Fate City Council on Nov. 11 directed staff to draft an ordinance that would require city utility accounts for single‑family rental properties to be established in the property owner’s name, citing data officials say show higher collection and disconnection rates for tenant‑named accounts.

Assistant City Manager Stephen Downs told the council the city’s audit and utility billing records show rental properties make up about 15% of utility accounts but a disproportionate share of problem accounts: ‘‘Just over 6% of rental accounts…go to collections,’’ he said, compared with about 1% of owner‑occupied accounts. He said the most recent audit showed roughly $44,000 in written‑off utility debt, about $38,000 of which is tied to rental accounts in tenants’ names.

‘‘Going forward we would bring an ordinance…requiring the utilities to be in the name of the property owner,’’ Downs said, and recommended allowing about 12 months for existing accounts to come into compliance.

Councilmembers pressed staff for implementation details and fairness protections. Several members asked how out‑of‑state or institutional landlords would open and manage accounts; Downs said owners can set up accounts remotely and that many institutional owners already keep accounts in their names. Finance staff Raju said the city does not currently perform credit checks on applicants and that deposits are used to cover last bills when accounts close.

Councilmember Alan (first name only in the record) asked whether owners could be held liable for a tenant’s intentional misuse such as leaving a tap running; staff said the City could not change state law on third‑party responsibility but noted the policy shift would put responsibility with the property owner as a business operator. Councilmembers asked staff to examine whether the city can differentiate deposit amounts for renters and owners and to show deposit status on utility bills so customers know whether they have a refundable balance.

No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Council directed staff to return with a draft ordinance and an implementation timeline, including concrete dates for the compliance period and options for communicating the change to landlords and tenants.

The city also reviewed related policy questions about deposits: staff said deposits are transferable for the same owner after 12 months of good standing but acknowledged communication gaps about refundable deposit balances. Council asked staff to propose a clearer deposit notification process and to research legal limits on differentiating deposit amounts.

The council’s next step is for staff to prepare the ordinance language, cost and timeline analysis and proposed customer‑notification procedures for a future meeting.