A slate of renter- and tenant-related bills introduced in the Nevada Legislature could address “resort-style fees” in leases, price fixing and more through a mix of new measures and legislation attempted in previous sessions.
Renters make up about 41 percent of Nevada’s households, according to U.S. Census data. Efforts to overhaul tenant and eviction-related laws mostly failed in 2023 when Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed the legislation at the end of last session.
Democrats and tenant advocates hope this session — with both sides of the aisle talking of lowering costs for Nevadans — could be one of reform.
Addressing ‘resort-style fees’
One of the first tenant bills to receive a hearing suggests how legislators may try to tackle housing costs. Assembly Bill 121 would require leases and rental agreements to list the amount of rent and other fixed costs as a single figure. Sponsored by Assembly member Venicia Considine, D-Las Vegas, the bill is a near repeat of 2023’s Assembly Bill 218.
The bill would also require landlords to provide a way to pay rent without a surcharge — an attempt to cut out transaction fees on payment platforms — and a chance for prospective tenants to review their lease before putting down a nonrefundable deposit. Landlords or property management companies that do not provide the single price or charge other hidden fees would be subject to civil liability.
“This resort-fee style of price listing can be detrimental to a person trying to plan their monthly budgets when seeking a place to live,” Considine told the Assembly Committee of Commerce and Labor on Feb. 17. “This change will provide transparency and certainty for someone living paycheck to paycheck.”
Lombardo vetoed the bill last session. Considine said this bill does not require amending existing leases, the primary concern listed in the governor’s veto letter in June 2023. Lombardo’s office declined to say whether he had other concerns with the current legislation, saying only that it would not comment on tentative bills.
Some Republicans said last week that they supported AB 121’s idea of transparency, but they warned of consequences from the bill. Assembly member Heidi Kasama, who owns a property management company, questioned how pass-through costs — like utilities or trash services — could be charged to tenants under the bill’s requirements.
Considine and advocates said utilities with costs that vary from month to month, such as water and electricity, could be billed separately in their own name.
The Nevada State Apartment Association opposes the bill. John Sande, lobbyist for the rental providers industry group, told lawmakers during the hearing that the association supports transparency in rent and fees but added that there needs to be “wiggle room” for bills that vary month to month or other unforeseen costs, especially considering the bill’s penalties.
“Trying to craft the lease and think about all the fees that you could possibly be recurring over on a monthly basis could be really difficult for those smaller, less sophisticated landlords,” he said.
Considine has also introduced Assembly Bill 223, which would target habitability in rental properties. It has not yet had a hearing.
Attorney general weighs in
Other measures in the Legislature approach managing rental costs from a consumer protection angle. Assembly Bill 44, introduced by Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford, would prohibit price fixing for the costs of essential goods and services. That would include rent, as well as groceries, clothing, gasoline, drugs and other medical products, household utilities, ground transportation and telecommunication services and internet.
Chief Deputy Attorney General Mark Krueger said the bill came out of recent public and private cases pursued by the Bureau of Consumer Protection. It attempts to prohibit people from knowingly engaging in fraudulent or deceptive conduct to make the price of essential items go up.
“It’s not like people can’t increase their prices,” Krueger said. “They just have to do so in a way that’s fair and not in a manipulating the market type of approach.”
The office intends to amend the introduced bill’s language to specify that the “natural market price” would be determined by a five-year average of data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, he said. A hearing is expected in the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee in early March.
Other vetoed proposals could return
Housing advocates say they hope to make gains in other areas, but they acknowledge they could face obstacles given Lombardo’s 2023 vetoes.
Ben Iness, coalition coordinator of the Nevada Housing Justice Alliance, said his group would support summary eviction reform and rent stabilization. Neither topic has been introduced yet. Those subjects were some of the governor’s vetoes in the past, but Iness said there could be room for improvement given the urgency of the state’s housing affordability crisis.
“Despite the vetoes, I think that was an exciting moment,” Iness said of Lombardo’s State of the State speech in January, during which the governor highlighted “housing attainability” as one of his goals. “I appreciate the evolution from the last State of the State to now, where housing is at the forefront of his time and attention.”
Lombardo’s office declined to say exactly how his proposals could affect tenants and landlords.
“Governor Lombardo looks forward to presenting his Nevada Housing Attainability Act, which will reduce housing costs while increasing housing availability,” spokesperson Elizabeth Ray said in a statement.
Iness said the group has been in “proactive” communication with the administration on possible legislation — and making sure it looks beyond supply and demand challenges to address housing and affordability in other ways.
“The larger housing conversations can feel very narrow and limited, or at times myopic because it’s only, ‘build, build, build, supply, supply, supply,’” Iness said. “Our work is about the ‘both/and,’ not the ‘either/or.’”
Contact McKenna Ross at mross@reviewjournal.com. Follow @mckenna_ross_ on X.
