Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Application Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances rental application fee limits to amending order after hours of testimony
Summary
Senate Bill 1042, which would limit landlords to charging application fees to no more than two households at a time and require disclosure of screening criteria, was sent to the fourteenth order for possible amendment after extensive testimony from tenants, housing advocates and property managers.
After more than two hours of testimony from tenants, housing advocates and property managers, the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee voted to send Senate Bill 1042 to the fourteenth order for possible amendment. The bill, introduced by Senator Ali Rabie (District 16), would limit landlords to charging rental application fees to no more than two households at a time, require landlords to disclose prioritized screening criteria on listings, exempt landlords who do not charge or directly receive application fees, and include a provision addressing listings for units not available within 60 days (subject to amendment as discussed at the hearing).
Senator Rabie framed the bill as a targeted consumer-protection measure intended to curb alleged predatory practices that impose significant nonrefundable costs on renters searching in a competitive market. He and supporters cited examples from eviction-prevention organizations and tenants who paid hundreds or even more than $1,000 in application fees while obtaining no offers; Jesse Tree and Boise Tenants United provided firsthand testimony. Supporters said the bill does not cap application fees but would limit how many households may be charged at once and increase listing transparency.
Property managers and landlords expressed a mix of support and concern. Several property managers and trade groups including the Idaho Apartment Association and the National Association of Residential Property Managers' local chapter said most landlords already operate consistent with the bill (for example, processing applications in priority order and not holding multiple paid applications for the same unit). Other landlords warned of unintended consequences for owners who advertise units in advance, noted college-town leasing cycles (where owners plan months ahead) and questioned who would monitor and enforce the new standard. A substitute motion to hold the bill in committee failed on a roll-call vote (motion to hold failed 7–3 on the roll call recorded in the transcript); a subsequent motion to send the bill to the fourteenth order for possible amendment passed by voice vote. The committee did not adopt final statutory language and sponsors indicated they will work on amendments to clarify the 60-day listing provision and other technical points.
Actions recorded in the hearing include: a motion to send SB 1042 to the fourteenth order (mover: Senator Ricks; second: Senator Lent) and a substitute motion to hold (mover: Senator Foreman) that failed on a recorded roll call. The final motion to send SB 1042 to the fourteenth order for possible amendment passed and the bill will return to committee drafting for proposed amendments.
