Trash collection bills would rise under Fresno’s proposed budget. How much is a mystery

Homeowners across the city of Fresno may be asked later this year whether or not they want to approve higher charges for trash collection, but the details on how much an increase could cost remains up in the air.

As he introduced his proposed 2023-24 budget for the city of Fresno on Thursday, Mayor Jerry Dyer said the city’s trash service operated at a $3 million deficit this year. Without a rate increase, that deficit could balloon to as much as $15 million next year, he said.

Fresno’s current monthly charge for basic trash service for single-family homes is $25.37 per month for weekly garbage, recycling and green-waste collection, according to the city’s master list of fees. For seniors age 62 and older, the rate is $21.80 per month.

“The last solid waste increase we experienced in the city of Fresno was in 2009, 14 years ago,” Dyer told the City Council. “Over that time, fuel has increased, PG&E costs have increased, salaries have increased. We’ve had inflation (and) equipment costs have increased as well as vehicles.”

“We’ve kicked this can down the road for a long time,” Dyer told The Fresno Bee after the council meeting.

The proposed budget for the Solid Waste Operating Fund — a division of the city’s Department of Public Utilities — includes an appropriation of almost $59 million for operations. But revenues for the operating fund are estimated at about $43.7 million.

Dyer reported that the Solid Waste division had depleted its reserve fund and resorted to deferring maintenance of equipment, left jobs unfilled and put off purchases of new vehicles and equipment “just to be able to remain solvent these past two years.”

“So at some point we’re going to have to … make a decision on what we’re going to do as we go forward,” Dyer said.

How much higher could monthly trash bills go?

Councilmember Miguel Arias asked Dyer and City Manager Georgeanne White how much residents’ trash bills could increase if the city moved ahead with the proposal. Both, however, were noncommittal on an answer.

“I think those discussions have to occur with the council because what we’re looking at is, over a five-year period, trying to smooth that out,” he said. “Can we, in the first year perhaps, lower the amount for the community and maybe borrow some of the money from one of the other (Public Utilities water and sewer) units to make that less painful on the community?”

Dyer added that the city will also likely consider the option of leasing the needed vehicles rather than buying them outright as a means of reducing the level of rate increase to customers.

According to internal documents provided to City Council members in February, several options were under consideration at that time by city administrators for possible rate models for trash collection. Those included:

• Option A, maintaining current residential operations and staffing, and not including a move of street sweeping to Public Utilities from the Department of Public Works: $36.66 per month in the 2023-24 fiscal year, an increase of $11.29 from the current rate, with subsequent increases of $1.10 per month in 2024-25, $1.13 in 2025-26, 78 cents in 2026-27, and 79 cents in 2027-28. The total rate after five years by 2027-28 would be $40.46 per month — an increase of about 59.5% over the current rate.

• Option B, maintaining current operations and including current levels of street sweeping: $37.93 per month, an increase of $12.56 from the current rate, with subsequent increases of $1.14 per month in 2024-25, $1.17 per month in 2025-26, 80 cents in 2026-27, and 82 cents in 2027-28. The new rate after five years would be $41.86 per month — an increase of about 65% over the current rate.

• Option C, maintaining current operations and staffing and an increased level of street sweeping: $38.18 per month, an increase of $12.81 from the current rate, with subsequent increases of $1.15 per month in 2024-25; $1.18 per month in 2025-26, 81 cents per month in 2026-27, and 83 cents per month in 2027-28. The rate by 2027-28 would be $42.15 per month — an increase of about 66.1% over the current rate.

White said the potential $12 million increase in the deficit for the trash collection fund includes not only filling vacant positions, but also replacing equipment. “We’re running out of trash trucks,” she said. “We’ve had them breaking down; we’ve had a couple in accidents. … This assumes we’re going to try to operate as if we are filling our vacancies and have enough trucks to be able to keep up the routes.”

“The $12 million keeps us at status quo for operating the department as it should be operated,” White added.

How can residents weigh in on the rates?

Rate increases for city utilities are governed by conditions of Proposition 218, a state measure approved by California voters in 1996 as a means of preventing local governments from raising fees without input from voters or property owners. Taxes must be submitted to voters for approval before they can take effect.

Because trash fees represent a charge for service for properties and not a “tax,” however, the approval process is different. According to an implementation guide published by the League of California Cities, Proposition 218 requires a city, county or other local government agency to:

• Identify all of the parcels that would be affected by imposing the charge.

• Calculate the amount of the fee proposed to be impose on each parcel.

• Provide written notice by mail to the owners of each potentially affected property or tenants of a public hearing no earlier than 45 days after the mailing.

• Consider “all protests against the proposed fee or charge.”

• If written protests against the fee are presented by a “majority of owners of the idenified parcels,” the fee cannot be imposed.

The City Council would be required to give a green light to commencing the Proposition 218 process. “And if that decision is that none of us are ready to go forward with that,” Dyer said, “then we need to figure out how we’re going to continue to maintain that service through reduced personnel.”

Fresno’s residential trash services for single-family homes are provided by the city itself; trash collection for commercial and industrial customers is done by a franchisee for the city and are not subject to the same Proposition 218 requirements.

Similarly, residential trash collection for multi-family apartment complexes are also franchised.

What happens next?

No time frame has been offered yet on when the Dyer administration may ask the council to invoke Proposition 218. The proposed budget for the Solid Waste Division includes $95,000 in additional costs for postage and printing for the Proposition 218 process.

Arias, whose council district encompasses much of southwest Fresno, told The Bee that a rate increase is “a non-starter for me.”

“The city staff has not provided any analysis that justifies this increase or any plan to improve services,” he said. “The days of simply passing higher costs on to residents without better service are behind us.”

Arias added that the revelation that the Solid Waste Division was operating in red ink was new information for the City Council. “We didn’t know there was deficit spending,” he said. “They’ve had years to make that modification or recommendation” for rate increases prior to this year’s budget.

Council President Tyler Maxwell — who along with Council Vice President Annalisa Perea and Councilmember Michael Karbassi serves on the council’s budget committee — said he thinks the city at least needs to go through the Proposition 218 process and see if residents will accept an increase, even though the proposed amount has yet to be determined.

“I think something’s going to have to give if we don’t go through the 218 process, which a lot of cities do fairly frequently,” Maxwell told The Bee. “But Fresno has kind of had this averse reaction to increasing rates for basic amenities like solid waste, water and wastewater. And it’s shown in decreased services.”

“I was in high school in 2009, so the rate hasn’t increased from the time I was in high school,” Maxwell added.

Since that time, “fuel costs have gone up, labor has gone up, new vehicles have gone up,” he said. “So if we as a council decide not to go forward … we’ll have no choice” but to use money from the city’s general fund – the pot of money from which many of the city’s day-to-day bills are paid.

Maxwell noted that more than half of the city’s general fund budget is earmarked for public safety services including police and fire. “So if we don’t go forward with the 218 process,” he said, “it’s going to be a question of how many police officers do we want to get rid of (or) how many firefighters do we want to get rid of?”