The charge will be about $80 per unit annually at buildings of four
or more units.
AUBURN – Sympathy for landlords Monday night didn’t stop councilors from taking the first steps toward a new trash collections fee for multiple family buildings.
Councilors voted 4-2 to charge $1.54 per apartment per week beginning in December at apartment buildings with four or more units, with councilors Belinda Gerry and Bob Mennealy voting against it. A second vote is scheduled for the next regular council meeting.
“Ours is not the only community facing this issue,” Councilor Kelly Matzen said. “Most smaller communities don’t even have trash collections. You have to take your own trash to the dump. And many larger communities, like Portland, pay by the bag.”
According to the plan, the city will charge about $80 per unit annually for trash collections at buildings of four or more units. That should generate about $30,000 between December and next June and $60,000 for the city per year after that.
A building would be exempt from the fee if the landlord lives there, according to the proposal.
City Manager Pat Finnigan said the fee is part of the the city’s $58.8 million budget approved in June. Councilors approved a 94-cent property tax hike balanced with $780,000 in budget cuts – including cuts in the trash collections budget.
“I think everybody agrees, they don’t like having to do this,” Finnigan said. “But we worked to come up with a way that balances people’s needs with the costs. We are trying to find a way to provide the same services for as little cost as possible.”
Landlords said the fee was unfair. The move labels the apartments commercial enterprises and they disputed that.
“We don’t have the same protections as commercial businesses,” said Coreen Robert of Minot, who owns apartments in Auburn. “If I bounce a check to a business, they can choose to stop doing business with me. We can’t. If a tenant bounces a check, we can’t do anything about it. We’re not the same.”
Lewiston resident Marcel Roberts said landlords would just pass the fee on to their tenants. Those people already have trouble making ends meet.
“It’s very unfair to target the poorest,” Roberts said.
Councilor Bob Mennealy agreed.
“Even though I voted for the budget last spring, I did not vote for this,” Mennealy said. “I realize this is a tough choice, but I think this is discriminatory. It preys on the poorest of the poor in our community.”
Comments are no longer available on this story