Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seattle council passes ordinance banning many rental "junk fees" after hours of testimony
Summary
After more than three hours of public comment and debate over five amendments, the City Council passed CB 12-12-54 requiring upfront disclosure of rental fees, prohibiting recurring charges including pet rent, and expanding enforcement authority for the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI).
After an extended public comment period and floor debate on multiple amendments, the Seattle City Council voted to pass Council Bill 12-12-54 on Aug. 11, a measure that requires rental listings and agreements to disclose fees upfront and prohibits a range of recurring "junk fees" including monthly pet rent.
Council member Dion Foster, chair of the Housing, Arts and Civil Rights Committee and the bill’s sponsor, summarized the measure and cited research he said showed junk fees can increase renters' total housing costs by 10%–30%. "Hidden fees don't belong on concert tickets. They don't belong on airline tickets, and they certainly don't belong on the largest expense that most Seattle families have every month, their rent," Foster said during debate.
The Council considered five amendments. Amendment A, offered by Council member Lynn to create an alternative dispute process and require refunds and constructive notice building-wide, was adopted. Several other amendments (including versions of B, C and D that would have allowed limited pet fees or opt-out insurance provisions) failed. Amendment E—clarifying limits on SDCI’s voluntary compliance authority—was adopted.
On final passage the clerk recorded eight votes in favor, none opposed and one council member present but disqualified; the bill passed as amended. The ordinance requires upfront fee disclosure in advertisements and rental agreements, allows damage deposits to cover actual costs, and gives SDCI enhanced investigation and enforcement authority, including record retention and penalties for noncompliance.
Council members and dozens of public commenters framed the vote as a consumer-protection step for a majority-renter city; tenant advocates called the law a necessary transparency measure while some landlords and property owners urged narrower language to address operating costs.
