GRIDLEY, CA (MPG) - A tense Proposition 218 hearing Feb. 2 reflected the frustration of Gridley residents facing another garbage rate increase, this time a 6.62% jump that exceeds the cap normally allowed under the city’s contract with Waste Management.

City officials said the higher than usual increase stems from rising disposal and tipping fees at the Neal Road Landfill, a cost Waste Management was allowed to pass through under a separate extraordinary cost clause in the franchise agreement.

City Administrator Elisa Arteaga said the contract with Waste Management, approved in 2024 and locked in through 2028, limits annual CPI-based increases to 5%, but also gives the company the right to recover third-party fee hikes outside its control.

Residential customers will see the most common cart sizes rise modestly, with 35-gallon service increasing from $27.61 to $29.44 and the senior 35-gallon rate moving from $23.22 to $24.76. Larger carts follow the same pattern, with 64-gallon service climbing from $31.91 to $34.02 and 95-gallon carts rising from $37.33 to $39.80. Commercial customers will also see higher charges, including one-yard bins increasing from $161.43 to $172.16 and two-yard bins moving from $259.81 to $277.02 for weekly pickup.

For many residents, that explanation did little to ease the concern.

“My wife and I protest this 6.62% increase, which hits mostly seniors who are on a fixed income,” said Randy Ball. “Every dollar counts in our pockets, and everything else is going up.” Ball noted that seniors received only a 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment this year, while Medicare premiums jumped 9.7%, adding that a $90 billion company should not be squeezing those least able to absorb rising costs.

Others questioned the fairness of the rate structure itself. One resident said he calculated the cost per gallon of trash service and found that customers with a single 35-gallon cart pay nearly four times more per gallon than households receiving discounts for multiple large carts. “Lower income people produce less trash because they can’t afford to generate it,” he said. “It is distressing to see a rate schedule that forces those with fewer resources to subsidize the rich.”

Longtime resident Susan Shore challenged the city’s reliance on CPI-based increases and said the contract language was confusing. She noted that the CPI would have been 6% this year without the cap, yet the proposed increase was 6.62%.

“I don’t agree with raising it by CPI at all,” Shore said. “And I don’t see anywhere that Waste Management provided the actual fee increases they’re talking about. If they did, I couldn’t find them.”

Arteaga said the landfill fee increase from Butte County qualifies as an extraordinary cost under the contract and that the city had no legal basis to deny the request. She emphasized the action does not involve a new contract or expanded services, only a rate adjustment tied to documented hard costs.

The hearing underscored a broader concern that the city has limited leverage under its current agreement. Mayor Bo Sheppard shared residents’ frustration with the long-term contract and said the city should begin preparing to seek proposals from other waste service providers when the franchise expires in 2028.

While Proposition 218 allows residents to protest rate increases, it does not give the city authority to renegotiate contract terms midstream. Because the number of written protests fell short of the majority needed to block the increase, the new rates take effect March 1 and apply to all residential, commercial and multiunit customers.