Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Trash topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debate centers on who must provide trash service at rental properties; substitute to add recycling is forthcoming
Summary
Council members debated Ordinance 25120, which would amend property maintenance and rental codes to require documentation of trash service for rental units. The proposed substitute will add recycling language; the discussion highlighted enforcement challenges when tenants move or refuse service.
On Oct. 7 the New Castle County Land Use Committee discussed Ordinance 25120, a proposed amendment to Chapter 7 (Property Maintenance) and Chapter 19 (Residential Rental Properties) that would change how rental units document trash service and add responsibilities for property owners or tenants.
Councilwoman Catherine Durham, sponsor of the discussion, said the substitute language grew out of meetings with property managers, Realtor groups and county staff; the forthcoming substitute will also add recycling to the documentation requirement to match state requirements. Durham said the substitute seeks to "provide flexibility so that either the tenant or the property owner can get the service," while still requiring the property owner to file proof annually with the county.
David Culver, general manager of the Department of Land Use, confirmed the department's approach: "The property owner in all cases [is] ultimately responsible for the property," but a tenant may hold the service contract and submit proof during rental renewal. Culver said code enforcement would still cite owners and could abate and place a lien on properties when trash accumulates and owners do not remediate.
Councilman Chris Smiley and others raised practical concerns about enforcement and cost: Smiley said in many districts when tenants depart and trash accumulates, county staff must remediate at public expense and then place liens to recoup costs. Councilman Kaneko said language shifting burden to tenants in some lines of the draft made him uncomfortable and that he was "not inclined right now to support this legislation." Councilman Cartier said larger apartment complexes customarily provide trash service and questioned whether changing the rule would weaken accountability for smaller, problem properties.
Property management and community speakers supported the substitute's flexibility. Brian Pomager, director of property management at Patterson Schwartz, said allowing either the tenant or owner to hold a trash contract "ensures that there's trash service" and that making the owner the only option increased costs and administrative burden on landlords. Rob Bullock, president of the Route 913 Civic Association, commented during public comment that tenants moving trash offsite or dumping across the street remains an enforcement issue but said he supported giving council more time on related items (he later commented on a separate agenda item).
No final vote on Ordinance 25120 was recorded; the committee expects to circulate a substitute that will add recycling service language before further consideration.
