Nevada bill would require landlords to quote rent including mandatory fees, ban hidden portal charges

Assemblymember Venetia Considine (Assembly District — for the record Venetia Considine), sponsor of Assembly Bill 121, told the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor that the bill would require landlords and property managers to disclose the full monthly cost of renting by including any nonoptional fees when quoting rent.

The measure is aimed at transparency for renters who, Considine said, can be lured by advertised base rents that do not include mandatory recurring charges. “The complaint against Greystar ... is that it routinely advertised deceptively low rates to lure in renters,” she told the committee, citing recent Federal Trade Commission actions as part of the bill’s background. Considine said AB 121 also would require landlords to provide a free payment option that does not force tenants to give banking information to a third‑party portal and to disclose portal fees separately in written rental agreements.

Supporters say the bill prevents surprise costs and unfair competition. Jonathan Norman of the Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers said the bill would give consumers essential information: “We’re not asking, we’re asking that people know what they’re signing up for and what they’re agreeing to.” Testimony from Clark County and the Nevada State AFL‑CIO supported the bill as a tenant protection and fairness measure.

Committee members pressed the sponsor for details on how usage‑based charges would be treated. Assemblymember Kasama, who owns property management businesses, asked whether pass‑through items such as trash, sewer and water could still be billed separately. Considine said the bill’s intent is that mandatory monthly charges be reflected in a single periodic rent figure so prospective tenants comparing listings see the true monthly cost. She suggested landlords could calculate an annual charge (for example, trash service) and divide it by 12 to include it in the quoted rent, but acknowledged that truly variable costs such as monthly water usage present practical complications and said the bill seeks options that preserve landlords’ ability to recover costs while delivering clarity for tenants.

Opponents raised concerns about compliance burdens and civil penalties. John Sandy of the Nevada State Apartment Association said smaller landlords could be exposed to complex disclosure requirements and significant remedies for errors, and he asked for carve‑outs or flexibility for genuinely unforeseeable charges. Several small landlords who testified said municipal lien rules (for example, for unpaid water or trash) have led owners to keep utilities in the landlord’s name and bill tenants, and they asked the committee to consider that practical context.

Considine told the committee she does not intend the bill to require retroactive amendment of existing leases. She said the bill would take effect on a future date so that leases signed before that date would not need to be rewritten midterm.

The committee did not take a vote at the hearing. The sponsor and stakeholders indicated willingness to continue negotiations and possible small technical amendments.

Ending: The committee heard multiple supportive and opposing witnesses and a series of technical questions from members; the sponsor said she will continue stakeholder meetings and may bring a small amendment to clarify the treatment of variable utility charges and enforcement mechanics.