Councillor Winslow provided background on the transition from blue bags to tags, noting
the original intent to keep the change revenue neutral. Historical revenue figures were
shared, showing a decline of approximately $400,000 over four years, and the need for
ongoing review of the program was emphasized. He considered implementing a fee for
non-residential multifamily buildings, referencing practices in other communities such as
Salem. The rationale included increased education and enforcement needs for buildings
not owner-occupied, as these often contribute to refuse issues on city streets.
Nate Cramer described the process of merging reports in Excel to identify eligible
properties, noting difficulties in tracking units and residential exemptions. Of 4, 269 lines
reviewed, 1,287 did not receive the exemption, but turnover and classification
complexities make annual tracking challenging.
Councillor Taylor highlighted the importance of focusing on enforcement, ensuring proper
use of barrels and stickers, and addressing complaints about improper trash disposal.
The group discussed the timing of fee changes in relation to the city's trash contract,
which has about five and a half years remaining, and the need to balance enforcement
with financial planning.
Councillor Colon Hayes asked is the intent here to keep it revenue neutral and make
some additional revenue or enforce it
Councillor Winslow clarified that the intent was to maintain revenue neutrality, not to
generate additional revenue, and to keep the issue on the council's agenda for future
consideration. The discussion included the impact of contract terms and the need for
creative approaches to improve the system and resident experience.
Councillor Sica expressed strong opposition to increasing trash fees at this time, arguing
that it would be unfair to residents, especially with a potential Prop 2% override on the
horizon and suggested that the proposal should be tabled and revisited only if the
override does not pass.
Councillor Luong asked if the residential exemption list is up to 166
Nate answered No it could be a 112 it could be a 300 unit building if the owner lives in it
that qualifies.
They don't necessarily get it but it's any residential property.
Councillor Luong she asked is just the unit exempt do we calculate it by the unit or by
the whole
Nate the 15 unit that gets it is above the break even point so it's kind of a net zero but
they still get the exemption which really it doesn't matter that they don't benefit
Councillor Luong echoes what Councillor Taylor and Sica said I don't think this is the
right time for it but / also feel like the more we keep putting on the nonresident landlords
a fee here ultimately that's going to go back to the tenants and emphasized the need to
be mindful of the cumulative financial burden on renters and the broader community.
Councillor Winslow mentioned Councillor Taylor talked about enforcement and one of the
things that came up during the trash strike was at that point we really didn't have an
enforcement person and even if we had one we didnt have enough resources.
Enforcement takes a person so if we're going to increase enforcement it is actually
staffing. He also explained he put this paper out here to have a conversation he wasn't
pushing to see this move at this moment or moved out of committee. We have work to