Albany

Rental property owners are assailing Mayor Kathy Sheehan's proposed garbage fee as an "irrational" tax that will disproportionately hurt low-income residents as some of the mayor's key allies on the Common Council say they want to see the plan revisited.

Representatives of two groups of rental property owners this week blasted the proposal — which would impose a $180-per-unit fee on small apartment buildings with between two and four units — as illogical and destined to most significantly affect renters who can least afford it.

Every building in the city would receive one free trash pickup per week, meaning the annual fee for a two-family building would be $180, a three-family $360 and four-family $540.

Single-family homes would pay nothing, and apartment buildings larger than four units already pay for private trash collection.

"Ultimately, this is going to trickle down to the tenant," said John Keenan, president of the Capital District Association of Rental Property Owners, which represents about two-dozen building owners with more than 200 apartments in Albany. "This is a tax on the poor."

Keenan suggested the city is trying to close its budget deficit on the backs of landlords, whom it incorrectly assumes have deep pockets. But landlords will pass all or most of that $15 monthly increase on to renters, he said, resulting in a proportionately larger price shock to those in low-income neighborhoods who are paying more modest rents.

Councilman Ron Bailey, who represents parts of Arbor Hill and West Hill, seconded that concern.

"It's too much of a burden on the poor neighborhoods, and that's who's going to get hit the most," Bailey said. "People are already struggling in our community to pay rent."

Sheehan's $180.6 million budget would not raise the property tax levy, but Keenan and Judd Feinman, president of the New York Capital Region Apartment Association, called that distinction hollow when the trash fee would be tantamount to a stiff tax increase for many rental property owners.

"Is the city going to lower taxes for these properties?" Feinman said. "Obviously not."

Feinman — who co-chaired the neighborhood development subcommittee of Sheehan's transition team — said the city has so far been unable to give him a breakdown of the costs associated with picking up the added trash at multi-unit buildings.

Keenan said that's evidence the per-unit fee "is not rationally linked to usage" and therefore could be legally vulnerable.

Council President Pro Tempore Richard Conti, a Sheehan ally and influential member of council leadership, did not dispute the characterization of the fee as a tax, noting that when a fee is not optional "it begins to take on the appearance of a tax."

"I would like to find an alternative," said Conti, who represents the 6th Ward around Center Square, "and as we work through the process, we will continue to explore what our options are."

Sheehan has budgeted $1.5 million in new revenue from the fee next year, meaning council members who want to scrap the fee will have to find some way to fill that budget hole.

"This isn't something that I want to see happen," echoed Councilwoman Vivian Kornegay, a Sheehan ally who represents the South End.

Councilman Michael O'Brien, who chairs the council's general services committee, noted Sheehan has budgeted a $2.2 million decline in revenue from trash dumped at the Rapp Road landfill this year as part of an intentional effort to extend the facility's life an extra year to 2021.

O'Brien said at least some of the money needed to plug the hole created by scrapping the trash fee could come from accepting more trash while the city evaluates options like a fee that is more directly linked to how much trash people create, not how many apartments a building has.

"Their proposal assumes that every household generates the same amount of trash, which is not true," O'Brien said.

The plan needs the support of at least eight city lawmakers — not just to include the revenue in next year's budget but also to pass the ordinance that would enact the fee.

The council was expecting more detail on the plan Tuesday from Sheehan's administration, but that presentation will now take place next week.

"At this point, I'm not a 'no' vote on the ordinance," said 10th Ward Councilwoman Leah Golby, a Sheehan ally who represents Pine Hills. "But I am definitely open to looking for solutions or something that is more fair and that really addresses sustainability — because this is not a sustainability solution."

jcarleo-evangelist@timesunion.com • 518-454-5445 • @JCEvangelist_TU