Springfield City Councilor Bud Williams hopes to unseat Mayor Domenic Sarno this fall—and apparently, he hopes to do it by exploiting an issue that served Sarno well in the 2007 election: the city trash fee.
At last week's Council meeting, Williams introduced a resolution that played up the controversial nature of the trash fee, which was created two years ago by the city's Finance Control Board. Previously, residents enjoyed free curbside trash pickup. But with the city in a financial free fall, the board instituted a $90 annual fee. The fee was met with a great outcry, both from residents who pointed out they were already paying taxes to cover the cost of trash pickup, and from local politicians who (sincerely or opportunistically) took up the issue.
Sarno, then a city councilor, campaigned against incumbent Mayor Charlie Ryan on a pledge to rescind the trash fee. Once elected, though, Sarno changed his tune, saying the city could not, in fact, afford to pass up the $4 million in annual revenue the fee generates.
According to City Hall, about 2,100 property owners have yet to pay their trash bills, for a total of $450,000 in lost revenue over two years. Earlier this month, the city—which had previously issued warnings for non-payment—began seizing city-issued trash barrels from addresses that haven't paid their fees.
But Williams objects to that approach. His resolution, which was cosponsored by Councilor Jimmy Ferrera, describes the trash fee as a "tax upon a tax for services historically provided by the City," and criticizes the Control Board for failing to hold public hearings before instituting the fee. It calls for the city to stop seizing barrels, which the councilors argue could result in illegal dumping that the city would then have to pay to clean up.
While they offer no estimate of what that cleanup might cost, Williams' and Ferrera's resolution suggests it could exceed the $450,000 in missing trash revenue, which they call "a relatively small percentage of the City's overall budget." (While that's technically true—Springfield's budget for the coming fiscal year totals $530 million—$450,000 certainly seems like a sizeable chunk of money when you consider the cuts and belt-tightening, including layoffs, the city has recently faced.)
"[T]here are other measures the City could take to enhance a clean and healthy community and also collect the annual fee, including, but not limited to, allowing payment plans for those who demonstrate a need, including senior citizens on a fixed income, or placing a lien on the property as is done for other violations for nonpayment of taxes or fees," the resolution adds. In fact, the city already offers a 25 percent discount to residents aged 65 and over, disabled veterans, blind residents and households that earn less than the federal poverty level. The city is also placing liens on properties that haven't paid their bills.
With his eye on the mayor's seat, Williams apparently hopes to win the support of residents unhappy with the trash fee. But it's a risky move. Residents who've already coughed up their $90 checks—however grudgingly—might feel little sympathy for their neighbors who haven't done the same. And, as Sarno has noted, many of the delinquents aren't struggling homeowners, but out-of-town investors who own rental properties in the city. Given what a plague absentee landlords' properties have been on many Springfield neighborhoods, that group is unlikely to inspire much sympathy, either.
The City Council referred Williams' and Ferrera's non-binding resolution to committee.
