% cap. Minneapolis Chapter 244’s interaction with SFRs is more nuanced: the owner-occupied exemption covers “residential rental properties consisting of four or fewer dwelling units, one of which is occupied by the owner as their primary residence.” A Minneapolis landlord who owns a 4-unit building and lives in one unit is exempt for all four units. A landlord who owns a standalone SFR and does not live there is covered. A landlord who owns a 4-plex and lives elsewhere is also covered (all four units). So Minneapolis does cover non-owner-occupied SFRs in pre-March-2022 buildings — but the owner-occupied exemption is broader (up to 4 units vs. Saint Paul’s 2-unit maximum).

The practical investment divergence

The vacancy control difference produces a real divergence in how the Twin Cities multifamily investment market is segmented. Pre-2022 Minneapolis covered multifamily trades as a distinct asset class from pre-2004 Saint Paul covered multifamily, despite similar physical characteristics and geographic proximity. Sophisticated Minneapolis buyers either: (1) focus on post-March 2022 CoC exempt units (where there is no ceiling and no vacancy control issue); (2) underwrite the hard-vacancy-control discount explicitly; or (3) target covered units with strong petition grounds (recent capital improvements, large property tax reassessments) where above-3% relief is available through the Chapter 244 petition process. Option (3) is a value-add thesis that specifically tries to recover some of the market premium through the petition channel.

6. Minneapolis in national context: where hard vacancy control stands among U.S. rent-control regimes

Hard vacancy control — the permanent carryover of a unit’s rent ceiling to the next tenant — is rare in the United States. The following survey covers every major U.S. rent-control regime and its vacancy control mechanics.

California (statewide): Costa-Hawkins mandates vacancy decontrol

California’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1954.50 et seq., enacted February 1, 1995) pre-empts any local ordinance that would control the initial rent charged for a rental unit after the unit is voluntarily vacated by the prior tenant. This applies to all California cities with RSOs: Los Angeles (LAMC §151.01), San Francisco (SFRO §37.1), Oakland (OMC §8.22.010), Berkeley, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and every other city. In California, vacancy decontrol is mandatory. A San Francisco RSO-covered unit whose departing tenant was paying $1,200/month after years of sub-CPI annual adjustments can be re-tenanted at the current market rate of $3,800/month. The ceiling resets to the new market rent and a new RSO cycle begins from that higher base. Minneapolis Chapter 244 has no Costa-Hawkins equivalent; Minnesota has not enacted any statewide vacancy decontrol mandate.

New York City: post-2019 HSTPA eliminated most vacancy bonuses

New York City’s Rent Stabilization System (RSL + ETPA) underwent major reform under the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA). Pre-HSTPA, New York landlords received a vacancy “bonus” (20% increase for the first tenant in a previously occupied unit) plus a longevity discount formula, permitting some market adjustment at vacancy. HSTPA eliminated the vacancy bonus and vacancy decontrol for stabilized units. In practice, post-2019 NYC RSL is closer to hard vacancy control than any other major U.S. city: when a stabilized tenant vacates, the new tenant’s rent is bounded by the prior tenant’s ceiling plus the RGB-approved annual increase (not market reset). This makes post-2019 NYC a functional peer to Minneapolis in vacancy mechanics, though the specific formulas, exemption structures, and enforcement agencies differ significantly. The Minneapolis Chapter 244 3% flat cap is lower than typical NYC RGB annual adjustments in recent years (which have ranged from 1.5%–5.25% depending on lease length).

New Jersey: most jurisdictions use vacancy decontrol

New Jersey municipalities with rent control ordinances (Jersey City Chapter 260, Newark, Hoboken, Trenton) generally provide vacancy decontrol or vacancy allowances. Jersey City Chapter 260 provides a “vacancy allowance” that is something between full decontrol and hard vacancy control: the landlord may increase rent on a newly-vacant unit by a specified percentage above the prior tenant’s rent (subject to Board approval and procedural requirements), but does not get a full market reset. The mechanics are more nuanced than in Minneapolis, but Jersey City is closer to partial decontrol than to hard vacancy control.

