Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Ancillary Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Virginia Housing Commission staff study finds pre‑tenancy and recurring fees obscure true rental costs
Summary
Staff of the Virginia Housing Commission presented research on ancillary fees in market-rate rentals, identifying pre‑tenancy fees (application, holding/tour fees) and recurring residence-benefit packages as common practices that can raise move-in costs and make advertised rent a poor indicator of actual monthly cost.
Molly Bowers, a policy researcher with the Virginia Housing Commission, presented staff findings on ancillary fees in the market-rate rental sector, saying that advertised rent frequently understates total monthly and move-in cost because of pre‑tenancy fees and mandatory recurring charges.
Bowers described a typical renter’s experience: advertised rent appears reasonable online, the prospective renter pays a nonrefundable application fee (commonly around $50) and sometimes an application deposit to hold a unit; only after approval does the lease reveal mandatory lease‑administration fees, one‑time nonrefundable charges (reported between $50 and $500), and recurring residence‑benefit packages (reported between about $15 and $80 per month). Bowers said the new fee‑disclosure law (cited in testimony as Code section 55.1‑1204.1) increased transparency by requiring fees be listed on the lease but does not regulate pre‑tenancy costs or required tour fees.
Jessica (staff) summarized national approaches: a few states require fee disclosures in advertising or permit tenant opt‑outs for some monthly service fees; several states allow a reusable tenant screening report to reduce repeated application fees; and Minnesota requires disclosure of non‑optional fees in advertisements. Bowers and staff recommended the commission consider closer study of pre‑tenancy fees and potential statutory options to protect low‑income applicants from multiple upfront charges.
Industry response and existing law: Rupal Ahmed (spelled in transcript as Ms. Ahmed), speaking for apartment and multifamily providers, emphasized that many multifamily providers already disclose monthly service fees and that compliance with newly enacted state disclosure provisions (HB 2430 referenced in testimony) is an active process; she also cautioned against generalizing isolated practices among smaller owners to the entire industry. The staff said a short brief would be posted online with additional data and that the commission could pursue further legislative options if it desires.
Ending: The chair closed the item after brief Q&A and staff said a more detailed brief would be posted online for commissioners and stakeholders.
