1. Question: When will the Bill go into effect, and what does that mean for 90-day rent increase notices issued in manufactured housing communities before the effective date?

 

Answer:  The effective date is September 1, 2025. It is not “retroactive” i.e., it cannot affect notices legally issued before then. So rent increase notices properly issued (i.e., delivered, attached and posted, or mailed) before September 1, 2025 will not be affected. However, rent increase notices issued on or after September 1, 2025 must comply with the new laws in every respect.

 

2. Question: What if I issued a rent increase for less than the current maximum increase cap in February 2025? Can I issue another one before the September 1, 2025 effective date so long as it does not exceed the current cap before HB 3054 becomes effective? 

 

Answer: ORS 90.600(1)(b) currently provides that a park landlord may not increase the rent more than once in any 12-month period. HB 3054 did not affect that law. In other words, once you issued a rent increase in any 12-month period, you cannot issue another one covering that same 12-month period. The only exception – which you should confirm with your own attorney – is if you issued a limited rent increase for only six months in February 2025, it would seem you could issue a second one for six months before September 1, 2025 and avoid any new regulations under HB 3054. But this is not legal advice; you must confirm with your own attorney.

 

3. Question: As a landlord, I own three homes in my community that I rent out to tenants. How will HB 3054 affect me?

 

Answer: HB 3054 amended ORS 90.324 to provide that (1) No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) shall calculate the maximum annual rent increase percentage allowed for the following calendar year  as the lesser of Ten percent (10.00%) or  Seven percent (7.00%) plus the applicable CPI.

 

4. Question: Does HB 3054 apply to RVs or RV parks?

 

Answer:  RVs are subject to the general landlord-tenant law and are not subject to the manufactured housing statutes in ORS 90.505-.850. In other words, the laws that apply to all other tenants, e.g., those in apartment, rental homes/condominiums, etc. They are affected by HB 3054 as described in the Answer to Question No. 3, above.

 

5. Question: Does HB 3054 apply to marinas and floating home communities?

 

Answer:  Marina and floating home communities are subject to the same laws as in the manufactured housing statutes in ORS 90.505-.850.  In other words, on an after September 30, 2025 and each year thereafter, theOregon Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) will calculate the maximum annual rent increasepercentage allowed for 2026 and thereafter.

 

6. Question: Will we have to use different MHCO rent increase notice forms?

 

Answer: Yes. It is Form 49. It has already been revised. Any rent increase notices issued on or after September 1, 2025 should use the new MHCO Form 49.

 

7. Question: Will HB 3054 apply to all Oregon parks?

 

Answer: Yes, but the size of the park now matters. For parks (and marina and floating home communities) with more than 30 spaces (or slips), rent increases will be capped at six percent (6.00%) and for those with 30or fewer spaces (or slips), they will be capped at the lesser of ten percent (10.00%) or seven percent plusCPI.

 

8. Question: Does HB 3054 apply to parks located in the City of Portland?

 

Answer:  If a Community is located within the City of Portland, a rent increase should not exceed 9.99% - as opposed to the 10% cap for parks with 30 or fewer spaces (or slips). So even though HB 3054 sets the cap at the lesser of ten percent (10.00%) or seven percent plus CPI. You do not want a total cap on rent to exceed 9.9% in Portland. A rent increase of 10.00% or more in the city of Portland can result in a landlord having to pay the resident’s “relocation assistance” of thousands of dollars. If your community is located within the city limitsof Portland, you should consult with your attorney before issuing a rent increase notice.

 

9. Question: Does HB 3054 have any exclusions to rent increase notices?

 

Answer:  Yes, they are generally the same as before but with the exception in bold below. The rent capcalculation does not apply if (1) the dwelling unit’s first certificate of occupancy was issued less than 15years before the date of the notice of rent increase; or (2) the dwelling unit is regulated or certified as affordable housing by federal, state or local government and it (a) does not increase the tenant’s portion ofthe rent, or (b) is required by the program eligibility requirements or (c) is due to a tenant’s change inincome, or (d) for a community of more than 30 spaces and complies with ORS 90.600(3)(c)(A) –(G).  Those provisions are detailed and should be reviewed separately.

 

10. Question: Are there any other major changes brought by HB 3054?

 

Answer:  Yes, there are three:

1.  Prior to HB 3054, the Oregon Legislature overlooked leases (i.e., “fixed term tenancies”). The result was that landlords using leases were not limited in their rent formulas (within reason at least) by the same caps as month-to-month tenancies. This new legislation corrects that oversight, and subjects rental increases in park leases to the same rent caps found in month-to-month tenancies.