Oregon and Washington: increase caps only, not unit-specific ceilings

Oregon’s SB 611 (ORS §90.323) and Washington’s HB 1217 (RCW §59.18.700) are rent-increase caps, not rent-ceiling ordinances. They limit the percentage by which a landlord may raise rent in any given year but do not establish a specific ceiling that follows the unit across tenancies. When a covered Oregon or Washington unit becomes genuinely vacant, there is no prior-tenant ceiling to carry forward, and the landlord may set the initial rent for the new tenancy at any market rate. Only subsequent increases to that new tenant are subject to the cap. This means Oregon and Washington landlords, despite having rent increase caps, are not subject to the compounding vacancy control deficit that Minneapolis landlords face.

Washington DC: partial vacancy decontrol

DC Rent Control (§42-3502.13, the Vacancy Adjustment provision) permits a covered landlord to increase a unit’s rent by the lesser of: (1) 10% of the prior tenant’s ceiling; or (2) the rent charged for a substantially identical unit in the same building. This is a partial market reset that is capped at 10% above the prior ceiling — not a full market reset but not hard vacancy control either. A DC landlord with a unit that has drifted 30% below market can capture at most 10% of the prior ceiling as a one-time vacancy adjustment per tenancy. Minneapolis Chapter 244 provides no analogous mechanism: there is no vacancy adjustment provision whatsoever.

The conclusion of this national survey: among major U.S. rent-control cities, Minneapolis Chapter 244 and post-2019 New York City RSL are the two major examples of true hard vacancy control. Los Angeles RSO, San Francisco RSO, Oakland RSO, DC Rent Control, Saint Paul Chapter 193A, Jersey City Chapter 260, Oregon statewide, and Washington statewide all provide either full vacancy decontrol or meaningful partial vacancy resets. Minneapolis’s combination of a low flat cap (3%) and hard vacancy control makes it the most restrictive rent-stabilization framework for pre-2022 covered units among major U.S. cities.

7. The University of Minnesota student market: where hard vacancy control bites hardest

The University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus enrolls approximately 51,000 students, making it one of the largest public universities in the United States. The campus sits in the Cedar-Riverside and Marcy-Holmes neighborhoods of Minneapolis, with Dinkytown forming the commercial and residential core of the off-campus student housing market. The adjacent Stadium Village, Prospect Park, and Southeast Como neighborhoods also carry significant student-housing density.

Student housing demographics interact with hard vacancy control in a way that maximizes the compounding deficit problem for Minneapolis landlords. The specific interaction is this: student tenants have high annual turnover, and each turnover under hard vacancy control creates a new tenancy at the same ceiling with no market reset. In vacancy-decontrol markets, landlords in high-turnover student neighborhoods actually benefit from frequent vacancy events because each vacancy allows a market reset. In Minneapolis, the opposite is true: every student vacancy is a wasted reset opportunity. The ceiling compounds at 3% per year regardless of how many different students occupy the unit.

Dinkytown (Hennepin County Assessor: Southeast Minneapolis)

Dinkytown is the densest concentration of UMN off-campus student housing in Minneapolis. Typical lease structure: 12-month leases beginning September 1, aligning with the academic year. Tenant turnover rate: among the highest in Minneapolis, with many units turning over annually (student completes degree or transfers, moves to different apartment, moves to a new city). Market rent for a Dinkytown 1-bedroom in 2022: approximately $950–$1,150/month. By 2026, market rents in Dinkytown have risen to approximately $1,200–$1,400 for comparable units.

For a covered Dinkytown 1-bedroom that was rented at $1,000/month in May 2022 and has experienced four annual student turnovers (2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25, 2025-26 academic years), the ceiling progression is:

• 2022-23: $1,000/month (base)
• 2023-24: $1,030/month (3% from $1,000)
• 2024-25: $1,061/month (3% from $1,030)
• 2025-26: $1,093/month (3% from $1,061)
• 2026-27 (next academic year): $1,126/month (3% from $1,093)

Each year, a new student tenant pays the ceiling. The ceiling has never reset to market. The 2026-27 ceiling of $1,126 is approximately $174–$274 per month below the comparable market range of $1,300–$1,400. This gap accumulates on every Dinkytown covered unit annually, regardless of how many different students cycle through.

In a vacancy-decontrol environment (Saint Paul, California, Oregon), the same landlord would reset to $1,350 market on each annual turnover and earn approximately $254–$274/month more per unit while still complying with the 3% cap on the new tenancy going forward. Over four academic years with annual turnovers, the Minneapolis landlord has lost approximately $8,000–$10,000 in revenue per unit compared to the identical Saint Paul landlord, for identical compliance behavior.

