Council Member Weiss, chairing a Columbus City Council hearing on utility reselling, said the committee would review a revised ordinance intended to allow third‑party resellers to continue operating while increasing protections for tenants.

The ordinance draft presented by Tanisha Pruitt, legislative analyst with the council's Legislative Research Office, would require resellers and property owners who bill tenants for utility service to keep rates at or below what the regulated utility would have charged, impose billing‑transparency requirements, and include enforcement provisions, Pruitt said. "We want to regulate how they're being billed. We want to require utility cost transparency," Pruitt said during the presentation.

Why it matters: Council staff and witnesses said tenants billed through submetering or by third parties can pay substantially more, lack itemized bills, and may be ineligible for some assistance without itemized charges. The draft identifies multifamily properties as the primary focus and proposes a one‑year compliance window after an ordinance's effective date for entities to come into code compliance.

Pruitt outlined key provisions in the draft: definitions of "utility reselling" and "submetering," a proposed cap on administrative billing charges (a working figure of $8 was discussed), limits on late fees tied to the utility's own late fee, rules governing ratio formulas for allocating shared charges (factors such as occupants and square footage), a ban on charging tenants for utility costs attributable to landlord‑exclusive spaces, and a requirement that submetered billing reflect actual readings rather than inflated administrative charges.

Legal and state context: The state regulatory environment and recent Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) decisions were central to the discussion. Kim Boiko, partner at Carpenter Lipp LLP, testifying on behalf of Champion Companies, told the committee that a recent PUCO decision already requires caps and lease disclosures and that House Bill 173 (and companion Senate Bill 108) is the state vehicle she favors to provide uniform regulation and PUCO oversight. "The commission specifically authorized the resale of utilities and instituted protections for tenants," Boiko said, and urged the council to consider state action before adopting conflicting municipal rules.

Consumer advocates and tenant groups pressed the committee for stronger enforcement. Morgan Harper, cofounder of Columbus Stand Up, said disclosure alone is insufficient and asked the city to create an enforceable, well‑funded compliance mechanism. "Transparency is not enough. Disclosure is not enough. We have to make sure that we have enforcement that is properly funded," Harper said.

Enforcement and next steps: Pruitt said the draft's enforcement language is still being developed in consultation with the city attorney and administration. The current working approach discussed at the hearing included a one‑year compliance period and possible civil penalties for noncompliance; Pruitt said the city is considering complaint‑driven enforcement and use of the housing stability division for investigations. Council Member Weiss said interested‑party meetings will continue and that testimony received will inform final language before any ordinance goes to the full council.

Stakeholders at the hearing urged the council to avoid creating municipal rules that conflict with state law or PUCO rulings; industry witnesses warned of compliance costs and potential operational complications if municipalities adopt divergent standards. City staff and advocates recommended the city continue to refine the draft, identify enforceability mechanisms, and coordinate with state regulators and providers before returning a final ordinance to the full council.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the draft at the hearing.

Ending: The council will hold additional interested‑party meetings to refine the draft and will post materials and the hearing video online for public review, Weiss said. Staff contact information for follow‑up questions was provided during the hearing.