WOODLAND, Calif. — The Woodland City Council voted 5-0 on July 15 to adopt a new franchise rate schedule that raises residential and commercial solid-waste charges by 6.43% and changes the billing structure, while adding an at‑your‑door hazardous‑waste and electronics pickup.

City staff and consultant Kate Schultz told the Council the increase reflects two components: a Consumer Price Index adjustment covering 16 months and added contract services required by state law and negotiated in the new agreement with Waste Management (WM). "This is a public hearing regarding our solid waste service rates," Schultz said during the presentation.

The change will take effect Sept. 1 if there is no majority protest under Proposition 218; staff said 105 formal written protests had been received before the hearing and the city has about 16,000 residential and commercial accounts, a number staff provided during the meeting. Because the count did not represent a majority, the Council approved the draft resolution to finalize the new rates.

Why it matters: the new franchise agreement bundles garbage, recycling and organics into a single billed service, requires color‑coded organics carts (green lids) to comply with state law, and adds an on‑demand collection option for hard‑to‑dispose items. Council and staff emphasized the change was partly driven by state mandates such as Senate Bill 1383 and by rising costs at disposal facilities. The contract also establishes an annual CPI adjustment capped at 5% and a formal process for extraordinary increases tied to unanticipated state mandates or significant changes at disposal facilities.

Key details: the most common residential level — a 64‑gallon garbage cart — rises from about $80 per two‑month billing cycle to $85.20 bimonthly under the proposed schedule. Commercial rates were increased at the same 6.43% factor. Staff said the green‑cart lid conversion must be complete by the end of 2026 to meet state requirements. The contract includes a provision allowing WM to request an extraordinary adjustment in the event of large, unforeseen cost shocks; such requests require documentation and can take months to resolve.

Public reaction at the hearing was robust. Dozens of residents testified, saying the mailed protest notice was easy to discard and the Proposition 218 protest process was confusing. "The mailing campaign did not work," said Dan Brown, who said he threw the notice away until a neighbor alerted him. Several speakers urged the Council to seek competitive bids and to expand low‑income relief programs. Council members and staff responded that the city had negotiated with multiple firms and that the new agreement contained stronger reporting and liquidated‑damages provisions than the prior contract.

Outcome and next steps: The motion to adopt the rate resolution passed 5-0. City staff said the city will publish annual rate adjustments for transparency and continue to enforce contract performance requirements with WM.