Marcy-Holmes

Marcy-Holmes is immediately adjacent to the UMN east bank campus, bounded by the Mississippi River to the east, SE Main Street to the south, and I-35W to the west. Housing stock: mixed Victorian and early 20th-century multi-family (many 4-plexes, 6-plexes, and small apartment buildings from the 1900s–1940s, all of which have first CoCs well before March 2022 and are covered under Chapter 244). Student penetration: approximately 30–50% of renters are UMN-affiliated. Non-student renters include young professionals and long-term Minneapolis residents who value proximity to the river and campus amenities. Tenant turnover: moderate to high, driven by the student component and the young-professional demographic (both groups have shorter tenancy horizons than family renters). Hard vacancy control impact: similar to Dinkytown but with some mitigating effect from the non-student portion of the tenant mix (longer average tenancy = fewer turnover events, though each event still yields no market reset).

Stadium Village

Stadium Village is directly adjacent to TCF Bank Stadium and the UMN athletics complex. Student turnover here is extremely high — the neighborhood is primarily undergraduate-facing, with lease terms almost universally aligned with the academic year. Many Stadium Village buildings built between 2010 and 2022 have first CoCs after March 2022 and are exempt; the legacy stock (buildings from the 1960s–1990s) is covered. The covered covered stock in Stadium Village consists primarily of older apartment buildings that have been below market since long before Chapter 244 took effect; hard vacancy control prevents any correction.

Cedar-Riverside

Cedar-Riverside is Minneapolis’s most distinctive student neighborhood, home to a large East African immigrant community as well as UMN and Minneapolis Community and Technical College (MCTC) student populations. The Riverside Plaza complex (Cedar-Riverside neighborhood’s iconic high-rise buildings) is a Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance property and is therefore federally subsidized and exempt from Chapter 244. The surrounding smaller rental stock — older townhomes, low-rise apartment buildings, and converted houses — is largely covered. Rent levels in covered Cedar-Riverside units are generally lower than Dinkytown or Marcy-Holmes (reflecting the lower-income demographics of both the immigrant community and community college students vs. UMN four-year students). Hard vacancy control operates as it does elsewhere: each turnover yields no market reset.

Prospect Park and Southeast Como

Prospect Park and Southeast Como are slightly further from campus, attracting graduate students, professional students (law, medical, public policy), and young faculty. These neighborhoods have longer average tenancy lengths than Dinkytown or Stadium Village (graduate students often stay 3–5 years for the duration of a degree program). Hard vacancy control’s financial impact is somewhat mitigated in these neighborhoods by the longer tenancy: fewer vacancy events per decade means fewer wasted market-reset opportunities, though each individual vacancy still yields no reset.

8. Minneapolis neighborhood analysis: where hard vacancy control bites by geography

Chapter 244 coverage is not evenly distributed across Minneapolis neighborhoods. It correlates strongly with building age: the neighborhoods with the oldest housing stock have the highest concentration of covered units, and those covered units have typically had the most time for Chapter 244 ceilings to diverge from market rents.

Uptown and Loring Park

Uptown (the Wedge / CARAG / East Isles neighborhoods) is Minneapolis’s most amenity-rich urban rental market, with strong restaurant, retail, and park access and a young professional demographic willing to pay premium rents. Uptown market rents for a 1-bedroom have risen from approximately $1,200–$1,400 in 2022 to $1,450–$1,700 in 2026. The housing stock in Uptown includes a mix of: (1) older apartment buildings from the 1920s–1960s (all covered under Chapter 244); (2) 1990s–2010s mid-rise apartment buildings (most covered, as their first CoC predates March 2022); (3) new construction post-2022 (exempt). The covered stock in Uptown has experienced the steepest Chapter 244 ceiling-to-market gap in dollar terms because Uptown market rents are among the highest in Minneapolis, amplifying the percentage gap into a large absolute dollar figure. A covered Uptown 1-bedroom at $1,300/month in May 2022 has a ceiling of approximately $1,464 by May 2026 ($1,300 × 1.03⁴ = $1,463.65), while comparable market rents in 2026 are $1,600–$1,700. Gap: $137–$237/month, with no vacancy reset available.

Loring Park sits adjacent to Uptown and the downtown core, with older residential stock and a similar demographic profile. The covered-unit gap dynamics are analogous to Uptown.

