Search

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.

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.

Be prepared to produce your written policy detailing your community’s standard of conduct and documentation that the resident knew about it. To prove the resident violated the rules, you should have records about his payment history or complaints against him, including evidence about the frequency and severity of the problem behavior.

Keep good records of any investigation you conducted—including witness statements, photos of any property damage or injuries, and repair receipts or medical bills incurred as a result of the resident’s misconduct. Document all your previous earlier attempts to resolve the problem, including written warnings to the resident to stop the offending behavior.

1. Question:  I am using MHCO leases that I will renew in three years.  The leases provides for a rent increase each year of the lease of 4.5%.  Going forward, can I now increase rent 6% each year that is left of the lease or do I have to stick with the 4.5%?  

Answer: Sorry, the new law does not give you a choice. You are bound by the terms of your existing lease, even if the new law raises the cap. In fact, the law ignores existing lease agreements created before the September 1, 2025 date it goes into effect. In my opinion, it would be impossible for the law to retroactively adjust the terms of an existing contract predating the law. In other words, it can affect the rents commencing on or after January 1 2026. So your 4.5% increase cap applies until the last day of the third year of your lease. You can amend your leases after the 3-year term if you follow the protocol in ORS 90.545(2), but the new rent would be subject to the caps under HB 3054.

2. Question: We have storage agreements that we are planning to raise the storage fees.  Are we limited to 6% increase on storage fees?

Answer: This is an interesting question and raises issues beyond the scope of this general article. The reason is that “storage agreements” only apply to abandonments of personal property under ORS 90.425 and manufactured homes under ORS 90.675. These statutes contemplate just lienholders or representatives of the estate following death of a tenant living alone. 

Over the past several, park owners have created and used storage agreements for reasons other than abandoned homes; so much depends on what your storage agreement says.

In general, since the HB 3054 cap only applies to “rent” as defined in ORS 90.100(41) it would seem that the limits would not apply to charges under storage agreements.[1] But you should obtain an opinion from your own attorney.

3. Question: If I send an increase notice next month that is effective January 1, 2026, can we increase the rent 10% since the notice was sent prior to September 1, 2025?  As long as the notice is sent out by September 1, 2025 is there a limit to how far out that the rent increase is effective?

Answer:  If I understand your question, it sounds as if you would like to send out a rent increase notice beforethe September 1 2025 date of the new law, but have it apply to rents beginning on or after January 1, 2026. If that is the question, the short answer is “No.” The reason is that HB 3054 limits “rent increases” issued under ORS 90.323 and 90.324, which includes manufactured homes.

4.   Question: .  It appears that the new laws apply to RV parks, as the RV Space Rental Agreement includes the rent control parameters.  Correct?

Answer: Yes, since RVs are personal property whether they are in a manufactured housing park or a recreational vehicle park and the rent caps apply to both. See, ORS 90.323, 90.324 and ORS 197.493(1)(b)

[1] “…any payment to be made to the landlord under the rental agreement, periodic or otherwise, in exchange for the right of a tenant and any permitted pet to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others and to use the premises.” (Emphasis added.)

Answer:   Let’s start from when you filed you eviction in court. The First Appearance is the time noted in the Summons for both parties to appear in person (or via Zoom). If you and tenant both appear, the judge will likely encourage the parties to reach an agreement and report it back to the courtroom. This normally includes either the tenant remaining in the premises by payment of some, or all of the rent due, or working out a date to vacate.

The best approach is to reach a “stipulation” with the tenant at the First Appearance to pay all unpaid rents by a certain date or according to a certain schedule – including your costs and fees. If the judge signs the stipulated order, and the tenant complies, the case will ultimately be dismissed at the end of the stipulated period. If the tenant does not comply with the stipulation, you may file a Declaration of Non-Compliance along with a Notice of Restitution and seek a Judgment of Restitution removing the tenant from the property. It is a fast-track process.

However, the law requires the Court to dismiss the FED if the tenant tenders rental assistance or payment (or causes rental assistance or payment to be tendered by a 3rd party) that covers the nonpayment amount owed under your 10-day termination notice.[1] In other words, after the tenant has tendered the rent before the first appearance, you have to accept it - if you wait to go to court after the tender, the same result will occur.

In those cases in which you did not recover the costs and fees by stipulation during the First Appearance you can file a 30-day notice of termination for payment of the funds. Unfortunately, if it isn’t paid after the 30-day period, you will have to file another eviction in court, and the process starts all over again.

Alternatively, you could forget going back to court, and simply file in Small Claims Court (or Justice Court in some jurisdictions) for the fees and costs you did not recover after filing the FED in court.

No lawyers are allowed – it’s just you and the tenant. The judge’s decision is not appealable. The

///

///

problem with that approach is if the judge doesn’t give you the full amount of costs and fees, you’re stuck. You can’t appeal. This should not occur, but it’s impossible to predict; not being subject to appeal, the FED judge can exercise a lot of discretion.

Since the resident does not own the home, he/she is the same as any other tenant. This means that you do nothave the ability to use ORS 90.630(10) for a three strikes notice which is reserved only for MHP landlords.

[1] Note that the definition of ‘nonpayment’ now includes late charges, utility or service charges, or any other charge or fee as described in the rental agreement or ORS 90.140.