Ordinance 231019 & Fair Chance Housing: What KC Landlords Need to Know

Few topics have created more confusion for Kansas City landlords over the past two years than Ordinance 231019. Passed by the Kansas City Council in January 2024 and effective August 1 of that year, the ordinance rewrote the rules for how landlords could evaluate prospective tenants. It prohibited using credit scores, criminal history, or eviction records as standalone reasons for denial. It required landlords to accept all lawful sources of income, including housing vouchers. And it imposed documentation requirements, fines, and even the possibility of jail time for noncompliance.

Then the landscape shifted. A federal court issued a preliminary injunction in February 2025 blocking enforcement of the voucher mandate. Three months later, the Missouri Legislature passed HB 595, which Governor Mike Kehoe signed into law on July 14, 2025. That bill preempted the core screening restrictions in Ordinance 231019 at the state level, effective August 28, 2025. The result is that Kansas City landlords now operate under a fundamentally different legal framework than they did eighteen months ago.

This post provides the definitive breakdown of what Ordinance 231019 originally required, what HB 595 changed, what still applies in 2026, and why a thorough screening process remains essential even after the state preemption. If you manage rental property in Kansas City, Missouri, this is the compliance update you need before accepting your next application.

What Did Ordinance 231019 Originally Require?

To understand where things stand today, it helps to understand what the ordinance actually said. Kansas City Ordinance 231019 amended Chapter 38 (“Civil Rights”) and Chapter 34 (“Health and Sanitation”) of the city code. It was sponsored by Mayor Quinton Lucas and several council members, The ordinance was passed on January 25, 2024, and took effect on August 1, 2024. The ordinance classified source of income as a protected trait and imposed new restrictions on how landlords could process rental applications. The full text of Ordinance 231019 is available through the Kansas City Clerk’s office.

The ordinance prohibited landlords from denying tenancy based solely on any single screening factor. Adverse credit history or lack of credit history could not serve as the sole reason for denial. Evictions or property damage occurring more than one year before the proposed rental date could not be used as the sole criterion. Prior criminal convictions or arrests could not independently justify rejection. And landlords were required to accept all lawful, verifiable sources of income, including wages, government assistance such as Section 8 vouchers, child support, alimony, Social Security, and disability payments.

When a landlord wanted to deny an applicant based on a single factor, the ordinance required review of “mitigating information” before making a final decision. That mitigating information included personal references, the recency and circumstances of any evictions, documentation of efforts to resolve credit problems, the severity and recency of criminal convictions, evidence of rehabilitation, and the applicant’s overall rental history. An applicant could be denied outright only if they failed to qualify on two or more of the restricted criteria.

The compliance requirements extended beyond the screening decision itself. All rental applications were required to include the statement “The landlord does not discriminate based on source of income.” Landlords could not advertise or disclose their screening criteria before receiving a written application, effectively eliminating pre screening. When calculating rent to income ratios for voucher holders, landlords had to apply the ratio only to the tenant’s portion of rent rather than the full amount. Records of all rental applications, including income sources and reasons for acceptance or denial, had to be maintained for at least three years.

Violations carried fines of up to $1,000 per instance. Landlords with multiple violations within a twelve month period could be placed on Special Probationary Status requiring a corrective action plan. Persistent noncompliance could result in permit suspension or up to 180 days in jail. The ordinance also established a $1 million Landlord Risk Mitigation Fund to help offset potential losses for landlords accepting higher risk tenants. For a deeper look at how these requirements intersected with daily screening operations, our 2026 tenant screening checklist covers the practical steps.

What Changed with Missouri HB 595?

The practical life of Ordinance 231019 was shorter than its supporters intended. Opposition from Kansas City landlords and real estate professionals began almost immediately after passage, and two separate legal actions effectively dismantled the ordinance within eighteen months.

The first blow came on February 11, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Roseann Ketchmark granted a preliminary injunction in Jones and Vogel v. City of Kansas City, Missouri (Case No. 4:24-cv-00649-RK). The plaintiff landlords argued that requiring participation in the Section 8 program violated their Fourth Amendment rights by forcing consent to warrantless government inspections and conflicted with federal law, which makes Section 8 participation voluntary. Judge Ketchmark agreed, blocking enforcement of the ordinance’s voucher mandate while the case proceeded.

