Some Seattle leaders want to ban fees that are not clearly stated on the lease. Called “junk” fees, they are sometimes not disclosed in rental listings and can only be found in the fine print of rental agreements. These fees can make it hard for renters to afford their homes.
The ordinance, introduced by Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, would require landlords to be transparent when advertising available housing. It also requires that lease agreements detail all fees, whether mandatory or optional, and explain how the money is used.
Wilson is among those who say such fees pose a significant financial burden to people trying to find an affordable place to live.
Seattle officials said at a news conference earlier this month that more than half of the city's population are renters, and that they need protection from “bad” landlords.
The draft legislation is now before the Seattle City Council’s Housing, Arts and Civil Rights Committee.
"This legislation gives renters the ability to compare homes based on their actual cost, not artificially low advertised prices followed by a list of surprise charges,” said Councilmember Dionne Foster, who chairs the committee reviewing the proposal. “Hidden fees don't belong on concert tickets, they don't belong on airline tickets, and they certainly don't belong on what is for many Seattleites the most expensive thing they pay for every month: their rent.”
Seattle City Attorney Erika Evans said the proposed legislation is not intended for the “many good landlords in our city that are doing the right thing, and that are being fair to renters.”
What are ‘junk’ fees?
“Junk” fees are often easy to miss or misunderstand. They are considered optional — something a renter can opt out of. The legislation specifically notes such fees include “access to common areas, fees for accepting certain methods of rent payments, fees for mail and package collection, fees for changes of tenancy, and pet fees beyond damage deposits.”
Some mandatory fees would remain permissible under the ordinance, including those for applications, security deposits, pet damage, lost and reissued keys and rent defaults.
Wilson said the ordinance addresses affordability for renters.
"I remember talking to a renter in Kenmore who went to sign a lease renewal and suddenly found a $150 administration fee tacked on. If she wanted to live in that apartment for another year, she needed to pay another $150 in addition to a significant rent increase,” Wilson said.
Landlord pushback
Landlords oppose the changes.
“What this proposal is ultimately going to do is it’s going to hurt tenants, because it’ll lead to higher rents,” said Kevin Schilling is the government affairs director for the Rental Housing Association of Washington.
Schilling said if landlords can’t charge separate pet or amenity fees, they will either raise the base rent for everyone or stop offering those services entirely.
“Right now, if you have a pet, you’re the one paying for the pet,” Shilling said. “If you get rid of pet fees for individuals, it’s going to be an overall rent increase, if an apartment complex is going to offer the ability to even have pets, because there’s got to be a way to pay for the wear and tear and maintenance charges that pets ultimately do require.”
The proposal also adds an enforcement system funded by new fees on landlords. That money would pay for three city staff to investigate complaints and levy thousands of dollars in fines for violations.
Shilling said this measure would end up hurting the “good landlords.”
“There’s a big difference between what your neighborhood retired plumber is doing with his duplex and what a big corporate housing provider can do with 300 units,” he said. “This is going to hurt local community housing providers and make it impossible for them to individualize service.”
Housing and homelessness
Vallen Solomon, with the King County Bar Association’s Housing Justice Project, said the junk fees have a long-lasting and serious impact on the most vulnerable renters in our region.
“These fees don't only allow people to be evicted over them,” Solomon said. “They also follow tenants long after they move out and prevent them from being able to find housing in the future, because these fees are being tacked on after they move out and showing up on the credit report, and being sent to debt collections, and are negatively impacting tenants' abilities to find housing in the future.”
A renters’ survey that helped inform the proposal resulted in nearly 9,000 responses across the city. The draft legislation does not require a public hearing before the council votes on the measure.
The committee has until September to review the ordinance. The backers hope to have it approved and active in 2027.
