By Kate Callen
If you’re a property owner, pay close attention to the mail you receive in April. A flyer resembling this water rate notice will ask you to vote on the City’s proposed trash collection fees.
If a majority of recipients send back a “No” vote, the trash fees will go the way of the sales tax hike – straight to the dumpster. And the Gloria administration will be dealt yet another setback.
City Hall has made a great show of asking for input on the fees. A series of 10 public meetings began February 24 and will conclude April 8.
If you’ve ever attended a City “community outreach” forum, you know the drill.
An official slow-walks the audience through a 40-minute PowerPoint. The floor opens for comments. Nearly every speaker is angry. The official explains that the public is simply uninformed. No one from the City takes notes.
If you’d rather not sit on a hard chair and feel marginalized for two hours, there is a better way to stop this cash grab.
Proposition 218, the state’s 1996 “Right to Vote on Taxes” act, limits the ability of local governments to impose taxes and fees on property owners.
Before governments can require you to pay any new assessment, they are legally responsible for “noticing owners of affected properties and for collecting and tabulating written protests” with mailers sent to each address.
To scuttle the trash fees, 50 percent plus one of 233,000 prospective “customers” will have to mail back a form to register a protest. The City will count anyone who doesn’t respond as an “I love the new trash fees!” vote.
Clearly, this is a high bar. City Hall thrives on public apathy. People get lots of junk mail, and they throw most of it out.
But San Diegans are experiencing a seismic political sea change, so anything is possible.
Voters rejected the 2024 sales tax hike measure because they lost trust in our “strong mayor” government. The City Council has been so whipsawed by constituent fury over infill density that it may scrap the disastrous “bonus ADU” program.
This is not the time for the City to bilk taxpayers with a fiscal shell game. But that is exactly what is happening.
In an editorial titled “Time may have come for voter revolt over City’s trash fee bait-and-switch,” the Union-Tribune wrote:
“In 2022, voters were told that ending free trash service for nearly 300,000 households … would lead to monthly bills of $23 to $29. In recent days, with no apologies for this successful deception from any of the deceivers, city leaders unveiled and lined up behind a plan to charge $53 a month, with a 22 percent increase to $65 a month in 2027. [And] they intend to hire 130 more employees — which will only fuel the continued ballooning of the city’s annual pension payment.”
To stage this revolt, property owners must watch for the mailer, complete the form at the bottom, sign it, and mail it to: City Clerk, 202 C Street, MS 2P, San Diego, CA 92101
It’s worth the effort. Tell your friends and neighbors. Post messages on social media. We can do this.
If you’re a renter in a house or an ADU situation, your rent may go up due to this tax. So don’t get conned by the victimization apartment renters that can’t think straight.
Thanks for highlighting this, Kate. This should be up for a public vote, but I don’t like this method. It has none of the protections of an actual election type vote, it is deliberately tricky.
The city should never be allowed to raise any costs to the public without a vote. The short term vacation rentals bring $56 million into the city’s coffers. It was a conflict of interest to allow this without a public vote. Why would anyone in the city administration have voted against that or this trash fee.
“The city should never be allowed to raise any costs to the public without a vote.”
Sir, this is exactly what happened. This was the well-written Measure B in the 2022 City of San Diego elections, 203,223 YES votes to 199,384 NO. Full text below for your civic education:
“AMENDS SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 66.0127 RELATED TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Shall the San Diego Municipal Code be amended so that all City residents receive comparable trash, recycling, and other solid waste management services, by allowing the City to recover its cost of providing these services to eligible residential properties, which could allow the City to provide additional services, such as weekly recycling, bulky item pickup, and curbside container replacement and delivery, at no extra charge?”
This ordinance was originally created in 1919(!!) in a San Diego that would be unrecognizable today and for the purpose of earning money by selling the refuse to hog farmers. The city stopped selling to hog farmers in 1962 and this has been a fee subsidized on behalf of homeowners ever since. https://docs.sandiego.gov/reportstocouncil/2008/08-060.pdf
There was a vote. Prop B in 2022.
It was voted on and it passed. The amount has not been set, and that can be protested.
