Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Deposits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to allow limited two‑month refundable security deposits draws split testimony from landlords, tenants and advocates
Summary
HB 1336 would let landlords accept an additional refundable security deposit in defined circumstances to improve access for applicants who fail screening criteria; landlords and housing groups debated whether it helps marginal applicants or would raise upfront cost barriers and strain assistance programs.
Representative Joe Alexander introduced HB 1336 as a tool to expand rental access: the bill would permit a landlord, under defined and disclosed criteria, to require a refundable security deposit up to two months’ rent for applicants who do not meet standard approval thresholds, and would include guardrails such as income caps and rescreening rights.
Supporters said the proposal provides a regulated, refundable pathway for applicants who are marginally qualified to demonstrate extra security and obtain housing they otherwise would be denied. Chris Freeman, who said he drafted the bill, told the committee it creates a “middle path” between outright denial and exclusionary screening practices by offering a refundable, regulated mechanism tied to written disclosure of screening criteria.
Opponents — including tenant advocates, legal aid representatives and homelessness-service groups — warned the up‑front cost could be prohibitive for the very people the bill intends to help and strain scarce deposit-assistance programs. Witnesses said doubling the deposit burden (from one to up to two months) would make it harder for low‑income households to move in and could worsen cost-burden and homelessness; several called for alternative approaches (rental-assistance programs, surety bonds, or scaled rescreening) rather than raising upfront requirements.
Committee members discussed technical drafting fixes (whether the provision should be tenant‑offered vs. landlord‑required, disclosure timing and fairness safeguards). The bill prompted a long panel of testimony and the committee indicated it would consider amendments.