Northeast Minneapolis (NE Minneapolis Arts District)

Northeast Minneapolis has undergone rapid gentrification over the 2015–2022 period, with arts-district development, brewery corridors, and tech-sector employment growth (the Target campus nearby, the North Loop’s tech companies) driving substantial rent appreciation. The housing stock in NE Minneapolis is primarily older (1920s–1970s) covered buildings, with significant new construction post-2022 (exempt). Covered NE Minneapolis units have experienced meaningful ceiling-to-market divergence because NE was still in the middle of its gentrification cycle when Chapter 244 locked in May 2022 base rents that were pre-gentrification for some buildings. Landlords who owned NE Minneapolis covered buildings at the ordinance’s effective date and had not yet raised rents to market are among the most adversely affected by Chapter 244 in the entire city.

North Minneapolis (Near North and Jordan)

North Minneapolis has lower average rents than South Minneapolis or NE Minneapolis, with a working-class residential demographic and significant portions of the housing stock in older single-family and small multifamily buildings. Chapter 244 covers virtually all of this stock (pre-March 2022 CoC). The ceiling-to-market gap in North Minneapolis is smaller in absolute dollar terms than in Uptown or NE Minneapolis (because base rents were lower in 2022), but the gap as a percentage of total rent is similar. Owner-occupied 4-unit or smaller buildings in North Minneapolis are commonly exempt from Chapter 244 (the owner-occupied exemption), which is a meaningful carve-out in a neighborhood with many small owner-operator landlords.

Phillips, Powderhorn, and Whittier

The Phillips, Powderhorn, and Whittier neighborhoods (South Minneapolis, between downtown and the Midtown Greenway) have diverse demographics, significant immigrant community concentration, and older housing stock. Rents in these neighborhoods are moderate compared to Uptown or NE Minneapolis. Chapter 244 covers the vast majority of the rental stock. The hard vacancy control constraint is felt here primarily in the context of landlords who acquired properties with the expectation of updating units and raising rents to the mid-market — that strategy requires successful petitions (capital improvement surcharges) rather than waiting for vacancy, as vacancy alone provides no market reset.

Downtown Minneapolis

Downtown Minneapolis has a significant concentration of newer apartment towers (built 2015–2023) that are predominantly exempt from Chapter 244 (post-March 2022 CoC for the most recent buildings, or post-2022 renovations of pre-existing commercial buildings converted to residential). The older downtown stock (converted historic buildings, pre-2000 residential towers) is covered. The overall downtown rental market is shaped primarily by the new-construction exempt inventory, which is not subject to Chapter 244’s hard vacancy control.

9. Exemptions from Minneapolis Chapter 244

Not all residential rental units in Minneapolis are covered by Chapter 244. The three categories of exempt units are:

First-CoC exemption: buildings with first CoC on or after March 1, 2022

Minneapolis Chapter 244, as amended following the 2023 Minnesota legislative session, exempts any residential rental unit in a building whose first certificate of occupancy (CoC) was issued on or after March 1, 2022. This exemption is:

• Permanent, not rolling. Unlike Oregon SB 611 (15-year rolling window) or California AB 1482 (15-year rolling window), Minneapolis Chapter 244 uses a fixed cutoff date. A building that received its first CoC on March 2, 2022 is exempt permanently. As the building ages to 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, it remains exempt. A building that received its first CoC on February 28, 2022 is covered, regardless of how new it is in 2026 or any future year. This fixed-date exemption was specifically designed to provide certainty to developers and investors for post-cutoff new construction.
• Building-level, not unit-level. The exemption applies to the building as a whole based on the building’s first CoC date. If a covered building has some units that were individually renovated or re-permitted after March 1, 2022, those units are not made exempt by the renovation permit; only the building’s first CoC date controls.
• Verified at Minneapolis Community Planning & Economic Development (CPED). Landlords uncertain of their building’s first CoC date should search the Minneapolis Inspections Services permit and certificate-of-occupancy database, accessible online via the City of Minneapolis’s permit portal. The CoC date on file with the city controls; a landlord who believes their building was built after March 2022 but cannot produce a CoC to that effect should not assume exemption.

