Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Landlord Tenant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs substitute overhauling tenant screening and screening-fee rules
Summary
A committee substitute for Senate Bill 267 rewrites several landlord-tenant provisions: it tightens permissible screening fees, removes reusable background‑check language, requires return of fees in specified cases, and moves an unfair-practices clause into the statewide Unfair Practices Act. The committee approved a due-pass motion for the sub.
The Senate Judiciary Committee considered a comprehensive landlord-tenant package in a committee substitute to Senate Bill 267. Sponsors described changes intended to limit repeat screening charges, remove reusable background‑check provisions and place certain unfair-practices language into the statewide Unfair Practices Act.
Rachel Bix, chief strategy officer at Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless, and other experts summarized edits adopted in the substitute. Bix described the key compromise on background checks: “We removed the portion that allowed for a reusable background check or credit report. … An owner shall not charge more than one screening fee to the same applicant if the screening fee was completed within 90 calendar days of the application date for any properties under the same ownership.”
The substitute moves several provisions: it clarifies reasons for returning screening fees (for example, if an owner does not process an application within 30 calendar days); it inserts “certified mail” for certain notices; and it relocates unfair-practice language into the separate Unfair Practices Act rather than keeping it solely inside the Owner‑Resident Relations Act. Committee members also agreed to streamline statutory phrasing so a violation covers charging an applicant fee in violation of the Owner‑Resident Relations Act rather than enumerating multiple specific fee permutations.
After discussion and a series of friendly adjustments from committee members, a committee member moved a do‑not‑pass on the original SB 267 and a do‑pass on the Senate Judiciary Committee substitute for SB 267; the committee recorded a due‑pass recommendation for the substitute.
Committee members emphasized they had not adopted the subcommittee language previously and wanted the updated text for further review. Sponsors said the changes were the result of negotiations with stakeholders and committee members and that they would compile a committee sub that incorporates the agreed edits for future consideration.
