Cambridge councilors weigh limits on tenant "junk fees," consider home-rule petition and backing state bills

Cambridge City Councilors and city staff on Tuesday discussed proposals to limit so-called rental "junk fees" — including broker fees, recurring late fees and attorney fees — and considered asking the city to file a Home Rule Petition and pass resolutions supporting pending state legislation.

Meghan, city staff, summarized the city’s legal constraints under the Home Rule Amendment and said local ordinances that directly regulate ordinary landlord–tenant relationships are likely preempted unless tied to an independent municipal power such as zoning. "If the city is enacting any local legislation that impacts the ordinary landlord and tenant relationship, it can only be done if it's incident to an exercise of an independent municipal power," Meghan said, explaining why Cambridge cannot unilaterally ban many fees and must instead seek special legislation or support statewide bills.

The discussion focused on several categories of fees that staff and councilors described as growing costs for renters: broker fees charged when applicants respond to listings, recurring late fees (examples given ranged from about $50 to $200 a month), attorney fees that may be added to tenant ledgers, online transaction or amenity fees, and other charges staff described as appearing with increasing frequency. Staff noted particular impacts on tenants who pay only a portion of rent because of subsidy programs: for example, a unit with a $3,000 monthly rent and a tenant contribution of $300 can face late fees computed on the full rent, making the effective charge a much larger share of the tenant's out-of-pocket cost.

Drew, city staff, described the legislative landscape and said broker-fee limits have momentum at the State House: "I think it's likely that the broker's fee ... something is gonna pass only because there's a lot of publicity, and the governor supported it," he said, noting some proposals have passed the House and that groups including the Greater Boston Real Estate Board have engaged on the issue.

Several councilors urged prompt action. Councilor Nolan said she has heard many constituent reports of fees that have increased over time and supported moving Cambridge policy forward. Councilor Siddiqui urged the council to adopt resolutions supporting pending state bills and to file a Home Rule Petition, noting state-level change can be slow and local steps can help show demand. Councilor Gucci and others raised procedural questions about whether to file a petition that addresses only broker fees or to submit separate petitions for broker fees and for other junk fees; staff recommended two petitions if the council wants to pursue both.

Chris Carter, director, raised concerns about broker incentives, saying brokers are often hired by property owners even when tenants end up paying the fee: "The broker may be hired by the property owner...and yet the tenant is paying the broker and where is the allegiance of the broker in that case?" Carter added that while brokers sometimes add value for prospective renters, the current practice can leave tenants with little leverage to negotiate in a fast-moving market.

City staff described how other municipalities have approached the issue: Boston and Somerville have submitted Home Rule Petitions focused on broker fees, and staff suggested Cambridge could mirror those filings for the broker-fee piece and submit a separate petition or resolution addressing other recurring fees. Staff also said one legislative strategy is to support general state legislation while filing a Home Rule Petition to demonstrate local interest and help persuade the legislature to act.

Councilors discussed next steps. Staff advised that a formal Home Rule Petition or resolutions typically come before the full council after a committee report; several councilors said they were prepared to bring resolutions and policy orders to an upcoming council meeting and to invite landlords and brokers to testify so the council hears multiple perspectives.

No formal policy motion on the Home Rule Petition or state resolutions was passed at the meeting. The only recorded formal vote in the transcript was a procedural motion to adjourn moved by Councilor Nolan; the record shows Councilor Nolan, Councilor Heege, Councilor Sabrina Wheeler and Councilor Zussi voting yes and Councilor Zim noted as absent.