Falls Church is considering changes to trash and recycling services, but city leaders say a voter referendum is unlikely.
The changes could decrease the financial burden on some property owners while increasing fees for single-family homeowners.
“I don’t want to sit here and say it’s not possible — it is,” said Andy Young, a deputy city manager who has presided over meetings of the city’s Solid Waste Task Force.
Holding an advisory referendum on the matter “would be something different for the city,” Young acknowledged. Typically, voters only cast ballots on local bond referendums, he said.
The issue came up as members of the task force met for the last time on July 21. They agreed in principle to some basic recommendations that will be handed over to City Manager Wyatt Shields.
Some city leaders support moving the costs for trash collection and recycling from the General Fund, paid for by all property owners, to a fee-for-service model where only those in single-family residences that receive the government trash collection would cover the cost.
In return, the overall city real-estate tax rate would be lowered slightly.
That would be a net financial win for owners of commercial, retail and condominium properties, who currently pay for trash service as part of their real-estate-tax bills even though they do not receive the service. For owners of single-family homes, some could see a net cost increase, others a decrease, depending on how the new fee is structured.
A final decision rests with the City Council. If a switch to fee-for-service billing is made, it would have to happen quickly so changes could be approved before real-estate tax bills are sent out in November.
Whether an advisory referendum should precede any Council action was not part of the task force’s final recommendations. “That’s more of a Council question that folks can bring up in August,” Young said at the July 21 meeting.
The City Code does permit referendums on local issues to be held, although they are advisory in nature and do not bind elected officials to any action.
As Young noted in his remarks, “it’s not super-clear” in the wording of the code section on referendums how applicable its provisions might be to the solid-waste discussion. The ambiguity centers around whether a referendum could be held on any issue, or simply to propose changes in the code itself.
To hold an advisory referendum, a number of registered voters equal to at least 10% of the number casting ballots in the preceding presidential election would be required to sign petitions.
If that number of petition signatures was reached and verified, an election would need to be held between 30 to 60 days afterward — which might lead to a scramble among city elections staff, and to conflicts with already scheduled elections.
The more likely route to final action would be a Council vote. Underscoring the desire to get up to speed, several Council members were on hand at the July 21 task force meeting.
“This is a complex issue,” Mayor Letty Hardi said of potential changes to existing funding practices.
In broad terms, the task force is recommending that the city move to what was described as a “simple” but “variable” fee for trash collection. The variables could include the square footage or assessed value of a property or the size of collection bins one uses.
The task force also has recommended that the city add a third bin to allow for recycling organics. Currently, there is an opt-in program to recycle food waste and other organics, with about 20% of city households participating.
Sandra Tarpinian, a city resident who spoke at the final meeting of the task force, voiced concerns about the cleanliness of organics bins after food scraps are placed in them.
But she had praise for efforts to promote recycling, including organic materials.
“This is not an easy task,” she said. “Trying to get people to change behaviors in what could be a positive environmental way is always a challenge.”
Having the task force and City Council discussion conducted during the summer could result in a decision being approved before many city residents are aware of it.
“We have been able to reach some of the public, [but] it has been summertime,” acknowledged Mary Catherine Chase, the city’s public-information officer.
More efforts will be made, she said.
“It’s just the start of what we’ll communicate to the public,” Chase said.
Young said there had been an uptick in feedback from the public in the final weeks of the task force’s work.
“It’s been a great team effort” to get the word out, he said, which has resulted in “great community participation.”
All four meetings of the task force were open to the public and are available online.
Council members will receive a briefing at their Monday, Aug. 4 work session. The formal process to change regulations could begin at the Aug. 11 Council meeting.
Full wording of the Falls Church code section related to advisory referendums:
“The council shall have authority, by resolution, to submit to the qualified voters of the city for an advisory referendum thereon any proposed ordinance or amendment to the city charter, not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days after the passage of such resolution. The election shall be conducted and the result thereof ascertained and determined in the manner provided by section 24-141 of the Code of Virginia. If a petition requesting the submission of an amendment to this Charter, set forth in such petition, signed by qualified voters equal in number to ten (10) percent of the largest number of votes cast in any general or primary election held in the city during the five (5) years immediately preceding and verified as hereinafter provided, is filed with the city clerk he shall forthwith certify that fact to the council. The signatures to such petition shall be witnessed by a person whose affidavit to that effect is attached thereto. Upon the certification of such petition the council shall order an election to be held not less than thirty nor more than sixty (60) days after such certification, in which such proposed amendment shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the city for their approval or disapproval. Such election shall be conducted and the results thereof ascertained and determined in the manner provided by law for the conduct of general elections and by the regular election officials of the city. If a majority of those voting thereon at such election approve the proposed amendment, such results shall be communicated by the city clerk to the two houses of the General Assembly and to the representatives of the city therein with the same effect as if the council had adopted a resolution requesting the General Assembly to adopt the amendment.”
