On August 11, the Seattle City Council passed Council Bill 121254, a major expansion of the City's rental fee and disclosure rules. The new law restricts which fees housing providers may charge, requires far more upfront disclosure, creates new recordkeeping obligations, and raises the consequences for violations. Most requirements begin July 1, 2027.

Here is what Seattle housing providers need to know.

The Short Version

Beginning July 1, 2027:

1. Many rental fees will be prohibited.
2. Rental costs and fees must be disclosed much more extensively.
3. Housing providers must keep detailed records for three years.
4. Violations can lead to refunds, additional damages, City penalties, and attorney fees.

The ordinance also gives the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) significantly more authority to investigate rental practices.

New Rental Cost Disclosure Requirements

Seattle will require much more information to be provided before a renter signs a rental agreement. Rental advertisements, listings, and applications must disclose:

• monthly rent;
• mandatory fees;
• optional fees;
• utilities the renter must pay;
• utilities included with rent;
• discounts or concessions; and
• an estimated or average total monthly cost.

That information must also appear on a disclosure form placed before the first page of the rental agreement. The form can be no longer than two pages.

For utilities and other variable costs, providers generally must use the average amount charged during the previous 12 months. If historical information is unavailable, an estimate may be used if it is clearly identified as an estimate.

The disclosure requirements also continue during the tenancy. Housing providers will generally need to provide an updated disclosure every 12 months and whenever a non-variable fee changes. Tenants must also receive a monthly statement showing variable fees and utility charges. Housing providers cannot charge tenants for preparing or providing these disclosures. SDCI will create a model disclosure form before implementation.

An Allowed Fee Can Become Prohibited if It Is Not Disclosed

This is one of the most important parts of the ordinance. It is not enough for a type of fee to be legally allowed. The fee must also be disclosed correctly.

An otherwise permissible fee can become prohibited if the housing provider failed to disclose it as required. For every fee, providers will need to determine:

• Is this fee allowed?
• Was it properly disclosed?

A problem with either can create a violation.

What Fees Can Still Be Charged?

Seattle is not banning every charge outside of rent. Housing providers may continue charging fees authorized under Seattle or Washington law, including:

• security deposits;
• authorized move-in fees;
• screening fees;
• pet damage deposits;
• late fees;
• utility charges;
• documented tenant-caused damage; and
• certain costs resulting from tenant default or abandonment.

Several other charges have specific limits.

• A replacement key charge cannot exceed the provider's actual cost or $50, whichever is less.
• A tenant-caused lockout can generally cost no more than $50 during specified weekday hours and $150 outside those hours.
• A returned-payment fee cannot exceed the actual financial-institution charge or $31, whichever is less.

What Fees Will Be Prohibited?

Several common types of charges will no longer be allowed.

• Pet Rent: Housing providers will no longer be able to charge monthly or recurring pet rent. A lawful pet damage deposit will still be permitted, and providers may still seek recovery for actual tenant-caused damage as allowed by law.
• In-Unit Appliances & Features: Providers generally cannot separately charge a tenant simply to use an appliance or feature already located inside the rental unit.
• General Common-Area Access: Providers cannot charge tenants simply to access ordinary common areas. An exception exists for temporary exclusive use, such as reserving a community room for a private event.
• Certain Payment Methods: Providers cannot charge an additional fee for paying by:
  • personal check;
  • money order;
  • cashier's check; or
  • ACH.
• Mail & Packages: Providers cannot charge tenants to receive mail, collect or distribute packages, or access their mailbox.
• Required Housing Provider Duties: A housing provider cannot separately charge a tenant for performing something the provider is already legally required to do.
• Adding or Removing a Tenant: Providers cannot charge a separate administrative fee simply to add or remove someone from an existing rental agreement. Lawful screening charges may still apply when appropriate.

Optional Services Will Have New Rules

Housing providers may still offer certain optional products and services, but the tenant generally must affirmatively opt in in writing.

The provider must explain how the tenant can later opt out, and the renter must be allowed to stop the service without a penalty.

If an outside company provides the service, the housing provider generally cannot charge the tenant more than the provider's actual cost.

Optional services also cannot be offered only as a bundle.

For example, if cable and internet are offered together for an additional charge, the tenant must also have the opportunity to purchase the individual services separately.

Landlord-Provided Renters Insurance

• Housing providers may still offer qualifying renters insurance, but tenants cannot simply be automatically enrolled.
• The tenant must affirmatively choose the insurance.
• Before the tenant opts in, the provider must supply information about the policy and its coverage. The tenant must also be able to opt out.
• SDCI will establish additional standards before the law takes effect.

Three-Year Recordkeeping Requirement

Housing providers will have to keep records demonstrating compliance for three years. That includes:

• advertisements and listings;
• rental applications;
• leases and renewals;
• required disclosure forms;
• fee statements;
• records of rent and fees charged; and
• receipts from third-party vendors.

The consequences of inadequate records are significant. If required records are missing, Seattle can presume that a violation occurred. The housing provider then has the burden of producing strong evidence showing otherwise. For smaller housing providers managing their own properties, consistent recordkeeping will be particularly important.

