Alameda council votes 3–1 to introduce ban on ratio utility billing systems, sets phased petition window for landlords

The Alameda City Council on June 16 voted 3–1 to introduce an ordinance that would ban ratio utility billing systems (commonly called RUBS) for tenancies that are not separately metered and create a staggered, one‑time petition process for landlords to obtain an average‑utility rent adjustment.

Bill Chapin, director of the city’s rent program, told the council staff’s recommendation most closely follows “Option C,” a ban on charges for utilities without a separate meter coupled with a one‑time petition process so landlords using RUBS can document average utility costs and apply a rent adjustment. Chapin said the rent program has identified 64 tenant inquiries related to the validity of utility fees since the COVID moratorium ended and described investigations that in some cases have taken more than a year to resolve: “we identified 64 unique tenant inquiries about the validity of utility fees,” he said.

Tenant speakers described opaque bills and unexplained spikes. Timothy Hilton, a renter from a 41‑unit building, said management failed to provide a transparent breakdown and that residents saw no adjustments even when units went vacant: “my rent is 2,550 ... all my rub charges come back about a month or two from behind my current rent … In order to get the breakdown, I have to contact the property management company and they have not provided it,” Hilton said during public comment. Landlord representatives urged caution: Jennifer Rizzo of the California Apartment Association argued a full ban risks unintended consequences and urged a data‑driven analysis, noting low complaint rates in staff’s data and pointing to San Jose’s experience where water consumption reportedly rose after a RUBS ban.

Under the ordinance that staff presented, tenants in existing tenancies would continue under current billing practices while landlords pursue a petition. Staff described a staggered filing window: properties with 16 or more units would file first (an eight‑month window), properties with 5–15 units would follow, and properties with 2–4 units would be last (the staff presentation said the smallest properties might not be required to file until 17–24 months after the petition process starts). The petition requires landlords to document the 12‑month average utility charges; if approved, the landlord would impose a one‑time rent adjustment equal to the documented average plus an inflation adjustment, and the landlord would stop using RUBS thereafter for those tenancies.

Councilmembers who supported the measure emphasized predictability for renters, the difficulty of enforcing transparency with third‑party billing vendors, and the city’s responsibility to prevent charges that act as an end run around rent‑control limits. Opponents warned the ban could increase costs or discourage conservation and said staff should supply more data on scope and costs. The vote to introduce the ordinance passed 3–1; council directed staff to streamline fair‑return and petition paperwork, consider adding RUBS‑related questions to annual registration, and return with information after the first petition phase is processed.

Next steps: staff will develop the forms, hire temporary petition technicians as proposed, begin the first phase of petitions for large properties, and return with an implementation update after phase one.