SB1669 would amend the Illinois Landlord and Tenant Act to authorize landlords to charge tenants for pets in one of two ways: either a one-time, non-refundable pet fee at the start of a tenancy or a recurring pet rent added to monthly rent. The bill defines both terms and distinguishes between “small animals” and “large animals” based on a 25-pound weight threshold.
The bill sets limits on those charges. A pet fee could not exceed $500, while pet rent could not exceed $25 per month for small animals and $50 per month for large animals, per pet. It also states that landlords may not charge either type of fee for an assistance animal under the Assistance Animal Integrity Act, and it makes clear that landlords are not required to charge pet fees or pet rent at all.
Impact
If enacted, SB1669 would create a new Section 35 in the Landlord and Tenant Act and establish statewide rules governing pet-related charges in residential leases. It would limit landlord discretion by prohibiting the simultaneous use of both a pet fee and pet rent, capping the amount that may be charged, and exempting assistance animals from such charges. The bill would directly affect landlords, tenants with pets, and tenants with assistance animals by standardizing what fees may be imposed and under what conditions.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears generally pro-tenant in its attempt to cap and regulate pet-related housing charges, while still preserving landlord authority to charge some pet-related compensation. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history provided, so no formal opposition or support is documented in the materials supplied. The bill’s structure suggests an effort to balance tenant affordability concerns with landlord interests in covering pet-related risk or wear-and-tear.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the fee caps and the restriction that landlords may choose either a pet fee or pet rent, but not both. Landlords may view the $500 cap and monthly limits as too restrictive, especially for larger animals or higher-risk properties, while tenant advocates may support the bill but still question whether any non-refundable pet charges are appropriate. Another likely issue is the treatment of assistance animals, though the bill expressly exempts them in line with existing law, reducing conflict on that point.