 

Since the effective date of this Bill is September 1, 2025, landlords may wish to consider putting their new tenants on fixed term leases before then. This is not to suggest that the rent formulas should be open-ended without limits or guidelines. But a well- drafted rent formula based upon reasonable and objective criteria should survive attack. After all, before the caps, there were never any limits on rent increases (other than the existing good faith provision under ORS 90.130.) This is not legal advice. Members should check with their own legal counsel.

 

1.  Although the law has always provided that at the time that a landlord gives the prospective purchaser an application  they should also give them certain additional documents including “a list of any failures to maintain the space or to comply with any other provisions of the rental agreement, including aesthetic or cosmetic improvements….” The italicized text has been deleted, meaning that prior tenant notices of alleged violations based upon “aesthetic or cosmetic improvements” cannot be provided to the new tenant.

 

2. The Bill made a major change to ORS 90.680. It now provides that a landlord may not require that aselling tenant, prospective purchaser or purchaser must consent to the inspection of the interior of thehome or obtain an inspection of the interior of the home by a third party, as a condition of Landlord’s acceptance of the required notice of sale, approval of a sale, or approval of a new tenancy by thepurchaser.

 

Not having been present during the legislative drafting of this Bill, I cannot explain its rationale. I will attempt to find out more. But since I participated in the (now discontinued) landlord-tenant coalitions, I submit the following observation: ORS 90.740(4)(c) imposes upon tenants a duty to “Keep the dwelling or home, and the rented space, safe from the hazards of fire.” (Emphasis added.) This is a duty tenant owes to the landlord. So today when the home sells, if the owner had made dangerous non-code wiring alterations to its interior, those risks can be discovered by the landlord through a required inspection upon transfer. Then, prior to closing and possession, the tenant and prospective purchaser can reach agreement upon bringing the wiring up to code and averting electrical fires. This protects everyone. After this new law goes into effect, landlords should consider providing all prospective sellers and buyers with information about the importance of a professional inspections including an evaluation of code compliance for all electrical wiring and other fire risks. But such inspections should not be made a condition of tenant approval or consent to the sale.

 

House Bill 3054A affects four sections of Oregon’s manufactured housing  laws. Below is a summary of the changes.

 

ORS 90.324 (Calculation of maximum rent increases). The text in bold print is new:

 

1.   No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services shall calculate the maximum annual rent increase percentage allowed for the followingcalendar year:

(a) For tenancies subject to ORS 90.600(1)[1] in facilities with more than 30 spaces, assix percent.

(b) For tenancies subject to ORS 90.600 (1) in facilities with 30 or fewer spaces or for tenancies subject to ORS 90.323,[2] as the lesser of: (A) Ten percent; or (B) Seven percent plusCPI.

2.   No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of AdministrativeServices shall publish the maximum annual rent increase percentages allowed under thissection, along with the provisions of ORS 90.323 and 90.600, in a press release.

3. The term “CPI” means the September annual 12-month average change in theConsumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, West Region (All Items), as most recentlypublished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.

 

Comment: This change bifurcates rent caps for MHP month-to-month tenancies into those with more than 30 spaces and those with 30 or fewer spaces. For those with over 30 spaces, the rent cap is six percent (6.00%) and for 30 or less it is the lesser of 10.00% or 7.00% plus CPI.

///

///

///

ORS 90.545 (Fixed term tenancy expiration). The text in bold print is new:

 

A landlord’s proposed new rental agreement may include new or revised terms, conditions, rulesor regulations, if the new or revised terms, conditions, rules or regulations:***Are consistent withthe rights and remedies provided to tenants under this chapter, including the right to keep a petpursuant to ORS 90.530 and limits on rent increases under ORS 90.600 (1);

 

Comment: Prior to HB 3054, , the legislative drafters overlooked leases (i.e., “fixed term tenancies”). The result was that landlords using leases were not limited in their rent formulas (within reason at least) by the same caps as month-to-month tenancies. This new legislation eliminates that oversight, and subjects rental increases in leases to the same rental caps found in month-to-month tenancies.

 

Since the effective date of this Bill is September 1, 2025, landlords may wish to consider putting their new tenants on fixed term leases before then. This is not to suggest that the rent formulas should be open-ended without limits or guidelines. But a well- drafted rent formula based upon reasonable and objective criteria should survive attack. After all, before the caps, there were never any limits on rent increases (other than the existing good faith provision under ORS 90.130.)