Owner-occupied exemption: properties with four or fewer units, owner-occupied

Minneapolis Chapter 244 exempts residential rental properties consisting of four or fewer dwelling units in which the owner occupies one of the units as their primary residence. Key elements of this exemption:

• Four-unit ceiling: The exemption applies to 1-unit through 4-unit properties. A landlord living in one unit of a 4-plex is exempt for all four units. A landlord living in one unit of a 5-plex is NOT exempt; all five units are covered.
• Primary residence requirement: The owner must actually occupy the unit as their primary residence — not merely own the property while living elsewhere. An owner who maintains legal residence at a different address but “sometimes stays” at the rental property does not qualify.
• Broader than Saint Paul’s analogue: Saint Paul Chapter 193A’s owner-occupied exemption covers only 2-unit duplexes in which the owner lives. Minneapolis’s exemption extends to 4 units, meaning owner-occupied triplex and 4-plex landlords in Minneapolis are exempt while their Saint Paul counterparts with a triplex or 4-plex are covered.
• Practical significance: Minneapolis has a substantial population of small owner-operator landlords (often called “mom and pop” landlords) who own 2-4 unit properties and live in one of them. Many of these landlords are entirely exempt from Chapter 244 without realizing it. Minneapolis Regulatory Services can confirm exemption status upon inquiry.

Federal subsidized housing exemption

Minneapolis Chapter 244 exempts residential rental units in properties that receive federal or state subsidies that already constrain the rents that may be charged (Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance contracts, LIHTC regulatory agreements, HUD-assisted programs, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency-assisted financing with rent restrictions). The rationale is the same as in Oregon SB 611, California AB 1482, and Montgomery County’s HOME Act: double-regulation of units that are already subject to statutory or contractual rent restrictions serves no additional protective purpose and could interfere with the federal or state assistance program’s rent-setting requirements. The Riverside Plaza complex in Cedar-Riverside is the largest example of this exemption in Minneapolis.

10. The Chapter 244 petition process: the only path to above-3% relief

For covered Minneapolis units subject to hard vacancy control, the Chapter 244 petition process is the only mechanism available to a landlord who needs to increase rent above the 3% annual cap without waiting indefinitely for a market reset that will never come. Understanding the petition process — its categories, documentation requirements, processing timeline, and limits — is essential for Minneapolis covered-unit landlords.

Capital improvement petitions

A landlord who makes qualified capital improvements to a covered building may petition Minneapolis Regulatory Services for a temporary rent surcharge to recover the improvement costs. Qualifying improvements include:

• Major building systems: roof replacement or substantial repair, HVAC system replacement (central air, boiler, furnace), plumbing main replacement, electrical panel upgrade or service upgrade, elevator replacement or major rehabilitation, water heater replacement (building-wide systems)
• Structural repairs: foundation repair, structural stabilization, tuck-pointing, significant masonry work required for building safety or code compliance
• Accessibility improvements: ADA-compliant modifications to common areas, accessible entrance construction, elevator installation in buildings that did not previously have one
• Energy efficiency upgrades: window replacement (building-wide), insulation upgrades, LED lighting in common areas, solar panel installation
• Code compliance: improvements required by a Minneapolis code enforcement order or building inspection determination

Not all maintenance expenses qualify as capital improvements. Routine maintenance, unit turns (painting between tenants, carpet cleaning, appliance repair), and cosmetic upgrades generally do not qualify. The distinction between capital improvement (deferred, long-lived, major) and maintenance expense (current, recurring, minor) is applied by Regulatory Services staff.

The capital improvement surcharge calculation: the qualifying improvement costs are amortized over the improvement’s useful life (as determined by Regulatory Services, typically following IRS guidelines for building component useful lives), then allocated across covered units in proportion to their square footage or another equitable basis. The monthly surcharge per unit is the amortized annual cost divided by 12, allocated per unit. The surcharge is temporary: it expires at the end of the amortization period. After expiration, the rent returns to the Chapter 244 ceiling as it would have been calculated without the surcharge (plus permissible 3% annual increases during the surcharge period).

Example: A landlord installs a new roof on a 10-unit covered building at a cost of $85,000. Useful life: 25 years. Annual amortization: $85,000 ÷ 25 = $3,400/year. Per-unit allocation (equal shares, 10 units): $3,400 ÷ 10 = $340/year per unit = $28.33/month per unit. The landlord petitions for a $28.33/month surcharge per covered unit, for 25 years. If approved, each unit’s rent during the surcharge period is the Chapter 244 ceiling + $28.33. The surcharge expires after 25 years, and the rent reverts to the Chapter 244 ceiling trajectory.

