Committee advances rental-fee transparency bill after advocates describe barriers to housing access

A committee substitute for Senate Bill 267 that would require landlords to disclose application and screening fees, cap screening fees at $50 (per the substitute), require return of screening fees under certain conditions, and limit late-fee calculations to rent (excluding deposits and add-on monthly charges) was discussed and advanced by the committee.

Advocates and local officials urged passage: Representatives from homelessness-service organizations, municipal officials and civil-rights groups told the committee the fees — often nonrefundable $100 application fees, holding fees and repeated screening charges — create a barrier for low-income renters and prevent voucher holders from using housing assistance. The pro-tem of the City of Las Cruces and multiple service providers described cases in which seniors and voucher holders were excluded by up-front fees.

Sponsor and committee changes: Sponsor Senator Hamblin said the committee substitute reflected numerous stakeholder conversations; the substitute clarifies definitions (applicant = person who submits an application to rent a dwelling), adds digital-notice options for receipts, narrows disclosure to cost elements instead of all contract terms, and makes late fees calculable only on rent. Members proposed further technical changes: require certified mail for refunds, remove repetitive language in background-check sections, and allow landlords to rely on a background/credit check they obtained within a set timeframe (the committee discussed 90 days) rather than forcing applicants to repeatedly pay for duplicated reports.

Penalty and enforcement: The substitute allows for a private right of action and requires return of improperly charged fees; it also sets a statutory remedy for unauthorized fees (return of fees plus a statutory penalty). Committee members asked clarifying questions about how credit-report access and federal Fair Credit Reporting Act requirements interact with the bill; sponsor and counsel said they would refine that language.

Outcome: The committee approved moving the committee substitute forward for further work and signaled willingness to accept technical edits (for example, clarifying refund procedures and credit-report handling) before floor action.

Provenance: Sponsor presentation, public testimony from housing advocates and local officials, and committee member questions appear in the transcript during the SB267 block.