Apartment dwellers and landlords got a reprieve Monday night by city council. But most of a wide-ranging proposal by the street department will likely be implemented.

A provision that would have eliminated garbage service for apartments with three or more units was stricken from a proposal after landlords and others complained.

The provision would have affected upward of 683 apartment units, according to city statistics.

City officials are seeking the proposals to reduce the amount of abuse and cut down the waste stream of trash sent to the landfill. Superintendent Kim Leake predicted the original proposal would reduce the trash load by more than 20 percent.

Without the provision, Leake still predicted the waste stream will be trimmed by 10 percent.

Leake said he anticipated a fight and was willing from the outset to compromise.

"I got what I wanted and I have no problem with that," Leake said.

"You can't climb Mount Everest in one big leap. You have to take it one step at a time," he said.

Mayor Ernie Wiggins also left the door open for future review.

"That will be addressed at another time down the road if we have to," Wiggins said.

Council debated the issue for nearly 45 minutes and decided to table the proposal after unofficially agreeing to bag the apartment provision. No other aspects of the proposal drew criticism, and a special meeting might be called within a week or so to approve the measures.

Under the proposal, the city would:

• No longer pick up garbage that contractors bring home and place with residential trash.

• Require all residential trash to be bagged inside of containers.

• Require users of hypodermic needles to place the needles in special containers before being put in the garbage.

• No longer pick up accumulations of trash that result from apartment dwellers who move out and leave belongings behind.

• No longer accept appliances with freon.

Many of the provisions include fines for each violation. The city will also establish an unsafe building fund to use for immediate cleanup.

City officials argued that apartments are money-making ventures and should thereby be classified as commercial. Commercial businesses don't receive free city garbage service.

Landlords widely criticized the proposal, arguing they pay taxes for the service.

Bob Kline said he should receive the service if he pays the tax. He also questioned what the difference is between four duplexes that wouldn't be effected and an eight-unit apartment.

"Would that stand up in court? I question whether it would or not," Kline said.

Some landlords contend that more garbage is generated by a family of five than some five-unit apartments.

Bruce Woodward, who owns numerous apartments around town, predicted unexpected consequences if the provision was retained. He said some landlords would ignore the changes and put the burden of trash removal on tenants, who would start dumping their trash elsewhere.

Trash dumpers from outside the city have been known to bring garbage illegally into the city, and the new provision would only add to that problem, Woodward said.

Instead of cutting off garbage service to apartments, the city will urge landlords to purchase dumpsters in circumstances that are reasonable.

Apartments along streets that don't have alleys would have to put the dumpsters in the front, which was viewed by many as an unsightly option.

Wiggins and others said they don't want to force landlords into using a dumpster if it would have to be left in front of the apartments. If that was the case, more than 10 dumpsters would be visible along North Lake Street alone. [[In-content Ad]]