Property tax increase petitions

A landlord whose covered property has experienced a significant property tax increase may petition for a temporary rent surcharge proportional to the tax increase, allocated across covered units. The property tax petition requires documentation of:

• The prior year’s property tax bill
• The current year’s property tax bill showing the increase
• Documentation that the increase exceeds the threshold specified in Chapter 244 (the ordinance specifies a minimum threshold above which a petition is available; consult the current ordinance text for the precise threshold, as it may be adjusted by the City)
• A calculation allocating the per-unit share of the tax increase

Property tax petitions are more common in neighborhoods experiencing rapid assessment increases — Northeast Minneapolis gentrification areas, for example, where Hennepin County property assessments have risen substantially over the 2017–2023 period. A landlord who can document a 20% property tax increase in a single year has a legitimate basis for a petition surcharge.

Operating cost increase petitions

Chapter 244 provides a third petition category for extraordinary operating cost increases that cannot be absorbed within the 3% annual increase allowance. This category is narrower and more discretionary: Regulatory Services must find that the operating cost increases are (1) genuine and documented, (2) not within normal maintenance cost ranges, and (3) result in a landlord hardship condition where the property cannot be maintained at a reasonable level within the 3% cap. Common qualifying costs include: extraordinary insurance premium increases (following major claims or market-wide insurance pricing shifts), utility cost increases for landlord-paid utilities in older buildings, and mandatory maintenance costs driven by new city code requirements.

Processing timeline and approval considerations

Minneapolis Regulatory Services’ processing timeline for Chapter 244 petitions has historically ranged from 60 to 180 days, depending on the complexity of the petition, the adequacy of the documentation submitted, and Regulatory Services’ current caseload. Petitions that are submitted with complete documentation (detailed contractor invoices, permit records, before/after photographs, cost allocation methodology) are processed more quickly than petitions requiring supplemental submissions. Regulatory Services may approve the full requested surcharge, approve a partial surcharge, or deny the petition entirely. Tenants in affected buildings receive notice of a filed petition and have the right to submit responses before a determination is made. A denied or partially approved petition may be appealed by the landlord through the city’s administrative appeal process.

Landlords planning major capital improvements to covered Minneapolis buildings should initiate petition preparation concurrently with project planning — not after the improvements are complete. Regulatory Services’ determination of qualifying costs and amortization periods can affect project scoping. A landlord who completes a $150,000 renovation and then petitions may discover that $40,000 of the renovation costs do not qualify as capital improvements (e.g., cosmetic finishes, appliance upgrades, non-structural carpentry) and the surcharge calculation is based on only $110,000. Advance coordination with Regulatory Services on the scope of qualifying costs before project completion reduces this risk.

11. Rental registration, licensing, and the Chapter 244 enforcement framework

Minneapolis requires all residential rental properties to be registered and licensed with Minneapolis Regulatory Services (CPED). The rental license system is separate from Chapter 244 but interacts with it significantly: Regulatory Services can condition, suspend, or revoke a rental license as part of Chapter 244 enforcement, which creates a powerful enforcement mechanism beyond civil penalties alone.

Rental license requirements

Minneapolis rental property owners must obtain a rental license for each property that is rented to tenants. License requirements include:

• Annual license application and fee payment to Regulatory Services
• Periodic rental housing inspection (frequency varies by license tier; properties with prior code violations or complaints are inspected more frequently)
• Disclosure of current tenants and rents upon request from Regulatory Services
• Compliance certification that all rents charged are within Chapter 244 limits (for covered units)

The rental license system creates a built-in documentation requirement: a landlord who cannot demonstrate Chapter 244 compliance (because they lack rent-increase documentation) has a licensing vulnerability in addition to the direct Chapter 244 enforcement exposure.

Chapter 244 enforcement pathways

Tenant complaint to Regulatory Services: A tenant who believes their rent exceeds the Chapter 244 ceiling may file a written complaint with Minneapolis Regulatory Services. Regulatory Services investigates by requesting documentation from both the landlord and the tenant: the landlord must produce the base rent documentation (May 2022 or first covered tenancy rent), every annual increase notice, and any approved petition surcharges. If Regulatory Services determines an overcharge occurred, it may order: (1) rollback of the rent to the lawful ceiling; (2) refund of excess amounts collected; (3) civil penalties against the landlord.

Civil action in Hennepin County District Court: Tenants may bring a private civil lawsuit in the Fourth Judicial District for Chapter 244 violations. Minnesota civil courts have jurisdiction over claims of unlawful rent overcharge, and tenants who prevail may recover disgorgement of overcharged rent, additional damages, and reasonable attorney fees under Minnesota statutory fee-shifting provisions applicable to landlord-tenant violations. The statute of limitations for overcharge claims under Minnesota law is generally six years for contract-based claims and, for statutory violations, the applicable statutory period. Landlords should consult Minnesota real estate counsel on the precise limitations period applicable to Chapter 244 overcharge claims.

