Albany housing advisory panel weighs strengthening rent-review program, registration and legal aid

The Albany Housing Advisory Commission on October 1 heard a staff presentation and public comment on programmatic steps the city could take to strengthen tenant protections, including changes to the rent-review program, a possible rental registry, city-funded legal assistance and expanded multilingual outreach.

Chris Hess, a housing consultant working with the city’s Community Development Department, told the commission that the rent-review service administered by Echo Housing provides ‘‘early consultation, mediation and conciliation’’ but that ‘‘the outcomes of this, however, are advisory. It is a nonbinding mediation process.’’ He said the program is funded by a $15-per-unit annual fee collected through the city’s business-license process.

Hess said the city’s records show relatively few formal mediations—‘‘in the neighborhood of 4 to 8 per year’’ and more recently about four—but a larger number of informational contacts ‘‘somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 60’’ that do not proceed to mediation. He also said staff estimated that about 72% of eligible rental units have a current business license tied to the rent-review fee, leaving roughly 28% of units out of compliance and without an enforcement mechanism in place.

Commissioners and public commenters pressed staff for more detail on those figures. Commissioner Marks asked, ‘‘I want to know exactly how did you get this the 72% number,’’ and staff said the percentage was derived by filtering finance reports for rent-review fee payments and comparing that count to the housing-element estimate of total rental units, acknowledging uncertainty in the underlying unit count.

The meeting also featured a debate about the scope and cost of a potential rental registry. Hess cited peer-city benchmarks, saying San Francisco’s least-robust registry equated to roughly $50 per unit per year while more robust systems in Richmond and Berkeley can cost ‘‘in between 200 and $300 per unit per year’’ depending on staffing and enforcement intensity. Commissioners sought ballpark cost breakdowns for different registry elements—education, legal counseling, outreach and staffing—before recommending any new fee structure.

Several speakers recommended prioritizing education and outreach over creating new enforcement bureaucracy. One resident asked that the city ‘‘do better in terms of education’’ and suggested using existing fee revenue—estimated by staff at roughly $32,000–$33,000 annually—to improve tenant and landlord information and to measure whether that reduces demand for mediated cases. A member of the public who identified himself as a 20-year resident, Mike Njajji, criticized prior meeting procedures, saying a previous session bundled many tenant-protection proposals ‘‘with minimal public comment’’ and described that approach as undermining trust in local process.

On legal assistance, Hess said regional nonprofit providers (including East Bay Community Law Center and other eviction-defense organizations) currently supply counseling and representation, but that municipal contracts—like those used in Berkeley and Oakland—can ensure a baseline level of representation when demand exceeds volunteer or nonprofit capacity. An online commenter cautioned that a municipal legal-aid program may be ‘‘fiscally unsound’’ for a small city and urged the commission to prioritize connecting residents to existing regional providers instead.

The commission discussed design choices and incentives for a registry, including penalties or remedies for landlords who fail to register (one commissioner suggested making an unregistered landlord ineligible to impose a rent increase). Commissioners also raised language-access and outreach measures—particular attention to Albany’s Asian-language communities—and potential partnerships with schools and community events to reach renters.

Staff said the recommendations discussed would be consolidated into an advisory report with cost-benefit analysis and presented to City Council in January or February 2026; the council would then give direction and the commission would return with concrete ordinance or program proposals. The commission took no formal action on policy changes at the meeting beyond approving the minutes.

The meeting closed with staff reminders about a regional fair-housing training hosted by Echo Housing and information about the state’s ADU amnesty for certain unpermitted accessory dwelling units. The commission expects to resume substantive work once it receives direction from council.