The Albany Housing Advisory Commission heard a staff presentation on tenant-protection education and program options that could accompany any future tenant-protection ordinance, including upgrades to the city's rent-review program, stronger business-license enforcement or a rental registry, city-contracted legal assistance for tenants and landlords, and expanded education and multilingual outreach.

City consultant Chris Hess told the commission the rent-review service is run by ECHO Housing and provides early consultation, mediation and conciliation when a tenant requests assistance for a qualifying rent increase. "The outcomes of this, however, are advisory," Hess said, describing it as a nonbinding mediation process funded by a $15-per-unit annual fee collected through the business-license process.

Why it matters: commissioners and residents said these programmatic items could affect tenants' housing stability and landlords' compliance costs, while also shaping whether a future ordinance would be enforceable and equitable. Staff said the commission's recommendations will be compiled into an advisory report for the City Council in early 2026.

Key facts and figures raised at the meeting: staff estimated about 72% of Albany's eligible rental units are covered by a current business license; Echo Housing handles about four formal mediations or conciliations in recent years while logging roughly 40'0 contacts annually that do not become mediations; and the city's $15-per-unit fee generates roughly $32,000'$33,000 a year, according to staff estimates. Commissioner Marks asked for the methodology behind the compliance estimate: "I wanna know exactly how did you get this the 72% number. How did you determine that that was the number?" Hess replied the estimate used business-license payment data filtered for the rent-review fee and an estimate of total rental units drawn from the city's housing element.

Discussion on rent registry and enforcement: staff explained Albany does not currently maintain a full rental registry (tenant names, rent amounts and tenancy start dates) and that more robust registries in peer cities typically charge higher per-unit fees and require greater administrative staffing. Hess offered peer examples: San Francisco's less robust entry fee near $50 per unit per year and other nearby cities with heavier enforcement budgets at costs between roughly $200 and $300 per unit. Commissioners discussed tradeoffs between added transparency and the cost, administrative burden and potential privacy concerns of a registry.

Legal assistance and representation: commissioners discussed whether Albany should contract with regional legal-service providers to guarantee a minimum level of tenant representation in eviction-related matters. Staff said regional nonprofits such as Eviction Defense Center, East Bay Community Law Center, Centro Legal and Housing Rights Advocates provide counseling up to full representation and that some cities contract with those groups to expand capacity. Commissioners and several public commenters were split on whether a municipal-funded legal program is necessary given county and nonprofit services; some favored contracts to expand capacity rather than creating a city-run legal office.

Education and outreach priorities: commissioners broadly supported more multilingual materials, separate workshops for tenants and property owners, and using the existing business-license process to improve outreach and notice. Several commenters urged using existing fee revenue and targeted outreach (for example, school-district partnerships and events in high-need neighborhoods) to make tenants feel safe to report problems. One housing-provider commenter recommended training or certification for commission appointees who review landlord issues.

Public comment and process concerns: multiple members of the public criticized the commission's prior agenda organization and public-comment opportunities. A resident who spoke during public comment called the earlier bundling of several tenant-protection subitems into a single agenda item "a grave mistake and a suppression of public comment expression," and other commenters described feeling intimidated or unable to prepare adequate testimony under the previous format. Commissioners acknowledged those concerns and reiterated that the current meeting's programmatic discussion would be consolidated into a report for the City Council.

Legal and policy references discussed: staff noted state-level protections apply regardless of local ordinances, including AB 1482 and SB 567 (state statutes referenced by staff during the discussion) and a state ADU amnesty program for accessory dwelling units established for units created before 01/01/2020.

Next steps: staff said they will consolidate feedback and include cost and staffing estimates in an advisory report to the City Council, expected in January or February 2026; council direction would inform whether the city pursues ordinance drafting, a registry, fee changes, or program amendments. No formal decisions on program adoption were made at this meeting.

Votes at a glance: earlier in the meeting the commission unanimously approved its minutes by roll call; the item was moved and seconded and recorded with yes votes from Commissioners Marks, Ramirez, Winkler and the chair. No other formal votes on the program recommendations were taken.

For context: participants repeatedly underscored that ECHO Housing's work includes counseling and intake that does not always result in formal mediation; commissioners asked staff to return with more detail on Echo's hours and the breakdown of services provided before considering fee changes or new programs.