House committee hears bill to require written holding‑deposit agreements, penalties for breaches

State Rep. Anessa Hartman introduced House Bill 3,521 on Feb. 17 before the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness, saying the measure would require written holding‑deposit agreements and authorize a penalty equal to the deposit if a landlord fails to meet that agreement.

Hartman said the bill grew from tenant reports that landlords kept holding deposits even when rental units were unsafe or rented to someone else. “Tenants should not have to choose between signing a lease for an unsafe home, or losing a significant amount of money,” Hartman said.

The bill would require that hold‑deposit agreements be in writing before a landlord receives a deposit and would require return of the deposit plus a penalty equal to the deposit amount if the landlord breaches the agreement. Hartman and proponents said the change aims to make hold deposits a tool to reserve units, not a method of coercion.

Supporters included Kim McCarty of Community Alliance of Tenants and Cameron Harrington of Oregon Housing Alliance. McCarty said tenants routinely lose hundreds to thousands of dollars when landlords refuse to return deposits and that the bill offers "a practical proposal that gives tenants some ability to hold landlords accountable for their agreements." Harrington called it “common sense legislation” in a tight rental market.

Opponents, including Jason Miller, legislative director for the Oregon Rental Housing Association, and Jonathan Claley of Multifamily Northwest, said the bill’s proposed penalty could unfairly punish housing providers for delays outside their control. Miller gave an example of a new complex delayed six months because the power company required specific meters that were out of stock, and said refunds — not additional statutory penalties — are often how reasonable providers handle such problems. Tia Politi, president of the Oregon Rental Housing Association, asked for a “for‑cause” carve‑out to avoid penalizing landlords for events beyond their control.

John Van Laningham of Oregon Law Center noted existing statutory protections and said the bill’s increased penalty is intended to offset practical barriers tenants face pursuing small claims. Committee staff confirmed the bill, as drafted, would require return of the deposit plus an additional penalty equal to the deposit regardless of whether the deposit was returned promptly.

Committee members and stakeholders discussed potential amendments to limit the penalty or create specified exceptions (for example, medical emergencies or other verified, out‑of‑control events). The committee closed the public hearing on HB 3,521 after receiving testimony and indicated the author and staff would explore workable amendments.

No formal vote was taken at the Feb. 17 hearing; the bill remains at the public‑hearing stage.

The committee timed public testimony and limited subsequent public speakers to two minutes; members said they would seek language that balances accountability for landlords and protections for tenants.