Friday, November 7, 2025
After 17 months of implementation, the Olympia City Council will review the city's Rental Registry and Inspection Program, which was created to improve housing safety, preserve rental stock, and provide better data on the city's rental market.
The city council is scheduled to take up the issue at a meeting at Oympia City Hall at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 19.
The program, adopted in November 2023 and enacted in March 2024, requires landlords to register their rental units and schedule periodic inspections.
Based on the data collected by the city, the average rent of registered rental housing in Olympia is $1,625 per month. Rents for two-bedroom and smaller units are generally affordable, while rents for three-plus-bedroom units are not considered affordable.
Staff estimates there are 18,423 rental units in Olympia, up from the previous estimate of 15,500. As of July 9, there are:
Since its launch, the program has brought in about $25,000 in business license revenue, hosted webinars on rental housing rules and tenant protections, and begun building a database of rental housing conditions and rents.
Staff also reports the program has challenges. Landlords have struggled with the current registration system, particularly around business licensing through the Department of Revenue and the process of renewing registrations. Many landlords filed new applications instead of renewals, increasing the workload for city staff.
There are also concerns about inspections. Landlords expressed frustration by the lack of information about inspection costs.
The program's costs have exceeded initial projections due to fewer-than-expected registrations and higher staffing needs. As of July 9, the program faced a projected year-end deficit of $63,436. The city needs another 1,814 units to be registered by year's end to break even.
To improve the process, the city plans to simplify its registration system, publish inspection cost information, and follow up with landlords who failed to renew.
Other changes the city council may consider include adding staff, switching to new software, removing the business license requirement, or extending registration renewal periods.
13 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
TheVirtualOne
Perfect example of government interference in the private sector where they have done nothing but make things worse. Confusion, added costs, unnecessary bureaucracy, incompetence, and increased costs via unnecessary inspections, regulations, and unneeded licensing that will result in even higher rents. Shut this program down and stop interfering where you are not needed.
Monday, August 18 Report this
Bobwubbena
This is why we no longer want to "have a rental in Olympia". New rules, new costs and no benefit to support the high cost of building in Olympia. At some point, everyone will understand that the "Olympia Cost fees are passed on to the renter" otherwise the investment to provide housing to others is not an acceptable investment. If the investor does not invest, only the taxpayer is left to invest in the not so good investment----wake up leaders.
Monday, August 18 Report this
Wesley
Wait a minute - The landlord has to pay for the required inspection? Shouldn't The City pay for it if they're requiring it? WTF?
Monday, August 18 Report this
HarryBranch
We have attempted not to raise rents and have had the same tenants for years as a result. They take care of the place. It's a symbiotic relationship. Now we're having to pay for a license and having inspections. Who knows what they'll find. Maybe we'll have to change a banister, stair spacing or whatever., changes that will increase risks to someone who's grown accustomed over decades to things as they are. Combined with increasing bills and taxes we're going to have to raise rents. And what do we get. Destruction of historic buildings and construction of big plastic edifices. Loss of ecological function. And corporate and absentee landlords, wherein money collected for rents leaves town.
Monday, August 18 Report this
BobJacobs
When this registration and inspection program was being considered, a number of us small landlords told city officials that some small landlords would simply sell their rental houses and put their money in something like mutual funds. No work, no hassle.
So what happened? Exactly what we expected. I know of a couple of local landlords who have sold. And these houses will not remain rentals, they'll be owner-occupied. So much for the city's grand protestations about preserving rentals.
And a recent Seattle Times article reported that something like 10,000 rental units there have been lost.
Every move the Olympia city council has made has worsened, not improved our local rental availability.
Tumwater has been more sensible, reportedly exempting landlords with very few units. But these programs are simply not needed.
Bob Jacobs
Monday, August 18 Report this
Claire
Bob Jacob's comments hit the mark. Regrettable that the Olympia Shitty Council cannot understand that what they are actually doing will result in lowering the amount/availability of rental properties. So short sighted.
Tuesday, August 19 Report this
JulesJames
Don't complain about the cost of rental housing and support this program. This program governmentalizes repair decisions and essentially eliminates improvement budgets because landlords no longer have control on what needs to be repaired when -- both are now by government edict.
