Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council splits 3-2 after hours-long debate on letting voters decide special trash assessment
Summary
Councilman Butler's proposal to require voter approval before the city imposes a special assessment for trash collection prompted lengthy debate over collection mechanics, delinquent accounts and equity for renters; the measure failed on a 3-2 vote after council members and staff clashed over who would bear unpaid bills and how much revenue the city would actually collect.
Councilman Butler introduced an ordinance to amend Chapter 10 of the city code so that any future citywide special assessment for solid-waste collection would require voter approval. He framed the measure as a compromise between reversing the single-hauler program and preserving the city's options: "This is simple change. The public gets to vote on it in an election if they want a special assessment on their trash," he said.
The proposal opened a long policy debate that centered on how the assessment would be billed and who ultimately pays unpaid charges. Supporters said letting voters decide is a fair way to resolve a contentious, citywide service change. Opponents said the proposal created administrative complications and would not solve the city's underlying collection and delinquency problems.
City staff and council members exchanged figures during the discussion. Staff reported roughly $841,540 in residential delinquent utility account balances and said trash delinquencies stood at about $130,000; council members noted the city receives a long-standing 10% franchise fee and a 1.5% administrative fee tied to the program. One council member urged focus on collecting existing utility delinquencies rather than shifting billing mechanisms: "If you're going to collect the money, let's look at the money the city's losing, not the money the garbage hauler is losing," he said.
Several councilmembers raised operational concerns about moving the charge from the utility bill to the tax bill as a special assessment. Questions included whether a special assessment could accommodate opt-outs or relief for seasonal residents, how liens would work, and whether the city's billing staff could manage the extra workload. Opponents warned the ordinance, as written, could create confusion for residents and for the council itself when implementation questions arise.
Public reaction, which councilors said they expected to intensify at a separate hearing, was described as strong: the mayor and several council members urged residents to attend a scheduled Thursday public hearing to ensure their views were heard.
After extended debate and a series of procedural motions, the council voted and the measure failed by a 3-2 margin. With that result, the ordinance will not advance as drafted; council members who opposed the measure said they would continue to seek other approaches to improve collection, outreach and relief options for vulnerable households.
Council members who opposed the ordinance said they remain open to further policy work and to staff proposals that would address delinquent accounts and opt-out or relief mechanisms while keeping collection on utility bills. Supporters said they plan to continue engaging the public and revising language for future consideration.
