Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Jose Council approves residential garbage and recycling rate increases after extended debate
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing with residents questioning the underlying cost analyses and staff describing contractor-driven cost pressures, the council approved residential solid waste rate increases 8–3. Staff said contractor compensation and CPI-linked contract clauses drive much of the change.
The San Jose City Council voted 8–3 June 2 to approve proposed increases to residential garbage and recycling service rates after an extended public hearing that featured several residents raising affordability concerns and staff explaining contract-driven cost pressures.
Michael Thomas and Gloria Perez Fort addressed the council during public comment, with Thomas repeating his claim that city records do not show a supporting contemporaneous cost-of-service study and Perez Fort detailing how rate growth has outpaced her Social Security income. Thomas told council: “The city cannot legally adopt these garbage and recycling rates increases today because there's no cost of service study supporting the rates and the proposition 218 notice mailed to residents.”
Judy Erlandson, deputy director of Integrated Waste Management, told the council that “contractor compensation for the processing and collection of all of the materials in San Jose … comprises 90% of the rates,” and that compensation increases are tied to a modified CPI that weights labor and fuel. Jeff Provenzano, director of the Environmental Services Department, said the city previously used fund balance to moderate rate increases but that reserves have been largely depleted. He explained that haulers submit actual financials and that adjustments are applied under the contract formula.
Councilmembers pressed staff on comparisons with neighboring cities, the effect of added services such as free junk pickup (which staff estimated at about $12 million of roughly $207 million in program costs, roughly 5%), and how contamination of recycling streams affects revenues. After discussion, Councilmember Kamei moved approval; the motion passed 8–3 with Councilmembers Ortiz, Doan and Casey voting no.