 

ORS 90.600 (Increases in rent). The text in bold print is new:

 

A rent increase is not subject to [the rent cap for month-to-month tenancies] if:

***[It] is:

(A) For a facility with more than 30 spaces;

(B) Not greater than 12 percent;

(C) In lieu of and not in addition to a rent increase allowed within the 12-month period asdescribed [above];

(D) Occurring at least five years following a previous rent increase authorized under this paragraph, if any;

(E) Related to a significant project to add, replace, repair or upgrade infrastructure for thefacility;

(F) Approved by a written affirmative vote of 51 percent of the spaces in the facility that areoccupied by tenants on a vote that contains the signature and identifies the space of the voter;

(G) Approved by votes ***that are collected:

(i) At least 30 days after the landlord has provided in writing to each tenant the proposedinfrastructure project, a documented estimate of the cost of the project, an estimated timeline for the start and completion date for the project and the estimate of the rentincrease necessary to cover the cost of the improvement; and

(ii) At least 14 days after the landlord has met with the tenants to discuss the proposal; and

(H) Fully refunded to tenants by the landlord, without demand, less the maximumallowable rent increase under ORS 90.324, if the project is not substantially completed asdescribed [above] in the notice [described above] within 12 months of the estimatedcompletion date in the notice.

(4) A landlord that increases rent in violation of [this subsection] *** shall be liable to the tenant inan amount equal to three months’ rent plus actual damages suffered by the tenant.

 

Comment:  The purpose of this new text is self-explanatory. It provides an exception to the rent increase statute for communities with over 30 spaces to recover the cost of adding, replacing, repairing or upgrading park infrastructure.

 

ORS 90.680 (Sale of home on rental space). The text in bold print is new:

 

A landlord may not require that a selling tenant, prospective purchaser or purchaser consentto the inspection of the interior of the dwelling or home or obtain an inspection of theinterior of the dwelling or home by a third party, including as a condition of:

(a) Acceptance of the [required] notice of sale under subsection (8)(a) of this section;

(b) Approval of a sale under this section; or

(c) Approval of a new tenancy by the purchaser.

 

Comment: Not having been present during the negotiations of this Bill, I cannot explain its rationale. I will attempt to find out more. But since I participated in the (now discontinued)  landlord-tenant coalitions, I cannot resist the following observation: ORS 90.740(4)(c) imposes upon tenants the duty to “Keep the dwelling or home, and the rented space, safe from the hazards of fire.” (Emphasis added.) This is a required tenant duty to the landlord. So today when the home sells, if the owner had made dangerous non-code wiring alterations to its interior, those risks can be discovered by a required inspection upon transfer. Then the tenant and prospective purchaser can reach agreement upon bringing the wiring up to code and averting electrical fires.

 

It is for that reason that the current MHCO Rental and Lease Agreements provides that as a condition of landlord’s consent, the homeowner/seller must provide

 

“…a copy of a current written inspection report from an Oregon-certified and licensed Home inspector, verifying that as of the date of the inspection: (a) the Home, including, but not limited to all heating, cooling, and electrical systems and all appliances located therein, are safe from the hazards of fire; (b) the Home has one or more smoke alarms approved under applicable law, and, where applicable, one or more carbon monoxide alarms****The cost of this inspection shall be the responsibility of the TENANT, but may be negotiated with the prospective purchaser as part of the sale transaction.”

 

By prohibiting professional inspections upon resale, it would seem HB 3054 creates the risk that dangerous conditions such as defective wiring and resulting fire hazards will be perpetuated. Fire endangers not just the new purchaser but the entire community.

 

Going forward, landlords may wish to consider including an inspection advisory to all prospective purchasers emphasizing the importance of home inspections prior to closing a sale. While this cannot make inspections a condition of landlord’s consent to the sale, it can certainly encourage the practice.

 

The above information is general in nature and should not be construed as legal advice. MHCO Members should consult with their own attorney if they have any questions or concerns on the above legislation.

 

[1]  ORS 90.600(1) applies to tenancies that are governed by ORS 90.505 – 90.850, the manufactured housing statutes.

[2]  ORS 90.323 applies to tenancies that are not governed by ORS 90.505 – 90.850, the manufactured housing statutes.

 

This article is informational only and is not intended as legal advice.  Always consult with a competent attorney before undertaking any legal action.

Question: Our park has some manufactured homes and some RV spaces. We are having problems with some of our RV spaces and late payments.  Can we use the “3-strikes” rent nonpayment rule?  If not, what can we do to avoid having to constantly deal with late paying RV tenants?

 

 

Question: I'm in the middle of an eviction against a resident for nonpayment of rent and Legal Aid is claiming there is a statute saying I can only go back one year back for past-due rent. Is this correct?

 

 

Even with solid evidence that a resident has broken your rules, you run the risk of a retaliation claim any time you take action against a resident who has filed a fair housing complaint against you.