Potential Costs of Noncompliance

The ordinance creates significant financial consequences for noncompliance. Depending on the violation, a housing provider may face:

• repayment of a prohibited fee;
• interest;
• additional damages based on the amount of the fee;
• City penalties;
• attorney fees and court costs; and
• additional liability for prohibited lease provisions or retaliation.

Simply including a prohibited provision in a new rental agreement or renewal can result in liability of up to $4,000 plus attorney fees and costs. City penalties generally begin at $750 for a first violation and $1,500 for subsequent violations, with higher penalties available for retaliation and interference with an investigation. Some penalty amounts will begin adjusting for inflation in 2028.

Limited 30-Day Cure Provision

The final ordinance includes a limited opportunity for housing providers to correct certain prohibited-fee violations after receiving written notice.

Providers generally have 30 days to complete the cure.

The cure applies beyond the tenant who provided notice. The housing provider must also identify similarly situated tenants in the same building who have the same prohibited fee.

Each affected tenant must generally receive:

the prohibited fee back + interest + an additional payment equal to twice the prohibited fee.

In practical terms, the required payment can equal three times the prohibited fee plus interest.

The housing provider must also notify SDCI that the violation occurred and was corrected.

If the same prohibited fee appears again within 24 months, some of the protections available through the cure provision no longer apply.

SDCI Will Have Broader Enforcement Authority

SDCI's investigation does not have to remain limited to the tenant who originally raises an issue. An investigation may involve:

• one tenant;
• an entire building; or
• a housing provider's practices across multiple properties.

SDCI can request records, ask written questions, seek subpoenas, and refer cases to the City Attorney. The City may also require housing providers to notify tenants about certain investigations. A problem that begins with one fee charged to one renter can therefore expand beyond that individual tenancy.

Prohibited Fees Can Affect an Eviction Case

The ordinance can also affect failure-to-pay-rent cases. If prohibited fees were charged, those amounts may have to be subtracted when determining the amount of rent owed for purposes of an unlawful detainer action. Tenants may also raise prohibited rental-agreement provisions as a defense in certain cases. The accuracy of rental agreements and fee schedules will therefore matter beyond enforcement of the fee ordinance itself.

What Seattle Housing Providers Should Do Now

The first step is to understand which fees, disclosures, and practices are changing. Housing providers should identify every fee and additional charge currently associated with their Seattle rental properties. Pay particular attention to:

• pet rent;
• payment-processing fees;
• technology or administrative charges;
• package fees;
• amenity fees;
• insurance programs;
• lockout and key charges;
• optional services;
• third-party vendor programs; and
• additional charges contained in current rental agreements.

Providers should also understand the new three-year recordkeeping requirement and review how advertisements, applications, leases, renewals, disclosures, fee records, and related documents are currently retained.

The principal requirements do not begin until July 1, 2027, and a significant amount changed in this ordinance. RHAWA is already reviewing the final legislation, and members will receive additional information and educational opportunities as implementation moves forward.

What Did Not Pass?

Several amendments were considered before final passage.

For members, three proposals that did not become part of the final ordinance are particularly important.

1. Councilmember Bob Kettle proposed allowing limited pet rent of up to $25 per month per dog or cat. That proposal did not pass. Pet rent will be prohibited.
2. Kettle also proposed allowing tenants to be automatically enrolled in certain landlord-provided renters insurance programs with the ability to opt out. That proposal did not become part of the final ordinance. The law instead requires the tenant to affirmatively opt in.
3. Finally, Kettle proposed removing the word “junk” from the City's description of the affected fees. That change also was not adopted.

RHAWA will generally refer to the legislation as Seattle's rental fee ordinance or rental fee restrictions, which more accurately describes the scope of the law.

RHAWA'S CONCERN

The Cost Does Not Disappear

^{RHAWA supports transparency and agrees that renters should know what they will pay before signing a rental agreement. However, transparency and price regulation are not the same thing. This ordinance goes beyond requiring housing providers to disclose fees by prohibiting certain charges altogether and imposing significant new compliance requirements on rental housing providers.}

^{Removing a fee does not eliminate the actual cost associated with providing a service. Pets create additional costs and risks. Payment processing systems require ongoing investment. Technology platforms, resident services, employees, contractors, and regulatory compliance all carry real expenses. When housing providers are unable to recover costs directly from residents who use a particular service, they must either absorb those expenses, shift them elsewhere within the property's operating budget, or discontinue offering the service altogether.}

^{These concerns are especially significant for Seattle's small and independent housing providers. Large institutional owners often have dedicated compliance teams, sophisticated software systems, and thousands of rental units that allow them to spread new costs across a broader portfolio. Small housing providers, such as those who own a single duplex or a handful of rental homes, do not have the same resources or economies of scale.}

^{The Seattle Times covered the City Council vote and included comments from RHAWA's Kevin Schilling about the impact on housing providers. Read the Seattle Times coverage.}

^{This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Members with questions about a particular property or tenancy should consult qualified legal counsel. The material contained and represented herein, although obtained from reliable sources, is not considered legal advice or to be used as a substitution for legal counsel.}