I pay trash and refuse on my homeowners tax, as well as Zoo fee, yet you want me to pay again and I don’t get to go to the Zoo for free. Tell me how this is legal?
Sorry Susan, you have to pay to visit the zoo like the rest of us. Then again, if it’s monkey’s you want to see, try a visit to city hall!
As stated in the past, I am in favor of homeowners in the city of San Diego to finally have to pay their fair share of garbage disposal. Condominium owners and apartment dwellers have had to pay to have their waist removal for decades, it’s about time Single Family homeowners do the same. I reside in a Condominium and pay property taxes, as well as garbage disposal fees, why should free standing homes get free disposal?
it was only inequitable because you chose to live in a condo and elected to pay that fee. Our new fees will be your rate hikes next. That’s what happens in a mayor Toad world.
There is no rational reason that a single family homeowner should not pay for pickup while the condo owner needs to pay their own fees. “That’s how it has been” is not a good reason to continue to subsidize homeowners. Thanks to Prop 13, many condo owners are actually paying much more in property taxes than single family homeowners, yet those condo owners don’t fall under the People’s Ordinance. This should have always been based on financial need, not the configuration of the walls. It doesn’t suddenly become equitable when you’re the beneficiary.
Yes, I could see believing that when many more condos are likely investment properties and SFR homeowners likely don’t buy and sell as much as condo owners would. Every sale is a reappraisal to current rates. There’s gray areas in your rational.
Chris, if I could not afford a home at the time and purchases a condominium instead, is that a choice? I suppose so, it was a choice to own something instead of renting. I suppose when you start paying the city for your trash disposal, that too will be your choice. Pay to have your garbage removed, or sit on top of a heaping pile of rotting trash. Somehow, I know you’ll make the right choice.
There is no free lunch. We do pay for it through property taxes and sales taxes and all the other misc fees that go into the General Fund. We just don’t pay for it separately. I also think it wouldn’t be such a problem if it were competitive with private haulers, but there is no chance to opt out. At least you won’t have to pay double.
Carolyn, that is a smart point. The condo and apartment owners get to shop around for the lowest rates they can find while the City has dragooned single family homeowners, and only homeowners, into their monopoly. Now, they’ve taken that monopoly power and have feather-bedded every conceivable service into the fee. The result is a price that is double what others in San Diego county pay, so I guess we are going to pay twice.
Yep David, I guess you’re going to have to pay twice then. Gee, it sure is a shame you have been having free trash disposal for all these years and now you are finally going to have to pay something. Seems so unfair, doesn’t it?
NEWS FLASH Carolyn. Condominium owners pay property taxes also, perhaps you were unaware.
And those impacted by the new fees will get a chance to vote. btw The City has said that 15,000 condos (approx 40,000 units) that currently get city services are no longer eligible and will now have to pay fees to private haulers. At least they won’t have to pay for unneeded services that are also worse for the environment. And there is no need to call me stupid, even if politely.
Perhaps, but if the label fits…….
I see, you’re just an immature person.
Why was the suggested fee doubled? THAT is the issue.
Free standing homeowners do not get free trash disposal. It is paid through the property taxes. This is a clear case of double taxing. Oh, btw, it is waste removal and not waist removal.
If the city would stop spending money foolishly they wouldn’t have to try to get homeowner’s(who already pay taxes for zoo, etc. on their tax bills) to pony up additional money for trash pickup. I am against the trash tax. ENOUGH
101 Ash debacle comes to mind!
We pay for the trash pick up already. We also have to buy and pay for new trash cans every ime the sanitation workers destroy our plastic trash cans. They’re a hundred dollars now. If we pay for trash will they replace our cans when the lids are knocked off or bins splint from the throwing down hard on the ground when emptied?
No, but then somehow I think you knew that.
Actually, they would repair or replace the bins for “free” if homeowners are charged a fee.
Their carelessness causes this need.