Rental license action: As noted above, Regulatory Services may condition renewal of a rental license on Chapter 244 compliance. A license suspension or revocation bars the landlord from lawfully renting units in the affected building, which can result in loss of all rental income from the property until compliance is restored.

Record-keeping: the most important Chapter 244 compliance practice

The single most important compliance practice for Minneapolis covered-unit landlords is maintaining complete, organized documentation of:

1. The base rent for each covered unit: the rent charged on May 1, 2022 (for occupied units) or the first rent charged to the first post-ordinance tenant (for units that were vacant on May 1, 2022). This documentation should include the lease or rental agreement as of that date.
2. Every annual rent increase notice served: date, amount, new rent, percentage increase, and proof of service (copy of notice signed by tenant, certified mail receipt, or process server affidavit).
3. Any petition surcharges approved by Regulatory Services: the petition decision letter, the approved surcharge amount, the effective date, and the expiration date of the temporary surcharge.
4. Every tenancy change: when a tenant vacated, what the rent was at that time, and what rent was set for the incoming tenant. The incoming tenant’s starting rent cannot exceed the prior tenant’s ceiling; documenting this continuously prevents cumulative drift.

Landlords who lack complete documentation for even one year of a multi-year tenancy history may be unable to demonstrate that their current rent is within the Chapter 244 ceiling, even if it actually is. Regulatory Services has limited tolerance for documentation gaps: the burden of proof of compliance is on the landlord.

12. Minn. Stat. §471.9996: why Minneapolis is the only Minnesota city with rent control in 2026

Minnesota state law, as amended during the 2023 legislative session (HF 2414, signed by Governor Walz), added Minn. Stat. §471.9996, which restricts other Minnesota cities from enacting rent-stabilization ordinances without meeting specific procedural and substantive conditions. The legislation was a legislative compromise between housing advocates (who supported local authority to enact rent control) and landlord and developer groups (who sought to limit rent control’s spread to other Minnesota cities).

The key provisions of Minn. Stat. §471.9996, as applicable to future rent-stabilization ordinances in Minnesota cities other than Minneapolis:

• Voter referendum requirement: Any Minnesota city that wants to enact a rent-stabilization ordinance must first obtain voter approval through a public referendum. The referendum must clearly disclose the proposed ordinance’s key terms (cap percentage, coverage scope, exemption structure). A city council cannot unilaterally enact rent stabilization by ordinance alone.
• Mandatory new-construction exemption: Any Minnesota rent-stabilization ordinance enacted under §471.9996 must exempt units in buildings with a first certificate of occupancy issued within the preceding 20 years (a 20-year rolling new-construction exemption). This exemption period is longer than any other U.S. jurisdiction’s rolling exemption (Oregon 15 years, California 15 years, Washington 12 years, Montgomery County 23 years are the comparison points; 20 years is in the upper range).
• Minneapolis grandfathered: Minneapolis Chapter 244, having been enacted pursuant to a November 2021 voter referendum (Question 3) before §471.9996’s enactment, was grandfathered under the 2023 legislation. The 2023 law required Minneapolis to amend Chapter 244 to include a new-construction exemption of at least 20 years (which produced the March 1, 2022 fixed cutoff, representing approximately a 20-year exemption for the newest buildings covered at that time), but it did not invalidate Chapter 244 as a whole or require Minneapolis to adopt vacancy decontrol.
• Saint Paul Chapter 193A also pre-dates the 2023 legislation: Saint Paul’s rent stabilization ordinance (Chapter 193A) was also voter-approved (November 2021 ballot, the same election as Minneapolis’s Question 3) and is similarly grandfathered. Saint Paul amended its ordinance to provide a new-construction exemption through the 2023 legislation’s process.

The practical consequence of Minn. Stat. §471.9996 for the Twin Cities investment market: as of 2026, Minneapolis and Saint Paul are the only Minnesota cities with active rent-stabilization ordinances that apply to existing rental stock. Suburbs including Edina, Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Plymouth, Brooklyn Park, and Minnetonka have no rent control. A Rochester, Duluth, or Mankato landlord operates entirely outside any Minnesota rent stabilization framework. And even if a Minnesota city were to begin the process of enacting rent stabilization under §471.9996, the mandatory voter referendum, 20-year new-construction exemption, and other procedural requirements make it a slow, multi-year process. The Minneapolis and Saint Paul ordinances, enacted in the pre-§471.9996 era, represent a regulatory regime that was deliberately constrained from spreading further across the state.

