Upland residents push back after council pauses plan to place utility bills on property tax roll

UPLAND, Calif. — Upland residents urged the City Council to provide clearer information and an opt‑out path after councilmembers removed a proposal that would have placed trash, sewer and storm drain utility charges on San Bernardino County property tax bills.

Speakers at the council meeting said the measure, which staff and a third‑party vendor had discussed in recent weeks, was rushed and poorly explained. “Leave our tax bill alone,” said Lois Sikking Dieter, a longtime Upland homeowner, who told the council she preferred monthly utility bills rather than a semiannual tax charge and asked for data on delinquencies from 2023 and 2024.

The issue drew more than a dozen public commenters. Several residents said a postcard or single flyer did not constitute adequate outreach and that older residents and people without internet access could be left unaware of the change. Natalie Garrett said the city had “one real communication” and that the city should start with more complete information to prevent misinformation on social media.

Why it matters: Placing utilities on the property tax roll typically changes collection remedies and timing; some residents said they feared large, infrequent bills would burden seniors and fixed‑income households. Speakers also raised concerns about participating vendors, the availability of an opt‑out option and whether water could be added later.

What was said and by whom: Several speakers attributed conflicting vendor names and timetables to confusion. Lois Sikking Dieter said the vendor had told residents an “opt out” function would not be available until December and asked why the city was moving ahead sooner. John Walford, a resident of more than 50 years, argued that BurTech (a billing vendor referenced in public remarks) is a for‑profit company and that collection of unpaid accounts is the vendor’s business, not the city’s.

Some commenters asked for budgetary transparency and data. Dieter said the city lost about $900,000 in delinquent payments during 2020–21 and asked for equivalent numbers for 2023–24. A resident who identified himself as a numbers person asked staff to “show your budget to all of us and show us where the money is moving.”

Public‑works and committee context: Council members and staff said the item had been removed from the agenda. At a Public Works Committee meeting earlier in May, staff reported an estimated administrative savings for households and described a proposed voluntary opt‑out program; the committee later summarized that households could see a modest average annual savings (the committee discussed a figure roughly $14 per year tied to a rebate). Councilmembers who spoke emphasized they could not discuss contested items outside public meetings because of the Brown Act.

Outstanding questions and next steps: Residents asked whether San Bernardino County would itemize the charges on property statements, how county liens and late fees would apply, and when — or if — a formal vote would be rescheduled. The council did not set a new date at the meeting; several speakers urged that the city provide additional notice and consider putting any future change before voters.

Ending: Councilmembers said they heard the public’s concerns and reiterated the importance of outreach. The council removed the item from the agenda that evening. If the city places the issue back on a future agenda, speakers asked for clearer timelines, published data on arrears and explicit procedures for opting out.