Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Renters Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Salem council refers broker-fees home rule petition to committee amid debate over tenant impact
Summary
The Salem City Council voted to refer a home rule petition that would require broker fees be paid by the party who hires a broker to the Community and Economic Development Committee co‑posted with the Committee of the Whole after members and public commenters debated whether the measure would actually protect renters or merely shift costs.
The Salem City Council on March 27 voted to refer a home rule petition on broker fees — an order that would require broker fees be paid by the party who solicits a licensed broker — to the Committee on Community and Economic Development, co‑posted with the Committee of the Whole.
Supporters said the change would ease the upfront cost burden for renters. "Eliminating broker fees will lower the upfront cost barrier," said Justin Bates during public comment. Councilor Davis, who moved the referral, said the petition was intended to join cities already pursuing similar measures and to increase pressure at the state level.
Opponents and some council members warned the petition’s current language could have the opposite effect for renters. "There's been a lot of misinformation that this home rule petition eliminates the fee for the renter. It does just the opposite," Councilor Cohen said, arguing the state bills under consideration are stronger and would prevent renters from paying broker fees under a wider set of circumstances. Cohen urged colleagues to push the state bills — referenced in the meeting as House Bill H.449 and Senate Bill S.224 — while improving local language if the council proceeds.
Council members discussed alternatives including drafting a resolution in support of the state legislation and editing the home rule petition’s language in committee. Several councilors, including Davis and Councilor Marcello, said they expect committee review to refine the language and possibly remove the local rule before any ordinance would be enacted.
The motion to refer carried in a hand vote. Council members debated committee versus resolution routes before agreeing to co‑post the matter with the Committee of the Whole to ensure broader participation.
The council did not take a final vote on an ordinance or on adopting the petition as an ordinance; the referral sends the measure for detailed drafting and deliberation.
Looking ahead, council members said they will review the petition language in committee and may coordinate with state lawmakers as the House and Senate bills progress through the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure.