Tuesday, August 19 Report this
zingZap33x
Between all the City of Olympia's rental regulations and the new State regulations (which often don't coincide). It is very confusing for landlords, especially if they own properties in a couple of cities (with different regulations) or the county. All the new requirements may lead small landlords who have managed their own properties to hire a professional management company. This will definitely raise costs and lead to higher rents. Also a management company may give tenants less leeway if they are having trouble paying rents on time.
Tuesday, August 19 Report this
sonshi
Another agreement with Bob Jacobs. Back when they were selling this, they presented a few excel charts showing how the program would be self sufficient [paying for their salaries] with an adequate percentage of landlords registering. They went ahead and did the hiring, because cart-before-the-horse and all. Now here they are, 60+K$ in the hole and going before the council holding their hats out.
Bob is absolutely right, these programs do nothing but push people to sell. We pulled our two units off the market - not directly in response to this program but due to prior state-level changes. This Olympia program would have cost us over a thousand dollars just in inspection fees, and our units were in excellent shape with zero complaints from tenants.
Tuesday, August 19 Report this
LindaD
Let us remember, much of the new rules do not apply to the big apartment developers who suck wealth out of our community, but apply to me, the nearly 80-year-old landlady who's been providing good, solid and affordable housing (one duplex) in Olympia for 30+ years with good tenant relations. I recently got new tenants. Now it's adversarial, us vs. them.
Now I pay $225 a year to buy all the forms to meet all the requirements and for articles on how to navigate the state/city regs, which are in conflict. Rent increases are capped, with six months notice, but property taxes on my rental went up 22%. No rent caps on all those apartments, though!
I'd sell, but the tax bite is substantial, so I'm going to convert to business rental or move in a relative. Something, anything to get out from under this nightmare. I did all the registration things, but it's an annual struggle. I couldn't figure out how to update, so I just gave up. Let'em catch me, as a friend with one rental says.
Our good, well established liberal credentials are slipping over this. If the city wants to build support for it's work they need to drop this entirely. This is why every redneck in the country brays and laughs at us. Sometimes we deserve it.
Tuesday, August 19 Report this
LindaD
Oh, and lest we forget, all those exemptions, all those tax breaks the city is giving to the big developers of all those apartment buildings makes lost revenue that someone somewhere has to make up. Guess who. The very tenants all this is supposed to be protecting. Even with the rent controlled caps on rent, ultimately, we will pass along those costs to the tenants or we will be squeezed out of the market and replaced by corporations buying up our local housing, sucking wealth out of our community, pushing out local small landlords and stifling home ownership.
Tuesday, August 19 Report this
jsowers
Reasonable rental standards will not collapse the housing market. If a few landlords choose to sell rather than meet basic rules, other owners who are willing to comply will buy those homes. Like any business that serves the public, housing providers should expect clear regulations and routine, proportional inspections. We already apply this principle in other sectors—from restaurants to land development—to prevent harm and protect the community. These standards hold chronic violators accountable and, when necessary, move them out of the market, opening the door for responsible operators who treat tenants and the environment with dignity. The result isn’t fewer homes, but safer, better-managed homes and a fairer playing field for landlords who do the right thing. We fight developers who resist regulations to protect our environment; we shouldn’t exempt landlords from reasonable regulations that protect people’s health.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GrowthTalk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to GrowthTalk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/GrowthTalk/289728637.1364244.1755576016930%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Wednesday, August 20 Report this
SpenceWeigand
Unfortunately, Mr. Sowers, though that sounds great (and fair) in theory, it does not represent what's actually happening. I know four small-time real estate investors (five properties total) who had under-market rents but who threw in the towel with the practical impracticalities of the Rental Registry. A way to weed out incalcitrant landlords? Hardly. Every one of those sales went to owner occupants.---thereby lessening an already limited inventory of single-family homes for rent. Less to choose from? Higher prices for tenants. Additional fees for landlords? Higher prices for tenants.
It is really very simple. The RR is very shoddy legislation fraught with unintended consequences pushed forward by head-in-the-sand economics. And, the fact that fewer than half of all landlords are currently registered means the program is an unmitigated disaster costing our city plenty---when we already have major budgetary shortcomings.
Thursday, August 21 Report this