1) COUNTY assessor’s tax bill pays for trash collection in COUNTY areas. 2) I voted for the trash charge because (a) there is a reason almost all other cities in the entire country charge for garbage collection. Somewhere in SD budget it has to be paid. It will never be covered by stopping useless (other) spending. (b) Chula vista where I have a property charges less and provides trash, green, blue AND IMPORTANTLY you can pre-arrange to have things like mattresses, stoves etc removed. Please look in our alleys. These would be cleaner if we had that service. And our cans would be free. ‘No’ is not the answer for a city that really needs to get a realistic handle on our problem. Soon the issue will matriculate to our dump issue.
good idea give city official more money and you think the issue will be solved. In 1919 said said it was improtant to have a clean city so they siad free garbage pick up …until morons said lets give them more money i’m sure will even be better. Crazy logic, they committed to free garbage pick up and the city would pay not the city residents just pay more!
However, all those other cities either bid out the contract and chose the best service for the price and customers are paying about $30/month or the city lets the customers choose from the various companies (Republic, Edco, Waste Management) the service that best fits their needs and budget. Lakeside does this and my daughter pays about $65 every two months. None of these cities are on the hook for paying medical coverage, Social Security, pensions, etc. The City of SD would have been better served to get out of the trash business for citizens and keep the trash services for the properties it owns. Would save us all money and would save the city a lot of money.
Absolutely, Jean. But Elo-Rivera wasn’t thinking of the residents when he put Measure B together. He was thinking of the unions passing Measure B and getting himself reelected. He got both and he stuck the residents of San Diego with his vision of “world class” garbage collection which we do not want and cannot afford. As chair of the Select Committee on Addressing Cost of Living for San Diego, Elo-Rivera obviously could not care less what it costs homeowners to live here. He has made it perfectly clear that he considers anyone who owns a home not worthy of his time or energy, even though there are many struggling homeowners in San Diego. It is unfortunate that he believes he can pick and choose the constituents he gets to represent. Democracy isn’t supposed to work that way, but I guess when you carry a huge chip on your shoulder, it colors your world view.
No he was not and he never does. And yet as part of the committee, he wants to raise the wages of hospitality workers in SD to $30, I believe. Have they not learned the lesson of the $20 fast food wage? Business owners will have to pay it, but they will increase prices to cover their increase cost and/or they will reduce hours of workers. Any of them who own homes or pay rent will now have to cough up more for their trash service and it becomes a lose-lose situation!
Of course, you furnish excess money to your general fund by overcharging services and then champion the little guy in his minimum wage increases for more tax revenue on the back side. Eating at both ends of the buffet, eh?
Yes Jean, God forbid the employees of the city should get healthcare / medical coverage, Social Security, pensions etc.
I mean, who the heck needs healthcare, social security and pensions, etc.?
I swear, those city employees asking for such things is outrageous! right!?
Please read more carefully. I did not say city employees should not get any of those things. What I said was “None of these cities are on the hook for paying medical coverage, Social Security, pensions, etc.”, meaning if the City of SD were to get out of the trash business and bid the contract out or let people choose their own service, the City would no longer be the employer of the trash collectors, nor be responsible for the equipment, the company would (Edco, Waste Management, Repbulic) and they would be paying for all their medical cover, SS and pensions.
I did quick google search on “Do private trash collectors earn bebefits” , and found:
“Key points about private trash collector benefits:
Variety of benefits:
Most private trash collection companies offer a range of benefits like medical, dental, vision insurance, life insurance, and retirement plans.
Dependent on company size:
Larger private waste management companies tend to offer more comprehensive benefits packages compared to smaller local operations.
Check with individual companies:
Always verify the specific benefits offered by a particular private trash collection company when considering employment. ”
So even though the city wouldn’t be paying directly for these benefits, the employees would probably be receiving them. The city could (and sometimes does) include this as a contract requirement.
Thanks Lyle.
I was responding to Jean who said, “None of these cities are on the hook for paying medical coverage, Social Security, pensions, etc. The City of SD would have been better served to get out of the trash business for citizens and keep the trash services for the properties it owns. Would save us all money and would save the city a lot of money.”
It appeared to me as though she was saying that San Diego ought not follow the lead of other cities who outsource their trash removal so as to avoid paying trash disposal personnel benefits. Which, despite what she has said, is EXACTLY what she was promoting.
How in the world did my comment “The City of SD would have been better served to get out of the trash business” lead you to think that I was saying that San Diego ought not follow the lead of other cities who outsource their trash removal. I said that is exactly what they should do—–get out of the trash business and either bid it out or let us choose. And yes, by doing so the City would save tons of money because they could have just the staff and trucks needed to deal with the trash on their properties and they would not have to hire 130 more people, adding to the money spent on salaries and such. ALL that would be paid by the private trash companies, just as Lyle stated. Reading in fundamental and reading comprehension is a must!
City employees do not get Social Security.
Every person who voted for this tax to be imposed needs their head examined. Also no one other than in a single family home dweller should have been able to vote for this. Instead everyone in the city got to vote so all persons and apartment people who don’t use city garbage pick up of course voted for us to be charged. Fees should be voted on only by people who are affected.
People can we please stop voting for ever ballet measure thinking it’s put on the ballet for our benifit. Yes democrats that includes you!!!!!!!
i’m not advocating for or against, but by this logic, only people who have children should vote on school taxes. an educated population is in every resident’s best interest, as is a clean city.
I agree not having kids I shouldn’t vote on school expenditures…because if I vote i will vote no on every expense. Like all the condo people voted for me to pay for trass makes no sence.
Gary, I am one of those Condo dwellers. I have to pay for my garbage removal, why shouldn’t you?
How much do you pay?
i pay for it in my taxes and as a HOME owner in the cty there was no additional fees. You chose to live in a Condo knowing you would pay for garbage….They shouldnlt have people that arn’t home owners vote for something that does affect them.
Gary,
Yes, I chose to live in a condominium because at the time that was all I could affords. So is that really a choice? I suppose so, I chose to buy a condo rather than continue to rent. When the city begins charging to remove your garbage, are you going to chose to pay to have it removed? If so, that is YOUR CHOICE. Of course, you could also choose to sit on an ever increasing pile of your own filth and trash, best of luck with that if you CHOOSE to do so.
There will be no opting out of the cities new garbage fees…unless you know someat in cuty hall that can set me up. you seem to have their same level of thought pattern. and I’m sure votong down tha same party line.
Using that same logic, I have argued that only property owners should be able to vote on Bonds since the property owners are the ones tagged with paying the bond off.
Why stop there? Why don’t we return to the old days when only WHITE MALE property owners were the only ones who could exercise their vote. Hey MAGA world, don’t get too exited, it was a joke.
THANK YOU for this reminder.
I want to say first that I am a “tax and spend liberal” and tend to support things like recycling etc but in spite of that I am absolutely going to vote against this. The whole affair has been run as a scam. The City isn’t even TRYING to do a good job of this “reform”.
The interesting point is that I believe I read that the expected cost would be $29 per month when it was put on the ballot. The city spends $88 million per year on trash services. If that is just for the 233,000 SFR pickups, that comes to $31 per month. If the $88 million includes other pickup addresses, then it’s lower than $31 per month for SFR pickups.
The city is running dog and pony shows to say they brought it in front of the public.
They are proposing “upgrades” like new trucks, more employees, doubling blue bins to weekly and bulky item pickup. I saw a cost of service would spike from $88 million to over $150 million per year.
Toad Gloria sure doesn’t get it and current trash service is good enough to have it be $30 per month – I don’t think we are asking for better equipment at the price of over $20 per month. The vote would have never passed if the amount was over $50/mo. It’s a criminal bait and switch.
Yes, the transparency is very opaque. The expanded waste management services that will be offered, including free bin replacement (which really isn’t free in this scheme), weekly recycling collection and occasional curbside bulk item pickup. And this doubles the cost?
Actually, the city department of environmental services and the RFP they put out say the cost in 2024 was $74 million with an expected reduction to $70.5 million in 2025. For 285,000 users.
I’m ok with $30/month to continue the services we have. Increasing truck trips without collecting more stuff and hiring 130 new employees with pensions isn’t something anyone should have to pay for.
I am against charging us for trash when we already pay for it through our property tax. People renting don’t have to pay for trash and the owner of the building pays for the trash through their property tax. To top it all we used to have one colored trashcan and now we are doing the job of people that used to do it in the past we do recycle and we do compost. What else do you want us to do? this is insane. I am completely and utterly against paying for trash when it’s part of what I pay for property tax. What’s happening to us? Trump is not doing a great job at helping the middle and low class survive in this economy. God help us all.
Well Micheline,
If you were waiting for big daddy Trump to fix things for you, you will have a very long wait…….
I am a condo owner in the city. I spend over $9,000 in property taxes every year, well over the average of ~$6,000. I pay for pickup separately through my HOA fees. I have no sympathy for these homeowners trying to justify keeping an unnecessary subsidy from 1919 that was originally created for the purpose of selling waste to hog farmers. If even a just fraction of that money makes it to the General Fund to improve public services, that would be better than going to some homeowner’s trash (literally).
You are a condo owner who spends 9K+ in property taxes and HOA fees. All your choice. Nobody twisted your arm. You volunteered for that. Having no sympathy means nothing when you’re just here to poke a stick in the pig’s eye and cry foul. The city should be more transparent to the people about it’s costs. Doubling the department money for meager service increases is wrong, for city leadership who constantly tout affordability. If every house, condo, apartment unit, & ADU were charged equally, and/or contract the service out, for the same current service, I would have less problem with the fee.
Yes, I’m happy to pay taxes to the city I appreciate. I’m not complaining about the magnitude of the taxes I’m paying. The point is my taxes are ALSO paying for the trash pickup of these homeowners, but not my own trash pickup… there is no rational justification to keep doing it this way.
“Having no sympathy means nothing when you’re just here to poke a stick in the pig’s eye and cry foul.” I’m certainly not the one crying foul here, merely pointing out the defending arguments that “I already pay taxes for this!” is not a good-faith argument. If we want to provide trash pickup subsidies, it should be based purely on financial need.
If we get a measure for pickup for everyone in the city paid by the General Fund, I would gladly vote for that. Unfortunately, that is not what was on the ballot in 2022.
Yes, you again chose to do that and it wasn’t a problem for you then. But today, it’s a point to claim inequity.
Secondly, there are far many properties paying more taxes than you. So to sit here and say, I’m not complaining about the magnitude of the taxes I’m paying, is talking out both sides of your mouth.
Chris,
Do you choose to pay property taxes? Because I choose to pay property taxes not because I enjoy doing so, but because If I do not they will take my property. Not much of a choice when you look at it, is it?
John, was I talking to you? Me thinks not.
AMEN Tim! Well said.
I might be late to the party but did I miss an option for a waste collection outsource bid?
I mean IF this is going to happen…like it or not, sooner or later…has there been an inquiry for the City to bid against other waste collection services?
Not asking for a friend, asking as a City of San Diego Homeowner.
No this will not be an option. The MEA, Municipal Employees Union of the City of SD would never allow this and indeed gave money to the YES on B campaign!
Thank you for the info on the bid (no bid) option. I’ve been educated now and in the future will read the fine print a little closer.
Here’s the raw truth. Everyone else in San Diego gets to pick their trash hauler and the services they want. Single-family homeowners and people living on parcels with four or less users are FORCED TO USE SAN DIEGO’S ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND PAY TWICE AS MUCH FOR THE SAME SERVICES as people pay in other cities like El Cajon. Why? Because that’s how Sean Elo-Rivera and the City Council wrote Measure B – so the unions would support it. WE HAVE NO CHOICE IN SERVICES, NO CHOICE IN HAULERS AND WE CANNOT TURN OFF THE SERVICES IF WE GO OUT OF TOWN. We can thank ELO-RIVERA FOR THIS – CHAIR OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ADDRESSING COST OF LIVING. Great job he’s doing – starting with making people pay almost twice as much for the same service that El Cajon is paying under $30 a month for!
And what a way to bury the voting option! Thanks, Kate, for showing everyone how to do this. NOTE, YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE YOUR ADDRESS OR PARCEL NUMBER (DOESN’T LOOK LIKE THEY ASK FOR IT OR LEAVE SPACE FOR IT) ALONG WITH YOUR SIGNATURE. SEND THIS ARTICLE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW SO THEY UNDERSTAND THEIR RIGHTS.
THANK YOU AGAIN, KATE!!!
