Council committee advances 'move‑in affordability' bills capping application fees and allowing deposit installments; tenants, advocates praise, some landlords, 

The City Council committee advanced a two‑bill package aimed at lowering upfront costs for renters: Bill 250,044 would require landlords who demand more than one month’s security deposit to offer an installment plan for the additional amount; Bill 250,045 would cap rental application fees at $50 or the actual cost of a background check, whichever is lower, and prohibit duplicate application charges by the same landlord within a year.

Vice Chair Landau, the sponsor of both bills, told the committee she had revised the proposals after stakeholder meetings to balance tenant protections and landlord concerns. “I—have increased the proposed cap on rental application fees to $50,” Landau said during her opening remarks, and she described other amendments including a 90‑day delayed implementation window and a three‑month installment option for second‑month security deposits when a landlord requires a two‑month deposit.

Why it matters: Renters and tenant advocates said the measures remove barriers to housing search and relocation for low‑income households, older adults on fixed incomes, survivors of domestic violence and voucher holders who face steep upfront costs. Landlord witnesses — including small operators and community developers — warned that the bills, as written, may put small landlords at financial risk when tenants cause unanticipated damage or stop paying rent.

Advocates' testimony: Legal services and tenant groups urged passage. Vilna Gaston, a staff attorney at SeniorLAW Center, said many older clients cannot accumulate the savings to cover large move‑in costs and that vouchers typically do not cover upfront application or deposit fees. “For clients like Ms. Scott, excessive moving costs can be the difference between disaster,” she said. Community Legal Services’ housing unit described the typical upfront costs — often equal to several months’ rent — that force very low‑income households to remain in unsafe or unstable housing.

Public witnesses included renters who said application fees and large deposit requirements blocked their ability to relocate. AARP Pennsylvania’s volunteer state president, Nora Dowd Eisenhower, described the burden on older adults living on fixed incomes. Reclaim Philadelphia and Sunrise Movement speakers framed the bills as part of broader housing‑justice measures.

Landlord and developer concerns: Several small landlords and developers said the bills underestimate the financial risk landlords assume when units are damaged or tenants stop paying. Ryan Spack of SPAC Group described high turnover and renovation costs and said some small developers have stopped building in Philadelphia in recent years. Small landlords and property managers urged safeguards such as a maximum age for acceptable background checks, clarity on missed‑payment remedies for installment plans, and (several witnesses suggested) mandatory renter insurance or standardized screening portals.

Committee action and next steps: The committee approved an amendment to Bill 250,044 and an amendment to Bill 250,045 and then voted to report both bills to full council with favorable recommendations and a request to suspend the rules to permit first reading at the next session. Amendments adopted in committee included the $50 cap on application fees (or actual cost of the background check, whichever is lower), removal of the earlier draft language permitting tenant‑provided background checks, and a three‑installment option for a second month of security deposit when a landlord requires two months’ deposit. The committee also included a limited 90‑day delayed implementation window to allow landlords and tenants to adjust.

What remains unresolved: Witnesses and committee members agreed the bills will require follow‑up work to address landlord concerns about screening validity, remedies for tenants who default on installment plans, and resources to help tenants recover prior security deposits promptly. Several committee members said they plan additional outreach and education efforts so tenants know how to demand returned deposits and landlords know how to administer installment plans.

Outcome: Both bills, as amended, were approved in committee and reported to full council with favorable recommendations; motions were carried by voice vote.