Nevada lawmakers hear bill requiring lease fee disclosures and a temporary senior rent-stabilization pilot

Assembly Majority Leader Sandra Howtegui, joined by Jonathan Norman of the Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers, presented Assembly Bill 280 to the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, proposing two main changes: require a single lease appendix that discloses all tenant fees and establish a time‑limited pilot rent‑stabilization program that would cap rent increases for qualifying seniors and people with disabilities at 5%.

The bill’s aim is to reduce surprises for renters, the sponsors said, and to test a short‑term stabilization program for seniors and disabled residents without permanently altering Nevada law.

Supporters told the committee that undisclosed or layered fees in lengthy leases can materially increase tenants’ monthly costs. Jonathan Norman said the bill targets “bogus fees and deceptive fees” that are sprinkled through leases and are not plainly disclosed, and he pointed to a Federal Trade Commission complaint against Invitation Homes as an example of industry practices the bill would curb. “We’re not saying you can’t charge fees,” Norman said. “We just want landlords to be upfront and honest about them.”

Sectional detail: sponsors described three elements. One section would require returning application fees to applicants who paid but were never screened. A second would add two appendices to leases: one listing all fees and another containing a “know your rights” summary. A third section creates a transitory (temporary) pilot rent‑stabilization program limited in duration so it would not be codified permanently in the Nevada Revised Statutes; counsel described the pilot as lasting less than a biennium and the sponsor said it is an 18‑month program with a 5% cap on increases for eligible seniors and disabled tenants.

Opponents focused primarily on the pilot rent‑stabilization provision. John Sandy of the Nevada State Apartment Association and analysts from Nevada Policy and Americans for Prosperity told the committee that even a narrowly targeted cap can distort price signals over time, discourage investment, reduce maintenance and new construction, and hit small “mom‑and‑pop” landlords who rely on rental income. “Limiting rent increases to 5% may offer short‑term relief, but it also distorts the price signals that allow supply to adjust,” a Nevada Policy research assistant testified. John Sandy urged caution and urged the committee to consider supply‑side alternatives.

Committee members and testifiers sought clarifications. Legal counsel explained the pilot is placed in session law (a transitory provision) rather than in the codified NRS because the program’s duration is shorter than a biennium and would otherwise have to be removed later. Senator Ellison, speaking during committee discussion, noted the bill does not ban fees but said small landlords and seniors worry about other bills that could affect them.

No vote was recorded during the committee hearing. The committee opened the bill for public testimony after the presentation and heard several supporters and opponents by phone and in person before closing the hearing.

The bill remains in committee; no formal committee action was recorded during this hearing.