Committee advances bill to limit utility up‑charging in older mobile‑home parks; owners and residents split

Senator Gowen brought SB 18‑05 to the committee to address complaints that some older mobile‑home parks use master meters and billing practices that allow up‑charging and produce large, opaque utility bills to residents. The strike‑everything amendment the committee adopted retains the core change: requiring that master‑meter park owners may recover only charges imposed on the owner by the utility provider and limiting administrator fees (the striker caps one administrative fee at $8), aligning mobile home landlord‑tenant rules with the broader landlord‑tenant act.

Owners and managers opposed parts of the bill and warned it offers no clear methodology for apportioning a master meter’s cost among residents. Neil Haney (property manager) presented billing data from a managed park showing that converting to ratio or other cost‑allocation methods could increase tenants’ monthly bills—his calculation suggested an average increase of “over $30 a month” for water under some alternative methods. Cornelius Vanderhoop, a long‑time park owner, described commercial rates and volume tiers that sometimes leave parks absorbing costs when law caps resident charges.

Resident advocates and tenant representatives urged the change to stop systematic overcharging and to bring transparency and consumer protections. Kathleen Noble, president of the Arizona Manufactured Homeowners Organization, said the bill would prevent the park owner from charging residents more than what the owner was billed, which is currently difficult for residents to verify. Liz Goodman (counsel) said the measure brings the mobile‑home landlord‑tenant law into alignment with the Arizona Landlord‑Tenant Act and cited a 2007 study committee that documented pervasive up‑charging in older parks.

Committee members discussed trade‑offs including infrastructure replacement (moving to individual meters), administrative costs, and fairness. Owners argued that water and electric pricing tiers (volume charges) can make simple pass‑throughs infeasible, while advocates pointed to eviction risk when residents cannot pay unexpectedly high utility bills. The committee adopted the striker and returned SB 18‑05 with a due‑pass recommendation (vote recorded 7 ayes, 0 nays), and several members said the bill needs follow‑up work on methodology and outreach to stakeholders.

Outcome and next step: SB 18‑05 as amended was reported out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation and will proceed to the House floor; stakeholders agreed to further discussions on administrative fee caps and pathways to modernize park infrastructure.