Olympia council hears policy options to reduce tenant screening barriers; staff to advance income/rent and SSN changes

Krista Linson, a city staff member, briefed the Olympia City Council at its Sept. 16 study session on draft tenant‑screening policy options and community feedback gathered for the city’s housing action goals.

Linson said the proposals respond to local and regional plans and recent federal guidance. “So I'm here to provide a briefing on tenant screening policy options, community input on proposed policy, and some potential approaches that council might consider taking to address this issue,” she told the council.

The proposed changes fall into five areas: limits on income‑to‑rent ratios, alternatives to requiring Social Security numbers, rules on considering criminal history, restrictions on how credit history can be used, and limits on eviction or rental‑history rejections. Linson told the council that staff developed the draft language after reviewing HUD guidance and sample policies from other jurisdictions and shared it with the Land Use and Environment Committee earlier this year.

Why it matters

Council members and community service providers told staff that screening practices can block access to housing and worsen homelessness, while many landlords said screening reduces their financial and tenant‑safety risk. The city’s survey (283 respondents) showed large differences between landlords’ and renters’ views: for example, 89% of landlord respondents reported running rental‑history checks and 84% verified income; among renters and case managers, 55% reported having been rejected for low income, 43% for credit history and 21% for criminal history.

Policy details and council reaction

Income‑to‑rent ratio: Staff proposed capping the ratio that landlords may require at 2.5 times monthly rent, instead of the more common 3-to-1 rule, while allowing combined household income or a designated financially responsible applicant. Linson said the draft drew on language used in Tacoma, Portland and Colorado and would allow landlords to accept cosigners or documented security where appropriate. Councilmember Madrone said land‑use committee members had identified the income‑to‑rent limit as an “urgent” action because many landlords currently require each adult applicant to show three times the rent. Several councilmembers — including Gilman and Cooper — voiced support for allowing combined household income in many cases.

Social Security numbers: Staff proposed prohibiting landlords from rejecting applicants solely because they do not provide a Social Security number and from asking about lawful presence in the U.S.; alternative documentation (for example, ITINs or other identity and income evidence) would be allowed. Linson told council she had checked with legal aid about whether a Social Security number is necessary to pursue eviction or collections and was told it is not required to file legal action. Councilmembers emphasized possible enforcement, privacy and record‑security concerns; several urged staff to spell out permitted alternative documentation and data‑security expectations for landlords and screening vendors.

Criminal history: Staff recommended limiting how long or which convictions may be used to deny tenancy and discouraging blanket bans (for example, “no felonies”), following HUD guidance urging individualized assessment of the nature, severity and recency of offenses. The draft would bar rejections for arrests that did not produce convictions, convictions more than five years old (with exceptions for serious violent or certain listed offenses), convictions vacated/expunged/sealed and crimes committed as a minor. Councilmembers and service providers urged caution in how such a policy would be enforced; several members suggested starting with education and outreach before imposing new enforcement duties on staff.

Credit history: The draft would prohibit rejecting tenants who have no credit history or insufficient credit history, and would not allow the routine denial of applicants solely because of medical or education debt; landlords could still consider debt‑to‑income ratios and require mitigating documentation such as a voucher or cosigner. Councilmembers noted credit reports are imperfect and can reproduce disparities; several supported stronger education and alternatives rather than a sudden ban on credit checks.

Eviction and rental history: Staff recommended barring tenant denials based on eviction records where the tenant prevailed, where cases were dismissed or settled, where a Washington order of limited dissemination was entered, or where judgments have been satisfied. Landlords expressed concerns about public records that do not show outcomes clearly; both landlords and renters asked that staff consider time limits (e.g., 2–5 years) and case‑by‑case reviews.

Community input and unintended consequences

Linson described other ideas in the survey, including landlord education about discrimination, credit counseling, rent guarantee or risk pools, incentives for owners to accept higher‑barrier tenants, and regional coordination. The survey also found landlords were concerned some owners might sell units or take them off the market if many new restrictions were adopted; roughly half of landlord respondents said they might consider selling if the proposed policies became law.

Council direction and next steps

Council members broadly asked staff to move the two policies that most directly remove procedural screening barriers — the income‑to‑rent ratio cap and the Social Security number alternatives — toward the business meeting for action. Councilmember Madrone and others said the Land Use and Environment Committee had already recommended those policies and that the items were ready to advance to the full council for further consideration.

For the other three areas — criminal history, credit history and eviction/rental history screening — council members and several committee members recommended pursuing robust education and outreach for landlords and property managers first, and then reconsidering regulatory options after additional outreach and legal analysis.

What staff asked from council

Linson asked council to direct staff whether to pursue the draft policies to the full council for formal action or to continue with additional education and programmatic approaches. Councilmembers indicated support for forwarding the income‑to‑rent and Social Security number items to the business meeting or full council and asked staff to prepare more details on implementation, enforcement, alternative documentation and data security for screening vendors.

Ending

Councilmembers emphasized the need to balance landlord, tenant and public‑safety concerns, and several asked staff to coordinate regionally and to return with concrete draft ordinance language and options for enforcement and landlord guidance. No formal vote was taken at the study session; staff will return with next steps based on council direction.