The decisive action came from the Missouri Legislature. On May 7, 2025, the General Assembly passed House Bill 595, which prohibits any Missouri county or city from enacting, maintaining, or enforcing ordinances that restrict how landlords screen tenants. Governor Mike Kehoe signed the bill on July 14, 2025, and it took effect on August 28, 2025. The language of HB 595 is broad and addresses every major provision of Ordinance 231019.

Under HB 595, no Missouri city can enforce an ordinance that prohibits landlords from refusing to rent based on a tenant’s source of income, including government housing vouchers. No city can restrict a landlord’s ability to use or consider credit scores, credit reports, eviction or property damage history, criminal history, or income qualifying methods when making rental decisions. No city can limit the amount of money a landlord can charge for a security deposit. And no city can require tenants to automatically receive the right of first refusal when a property is sold.

The practical result is straightforward. The screening restrictions that Ordinance 231019 imposed on Kansas City landlords are no longer enforceable under Missouri state law. Landlords can use credit scores, criminal background checks, eviction history, and income verification methods according to their own consistent standards, subject to federal fair housing law and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. For context on how these screening changes interact with broader landlord tenant law across the metro, our comparison of Kansas City MO versus Kansas City KS landlord laws explains the jurisdictional differences.

What Fair Housing Requirements Still Apply in 2026?

HB 595 removed the local screening restrictions, but it did not and could not change federal law. Kansas City landlords in 2026 still operate under the full weight of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and HUD enforcement guidance. Understanding the distinction between what changed and what remains constant is critical for avoiding liability.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on seven protected classes: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability. These protections apply regardless of any state or local law. A landlord who applies screening criteria in a way that has a disparate impact on a protected class can face a federal fair housing complaint even if the criteria themselves appear neutral on their face. This is especially relevant when using criminal background screening, because HUD has issued specific guidance warning that blanket criminal history policies can disproportionately affect racial minorities and constitute unlawful discrimination.

HUD’s 2016 guidance on criminal records in tenant screening, which remains in effect, recommends that landlords conduct individualized assessments rather than imposing automatic disqualifications. That means evaluating the nature and severity of the offense, how much time has passed since the conviction, and what evidence of rehabilitation the applicant can provide. This is not identical to the mitigating factors framework from Ordinance 231019, but it overlaps significantly. Landlords who adopted compliant screening practices under the ordinance may find that those same practices serve them well under federal standards.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes its own requirements. Landlords must obtain written consent from applicants before pulling credit reports. If a landlord denies an applicant based in whole or in part on information from a consumer report, the landlord must provide an adverse action notice identifying the consumer reporting agency that supplied the report. These requirements apply in every jurisdiction regardless of local or state law.

Missouri state law also provides baseline protections. While Missouri does not have its own source of income protection law and HB 595 prevents cities from creating one, the Missouri Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, and familial status. Kansas City landlords must comply with both the federal and state frameworks. For a complete walkthrough of how to structure a screening process that addresses all of these requirements, our guide to tenant screening legal considerations and best practices covers the fundamentals.

How Should Landlords Structure Their Screening Process After the Preemption?

The removal of Ordinance 231019’s restrictions does not mean landlords should abandon structured screening. It means they now have more flexibility in how they apply their criteria, but the need for consistency, documentation, and defensibility is just as important as it was before the preemption. In fact, the gap between what landlords are legally permitted to do and what they should do as a matter of risk management has never been wider.

The most important principle is consistency. Every applicant should go through the same screening process with the same criteria applied in the same order. If you require a minimum credit score of 620, that threshold applies to every applicant for every property without exception. If you check criminal background history, you check it for everyone. Inconsistent application of criteria is the single fastest path to a fair housing complaint, and it is entirely avoidable.