Carolyn and Nicole are right. The City misled us with a $23 estimate, and once they thought they were home free, they brazenly doubled it to $53. That is why we must vote No. This con job feels like payback for the defeated sales tax hike: “Okay, let’s just gauge them on trash collection.” The Mayor and the City Council clearly think we’re stupid. Did Sean Elo-Rivera expect us to buy his argument that San Diego needs “world-class” waste services? Dude, we are literally talking trash here! You want to pad trash bills to wring more money from taxpayers because you’ve squandered millions on bad deals and cushy jobs. What a damn mess.
Thank you, Kate. Would be great if this was “printed” every week. Reprinted in Reddit. Copied and distributed at all the community meetings.
Thanks, Cindi. We need a massive turn-out-the-vote campaign. I’m trying to find out when the City will have the official notices ready for distribution. Getting that image is crucial. Once we have it, we can push it out: Look for this mailer. Tell everyone you know to look for this mailer. All you need to cast your vote is an envelope and a stamp.
Posting it every week on NextDoor is good and then when it comes out, share a printable copy on ND as well! Key to this is the communities that were least represented in the miserable low turnout of 54% of the registered voters. Another key is the property owner of homes that are rented. They need to understand this, as do the renters in those houses, because their rent will go up to match any new trash fees and the subsequent increases every year. They need to implore their landlords to do this!
Maybe you could pass out a few of those printable copies on the new Pride promenade in Hillcrest there Jean
I’m against adding things that are not neccessary and it’s especially offensive to hear it sold as better for the environment. Uh no! The plan does NOT increase the amount of recycling picked-up, Elo Rivera conceded at the hearing last week. But it does double the number of truck trips – and the pollution from those vehicles, wasted fuel, asthma-inducing particulate matter and noise. As for bidding out – the Prop B restricted that. And the campaign for the measure was funded by the Muni Employees Union. The increased services translates into 130 new jobs with pensions if the employee stays around long enough. I’m not against union jobs, I’m against being forced to pay for services we do not need and did not ask for at prices double of what was promoted for the vote.
How do we get the word out about this?
I am not on social media, but can the OB Rag and it’s readers do a social media blitz to all San Diego City communities? Facebook, Nextdoor, etc???
And check this out: city officials are recommending hikes of 13.7% in January 2026, 14.5% in January 2027, 11.5% in January 2028 and 11% in January 2029.
Compounded, the increases would total more than 61% over those four years.
With the 5.5% the council might approve next week, the compounded increase would be more than 70%. The 5.5% hike is a “pass-through” of an increase to what the county water authority charges the city for water.”
++ And now the county it looking to add taxes to make up for federal changes. We are just considered piggy banks for these elected people. Let’s surprise them by showing up and just saying no. They need to cut some expenses, sorry to say.
In SDUT today. https://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=14184983-46a8-47c7-9c22-d3ae8a951e16&share=true
Opinion: How property owners can block city’s new trash fee
By JON COUPAL
UPDATED: February 28, 2025 at 2:01 PM PST
San Diego’s proposed trash fee is currently a hot topic for city property owners as city leaders plan community meetings over the next several weeks to explain the fee and to hear from taxpayers. But everyone concerned with this issue must understand that the ability of any local government in California to impose or increase a “property related fee” is governed by provisions of the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which California voters enacted by approving Proposition 218 in 1996.
City taxpayers probably recall that Measure B, authorizing the imposition of a trash collection fee, was approved by San Diego voters in 2022. But how Proposition 218 relates to Measure B and the city’s new proposal compels a review of both local history as well as the legal implications of imposing that fee.
More than 100 years ago, San Diego voters approved the “People’s Ordinance,” which provided for trash collection for San Diego’s single-family homes without a separate fee.
Although it also allowed for trash collection fees, none were ever proposed. The ordinance was amended on a few occasions but, for the most part, owners of single-family homes continued to receive trash collection paid out of the city’s general fund.
Measure B sought to authorize, for the first time, trash fees for those who were previously covered by the People’s Ordinance. The 2022 ballot material set forth a Fiscal Impact Statement which projected that the fee for the current level of service would range from $23 to $29 per month per customer.
Measure B passed with less than 50.5% of the vote.
To be clear, Measure B was not the approval of a trash fee and, fortunately, no one has contended as such. It was only an authorization for the city to propose a rate structure for trash collection. So, if San Diego decides to propose a trash fee, how does it comply with Proposition 218?
