Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses tenant screening fee limit and portable screening reports; staff to explore rental-registration options
Summary
Councilors debated a proposed approach that would let tenants submit portable third-party screening reports and cap landlord-run screening fees; staff were asked to consult Multifamily Northwest, evaluate enforcement mechanisms, and explore rental-registration models to fund compliance.
The Milwaukie City Council discussed a proposed local response to emerging state policy and local tenant-protection efforts that would limit tenant screening fees and allow applicants to provide third-party, portable screening reports.
Background: staff presented model approaches under consideration and cited House Bill 3974 (referenced by number in the meeting) and the City of Eugene’s existing ordinance that caps screening fees (Eugene’s cap was described as $10). Staff told council members that screening markets have many fee components (criminal background checks, credit reports, eviction history, reference calls) and that typical vendor costs often exceed local caps.
Proposed city approach: staff outlined three complementary options for council consideration: 1) identify 1–3 city-approved portable tenant-screening vendors and require landlords to accept a portable screening report from those vendors; 2) set a local fee cap for landlord-run screening (for example $10–$20); or 3) require landlords to pay for city-identified portable screening reports. Staff said portable reports often remain valid for a set period (many vendors issue reports good for 30 days) and that portable acceptance could reduce duplicated costs when applicants apply to multiple units.
Enforcement and implementation concerns: councilors raised enforcement questions and whether the city would rely on a complaint-driven model (as in Eugene) or proactive monitoring. Staff noted Eugene’s enforcement pathway allows tenants to file complaints and the city to adjudicate violations and levy remedies; the Milwaukie discussion flagged that city code enforcement capacity would affect how strictly a local rule could be enforced. Several councilors recommended pairing any screening rule with a rental-registration program so a modest registration fee could underwrite enforcement capacity, and suggested staff explore Gresham and other city models.
Next steps: council directed staff to consult Multifamily Northwest and tenant-advocacy groups to identify credible portable vendors and to return with recommendations, enforcement options and a rental-registration feasibility review. Staff also noted legal considerations (Eugene’s ordinance survived state supreme court review on the fee cap) and that the specific requirement to accept portable screening reports has not been widely litigated in Oregon.
Ending: Council members generally supported further study rather than immediate adoption; staff will report back with vendor options, enforcement recommendations, and possible rental-registration designs as part of broader housing-policy work this fall.