Credit evaluation should look beyond the three digit score. Payment history patterns, the ratio of current debt to available credit, whether delinquencies are recent or historical, and whether medical debt is distorting the number all provide more useful information than the score alone. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has acknowledged that pandemic era disruptions and medical debt changes have created credit profiles that do not accurately reflect current financial capacity. A landlord who rejects a strong applicant solely because of a score depressed by a two year old medical collection is making a worse business decision than one who looks at the full picture.

Criminal background screening should be approached with documentation in mind. Even though HB 595 removes the local restriction on using criminal history as a sole denial factor, HUD’s disparate impact framework still applies at the federal level. The safest approach is to maintain written criteria that specify which offenses are disqualifying, distinguish between convictions and arrests (arrests alone should never be used as denial criteria), and consider the recency of any conviction. Documenting your reasoning for each decision creates a defensible record if a complaint is filed.

Eviction history remains a legitimate and valuable screening tool, but context matters. A single eviction filing from five years ago during a documented period of hardship tells a different story than three eviction filings in the past two years. Verifying the outcome of eviction cases is essential because a filing does not always result in a judgment. Our analysis of why background checks now rank higher than credit scores for Kansas City landlords explains how fraud and post pandemic credit distortions have shifted the weight that experienced managers place on different screening components.

Income verification has become more complex in an era of rising application fraud. The National Multifamily Housing Council reported that rental application fraud increased roughly 40% between 2023 and 2024, driven in part by AI generated fake documents. Accepting uploaded pay stubs or bank statements at face value is no longer sufficient. Independent verification through direct employer contact, bank verification letters, or third party income verification services is the standard that professional managers now apply.

Why Does Professional Management Reduce Fair Housing Liability?

The regulatory landscape around tenant screening has grown significantly more complex over the past two years. Ordinance 231019 created one set of rules. The federal injunction created uncertainty about enforcement. HB 595 preempted the local rules but left federal requirements intact. For self managing landlords, keeping track of which rules apply, which have been overturned, and how to structure a defensible screening process is a meaningful time and liability burden.

Professional property management reduces that burden through systematic processes. At Alpine, every applicant goes through the same comprehensive screening protocol regardless of property location, rent amount, or the applicant’s background. Credit checks, criminal background searches, income verification, employment confirmation, rental history verification with previous landlords, and eviction history searches are all conducted for every applicant. The criteria are documented, the process is standardized, and the reasoning behind every approval or denial is recorded.

This systematic approach produces measurable results. Alpine maintains a 98% rent collection rate and a 96% occupancy rate across 250 plus properties in the Kansas City metro. Our 14 day average vacancy period between tenants reflects the fact that thorough screening on the front end produces tenants who pay consistently and maintain properties responsibly. When screening is done right the first time, the downstream costs of missed rent, property damage, and eviction proceedings drop substantially.

The fair housing liability reduction is equally important. A self managing landlord who screens one applicant differently than another, even unintentionally, creates exposure. A professional manager who applies the same documented process to every applicant on every property has a built in defense against claims of discriminatory treatment. For landlords who own property in Kansas City and manage from out of state, this layer of protection is particularly valuable because local regulatory changes like Ordinance 231019 and its subsequent preemption can happen without an out of state owner ever hearing about them. Our full property management services page details what is included in Alpine’s screening and compliance framework.

What Is the Timeline of Ordinance 231019 and the Legal Challenges?

The legal history of Ordinance 231019 is worth understanding because it illustrates how quickly the regulatory environment can change for Kansas City landlords. What was law for one year is no longer enforceable, and landlords who are still operating under the old rules are creating unnecessary liability in one direction while those who are ignoring federal requirements are creating it in the other.

The timeline demonstrates a critical point for landlords who manage their own properties: the rules changed three times in the span of thirteen months. First the ordinance applied in full, then the voucher provision was blocked by a federal court, then the entire set of screening restrictions was preempted by the state. Landlords who were not tracking these developments closely could have been operating under the wrong set of rules at any given point, exposing themselves to either noncompliance liability or unnecessary restrictions on their screening process. For a broader look at compliance across both sides of the state line, our guide to understanding fair housing laws for Kansas City landlords provides the foundational framework.

Frequently Asked Questions