First, the passage of Proposition 218 was a response to several court-created loopholes in Proposition 13, the iconic tax reduction measure approved by voters in 1978. While not prohibiting new local government revenue, Proposition 218 imposes significant voter and property owner approval requirements for new and increased taxes and fees.
In addition to more stringent voter approval requirements for special and general taxes, new property owner approval procedures for so-called “benefit assessments,” Proposition 218 also governs “property related fees,” including trash pickup fees.To impose a new or increased property-related fee, Proposition 218 has a “cost of service” requirement which restricts both the use of the funds as well as the amount of the fee for each property owner or fee payor. These include:
1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service.
2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.
3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question.
5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services.
The first two requirements prohibit the practice of siphoning off fee revenue to supplement a city’s general fund. However, “cost of service” may also include reasonable overhead expenses as well as other items on a service bill which are necessary to provide service to a particular service user.
In addition to the substantive “cost of service” requirement, Proposition 218 also requires a specific property owner approval process. Local governments must also:
— Mail information regarding the proposed fee to every property owner.
— Hold a hearing at least 45 days after the mailing.
— Reject the proposed fee if written protests are presented by a majority of the affected property owners.
If San Diego decides to proceed with the trash fee, it can expect to receive many questions from homeowners, including why the amount of the fee currently being discussed is much higher than that envisioned just a few years ago.
The city can also expect taxpayers to scrutinize the entirety of city spending, which is always a legitimate question whenever any new exaction is being proposed.
Finally, the city can expect that both local and statewide taxpayer organizations will be following this issue very closely.
Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the largest statewide taxpayer advocacy organization in California, and lives in Sacramento.
As with other voting rights, there are “for” and “against” statements in a voter pamphlet. I am concerned that when the Notice is mailed out (with whatever format is provided for the Protest vote), that the process will be skewed on the side of the City (of course), with no balancing of citizen sentiment. So far if parcel owners want to know more they are required to seek it out for themselves. The City has all the addresses of the affected parcels, yet there is no direct contact. The Consultant on the cost study has pegged at least a dozen community based organizations for closed door meetings, among them, San Diego Taxpayers Association. Along with the Notice which will be mailed to all parcel owners, I would like to see an independent “against” viewpoint representing the view of the parcel owners only – could be written by committee for the collective opinion in opposition included in that mailing. There is no reason why another sheet of paper can’t be included. Cost for printing could be with donations.) I am also concerned that out of state parcel owners (a lot of STVRs) are not getting the word and don’t fully know the facets of the issue. How to notify them of the importance of their Protest vote if they don’t follow local news? An “against” viewpoint in the Notice mailer will serve to alert all potential fee payors that the city’s action is not pro forma.
I own properties in Chula Vista, El Cajon and Unincorporated areas of San Diego and pay about half of what the City of San Diego wants for monthly trash pickup. Edco, Waste Management or Republic Services will all do this job for under $30 per month per household. (my most recent EDCO bill for one property was only $116 for 4 months).
I support public worker employment and believe that the city can find a way to keep the costs competitive with the private sector.
Finally, I also have no idea why people were foolish enough to vote to tax themselves extra to pick up their garbage in the first place, if they actually did. Maybe a recount is in order.
Thank you, Kate Callen
…for so succinctly explaining the Prop 218 Protest form re: the trash fees proposed for single-family homes in SD. I was just at our district’s “dog & pony” show about the fees, and this Prop 218 was mentioned to me there. I had never heard of it, but I am spreading the word, or in part, using Kate’s words to my social media accounts and to friends.
Again, thanks. I no longer live in OB, but I am glad to see you have such great advocates there.
Jane Springer, Former PLTC,
Now Tierrasanta
I have been looking for the City flyer in the mail, so that I could protest the rate increase – Kate said in the original article on Feb 26 that we would get it in April. But I took a closer look at the Notice posted at the top of Kate’s Feb 26 article, and it says “return by March 4, 2025.” What??? I just checked my file cabinet water folder and see that I got the form in January. So it’s too late for me to protest.
What’s going on??? Will there be another protest form?