Investors who are concerned about Chapter 244’s financial impact and who are considering Minnesota suburban markets should note this legal landscape: suburban Minneapolis communities are not at near-term risk of enacting rent control under the §471.9996 framework.

13. Eight-step compliance checklist for Minneapolis Chapter 244 landlords in 2026

1. Confirm coverage status for each unit. Determine whether each rental unit in your portfolio is covered under Chapter 244. Check: (a) building’s first CoC date (covered if before March 1, 2022); (b) owner-occupancy status (exempt if you own 4 or fewer units and live in one as your primary residence); (c) federal/state subsidy status (exempt if unit is subject to binding affordable-housing rent restrictions). For CoC verification, search the Minneapolis Inspections Services permit database at the City of Minneapolis website. If any uncertainty exists about coverage, contact Minneapolis Regulatory Services (612-673-3000) for a coverage determination before advertising or raising rent.
2. Establish and document the base rent for each covered unit. For covered units that were occupied on May 1, 2022: pull the lease or rental agreement as of that date and record the monthly rent as the Chapter 244 base rent. For covered units that were vacant on May 1, 2022: document the first post-ordinance rent charged to the first post-effective-date tenant as the base rent. Store this documentation permanently — the base rent is needed to calculate the lawful ceiling for every future year and every future tenant of the unit.
3. Calculate the current lawful ceiling for each covered unit. The current ceiling is: base rent × 1.03ⁿ, where n = the number of full 12-month ordinance years that have elapsed since the base rent was established. For a unit with a May 2022 base rent and 2026 analysis (4 full ordinance years elapsed): ceiling = base × 1.125509. For units where the base was established mid-year, the calculation starts from the anniversary date. Document the calculation and retain it.
4. Verify that the current tenant’s rent does not exceed the ceiling. If the current rent is at or below the calculated ceiling, you are in compliance. If the current rent exceeds the ceiling — potentially because a prior landlord charged above-cap or because a well-intentioned but arithmetically incorrect increase was made — rollback to the lawful ceiling immediately and refund excess amounts collected. Proactive compliance is less costly than Regulatory Services-compelled rollback plus civil penalties.
5. Serve written notice before any rent increase. Before increasing rent on a covered unit, serve written notice at least one full rental-payment period in advance (Minn. Stat. §504B.135(a)). The notice must specify: current rent, new rent amount, effective date, percentage increase. Best practice: include a statement that the increase is within the Chapter 244 annual allowance. Serve by personal delivery with tenant signature acknowledgment or by certified mail (keep the tracking receipt). Retain a copy of every notice permanently.
6. Apply hard vacancy control at every tenancy change. When a covered unit’s tenant vacates — regardless of whether the vacancy is voluntary or the result of a just-cause eviction — the ceiling for the incoming tenant is the prior tenant’s ceiling at the time of vacancy, plus any permissible annual increases that have accrued since the last increase was charged. Do not reset to market. Do not advertise the unit at market rate if market exceeds the ceiling. Set the new tenant’s rent at or below the ceiling and document the continuity of the ceiling from prior to current tenant in the compliance file.
7. File petitions promptly for qualifying capital improvements. If you are undertaking major capital improvements to a covered building, contact Minneapolis Regulatory Services before the project begins to confirm which costs will qualify for a capital improvement surcharge and to understand the petition process timeline. Gather contractor invoices, permit applications, and cost documentation during the project. File the petition as soon as the qualifying costs are finalized. Do not delay petition filing by months while waiting for all documentation — Regulatory Services processing times run 60–180 days, and the surcharge does not apply retroactively before petition approval.
8. Maintain a complete, permanent compliance file for each covered unit. For each covered unit, maintain a file containing: base rent documentation, every annual increase notice, every petition filing and Regulatory Services determination, every lease with each successive tenant (showing the starting rent), and every notice of vacancy. This file is your complete Chapter 244 compliance history. It should be organized to allow you or a compliance professional to reconstruct the ceiling for any date from the ordinance’s effective date to the present in under 30 minutes. The file should be preserved for at least six years (corresponding to the general Minnesota civil statute of limitations) beyond the date of the last covered tenancy in the building.

FAQ