Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances tenant-protection bill to cap screening fees and require fee transparency; sponsors to revise background-check language
Summary
Senate Bill 267 (committee substitute) would standardize and cap rental application fees, require landlords to disclose move‑in costs and return screening fees under specific conditions, and restrict late fees to rent; sponsors agreed to refine background-check and refund provisions.
The committee considered the committee substitute to Senate Bill 267, a tenant‑protection measure that aims to lower barriers to housing by standardizing application and screening fees, requiring cost disclosures on rental listings and restricting how landlords calculate late fees.
Supporters said the bill would reduce multiple application fees and nonrefundable holding fees that currently prevent low‑income households and voucher holders from securing housing. “These fees are related to housing affordability. The fees directly impact housing accessibility,” said a homelessness-services representative who testified in support.
Key elements in the committee substitute: a cap on screening/application fees (the draft uses a $50 cap), a requirement that owners provide written or digital receipts showing how screening fees were used and to return screening fees when an application is not processed within a stated timeline, and a late‑fee provision limiting assessments to rent only (the draft lowers typical late fees from 10% to 5% of delinquent rent and specifies that utilities, pet or parking fees not be included in the late‑fee base).
The committee spent significant time on background‑check provisions. Senator Duhigg said applicants are sometimes charged repeatedly for credit and background checks when they apply at multiple properties controlled by the same owner or management company. The sponsors agreed to return with revised language to allow landlords to rely on a timely report they already obtained (for example, within 90 days) so applicants are not repeatedly charged, and to clarify whether landlords must provide copies of reports and how refunds are processed (the transcript shows discussion about certified mail for refunds).
The bill also establishes a private right of action for applicants to recover fees and statutory damages for unauthorized screening fees. Committee members asked for clarification on where statutory damages would go in successful claims; sponsors said the remedy would return fees to tenants and could include statutory damages up to $250 plus attorneys’ fees in private enforcement.
Committee members agreed to further changes and the sponsor said the bill would likely be returned as an updated substitute. During the hearing the sponsor moved a combined motion — a do‑not‑pass on the original SB 267 and a do‑pass on the Judiciary committee substitute for SB 267 — to allow the substitute to be considered; the committee did not take final floor action in the excerpt and told sponsors to return with clarifying text on background checks and FCRA/consumer‑reporting issues.
