Eugene council backs state ban on rental application screening fees

EUGENE, Ore. — The Eugene City Council voted 6–1 on Jan. 29, 2025 to support House Bill 2967, which would amend the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act to prohibit residential landlords from charging applicants screening fees.

City staff said the bill would bar landlords from requiring payment of applicant screening charges, a practice councilors and advocates say creates barriers for low-income renters and people exiting homelessness. Ethan Nelson, the city’s intergovernmental relations manager, told the council the bill’s chief sponsors are Representative Mark Gamba and Senator Chris Gorsek and that no local members of the delegation had signed on as of the meeting.

Councilors said they generally favored a statewide prohibition rather than a patchwork of local rules. Councilor Keating and others urged staff to use the city’s intergovernmental relations (IGR) process to decide how much advocacy time to commit to the measure. Councilor Clark said he was “neutral” on the bill, arguing that government intervention in the market can have unintended consequences. Councilor Leach asked how the bill would treat third-party screening platforms such as Zillow or Apartments.com; Nelson replied that the bill text says “a landlord may not require payment of an applicant screening charge” and that enforcement details would likely be for the state agency charged with implementation.

Councilor Yeh and Councilor Zelenka said they supported the concept and preferred a statewide rule rather than varying municipal approaches. Councilor Kaczynski noted that Eugene had previously adopted a $10 cap on screening fees that is currently under appeal and therefore not being enforced; staff said the city paused enforcement to limit potential financial liability until higher courts provide a final ruling.

After discussion, the council president moved to “support the legislative effort to adopt House Bill 2967.” The motion was seconded and passed on a vote of 6–1. The meeting record does not show individual roll-call votes by name, only the final tally.

Staff flagged two implementation questions the council asked the legislature to clarify if the bill moves forward: whether third-party platform fees that applicants must pay to apply would be covered, and how enforcement would proceed if the state enacts the prohibition. Nelson told the council that those operational details would likely be worked out by the state agency responsible for enforcing any new law.

The council directed staff to report the position (support) to the IGR committee and to follow the city’s standard prioritization process to determine how much staff time the measure should receive. As of the Jan. 29 meeting, Nelson said the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing.