Loxahatchee Groves council advances solid-waste ordinance, narrows livestock-waste container rules and opens door to nonexclusive manure-hauler franchises

The Town of Loxahatchee Groves Council voted 5-0 on first reading to approve Ordinance No. 2025-02, an update to the town's solid-waste code that clarifies how livestock waste and other special wastes are regulated and creates the legal framework the town would use if it chooses to license haulers under nonexclusive franchise agreements.

The ordinance is billed by staff as a cleanup of previously drafted language, moving definitions and aligning text with existing contract operations while removing a specific mandate that livestock waste be placed in roll-off containers with watertight lids. "This item is a cleanup of our solid waste ordinance," said staff member Francine during the council presentation, summarizing the changes and the link to franchise authority.

Why it matters: the changes determine whether and how the town can require haulers who collect manure and other agricultural waste to register, meet standards or operate under franchise agreements — rules that affect equestrians, small farms, private haulers and residents across the town. The council's action on the ordinance does not itself create a franchise; it updates the code and preserves options including civil citations and both exclusive and nonexclusive franchise authority.

Most important facts first: the ordinance removes a line that tied livestock waste collection to a particular container type and clarifies that livestock and special waste are covered by the town's solid-waste chapter. Council and staff repeatedly said the ordinance supports the town's ability to adopt a nonexclusive franchise program in the future to replace the prior registration program that state law now restricts.

Council discussion and edits

Council members questioned the draft's specificity about containers for livestock waste. Multiple speakers said the draft matched the practices of the town's current hauler, Coastal, but not of all local haulers. After back-and-forth, council instructed staff to remove the requirement that livestock waste be placed in a roll-off container with a lid and to leave the drafting more flexible so different haulers' operational methods are covered.

Town Attorney Torcivia thanked staff for the summary and noted the ordinance's long drafting history. "Nope. You did a good job of summarizing the ordinance. Thank you," Torcivia said during the presentation.

Franchise program and state law

Council held an extended discussion about replacing the town's prior registration program with a nonexclusive franchise system because the legislature preempts certain local permit structures. Staff said the correct statutory reference for the change is Florida Statute 163.211.

Town staff told the council the prior registration fee historically charged to haulers was about $600 annually and that the town had previously imposed vehicle- or load-based limits in its older rules (examples in the draft code referenced an earlier 20-load limit and a $2,000 penalty for operating without a permit). Staff said a franchise could be structured to be roughly revenue neutral to the town while giving the town contract remedies and better enforcement tools.

Public comments and haulers' concerns

Public commenters who identified themselves as residents and haulers urged the council to keep the market competitive and avoid an exclusive franchise that would raise prices. Joe Siciliano, a resident, told the council: "We all are producing manure of some kind or another, and it needs to be handled." Pablo Santana, who identified himself as a hauler, urged the town to avoid stockpiling and said shifting small-truck collections into larger transfer trips would lower costs: "Changing the size of the small trucks to... transferring to big trucks gets everything cheaper, faster, and out of here every day."

Some residents warned against siting a transfer station in the town and urged the council to preserve multiple hauler options. Virginia Standish told council members bluntly that the transfer-station idea was not in the ordinance and called the notion a mistake: "This is the biggest fairy tale I have ever heard in this town." Council and staff repeatedly clarified that the ordinance does not create any transfer-station authority or require a transfer station.

Standards, stickers and enforcement proposals

Council members and staff discussed a package of potential standards and enforcement tools to accompany a future franchise program: minimum insurance, experience, monthly customer reporting, truck decals to identify authorized haulers, load tickets or monthly client lists and a nonexclusive application process that would allow several haulers to operate in town on the same terms.

Staff and the town attorney recommended developing a standard set of requirements and either an application or an RFP-style process so all haulers would have the same rules of the road. Staff noted law enforcement (Palm Beach County Sheriff) generally will not enforce these local hauling rules and that enforcement will rely on the town's code, public works and contract remedies.

Council direction and next steps

Council approved Ordinance No. 2025-02 on first reading with the edits discussed and a 5-0 vote. The council also asked staff to return with detailed standards for a nonexclusive franchise program and to consult local haulers in drafting those standards. Staff was asked to return draft standards for council review (target discussed in the meeting: July 1) and to post a list of current haulers on the town's resource page so residents can see authorized vendors.

What remains undecided

The council did not adopt a franchise agreement at this meeting. The ordinance clarifies the town's code so franchising would be legally possible in future votes, but any specific franchise agreement, fees, or exclusive arrangements would require a later, separate council decision. Several public commenters and council members pressed staff to keep the town's market competitive (nonexclusive franchises) and to craft enforceable, practical reporting requirements rather than technical burdens that would be hard for staff to implement.

Ending note

Council members and staff framed the action as a code housekeeping and a preparatory step so the town can better regulate livestock waste collection if it chooses. The ordinance moves the town from a registration-focused approach toward a contract-based franchise structure as the primary regulatory tool; details of that structure were left for additional council discussion and possible future votes.