Auburn reviews solid waste fund as disposal contract, post‑closure monitoring and borrowing loom

Auburn city staff on Jan. 23 presented a review of the city’s solid waste fund, outlining the three core components — curbside refuse collection, refuse disposal (post‑closure landfill care) and the transfer station — and flagged near‑term decisions including a disposal contract bid this spring, possible changes to contractor rates and long‑term borrowing to cover closing costs and equipment replacement.

The presentation by Mike Talbot, superintendent of public works, and Marybeth Leeson, the city comptroller, explained how current operations and recent capital purchases shape the fund’s budget and cash flow. “We call it the components. So really, it’s what makes up our solid waste fund,” Talbot said, summarizing the three accounts that the city uses for solid waste operations.

Why it matters: the solid waste fund runs as a proprietary (enterprise) fund that receives most of its revenue from refuse collection fees and has limited recurring cash inflows outside the July tax levy. Leeson told council the fund ended 2024 with a net operating loss of about $1,300,000, a number that includes non‑cash depreciation expense. She said the general fund typically loans cash to the solid waste fund late in the fiscal year and that the city will likely need to do so again this year unless revenues or rates change.

Most important facts

- The solid waste fund is organized across three account codes Talbot identified as AL 8161 (refuse collection), AL 8162 (refuse disposal/post‑closure care) and AL 8171 (transfer station). Talbot said the 8161 operating budget (not including benefits) is roughly $900,000; the 8162 account for post‑closure care is budgeted at about $85,300. Leeson noted those figures exclude benefits in the slides used for the presentation.

- Transfer station capacity and 2024 tonnage: the transfer station is registered to accept up to 12,500 tons annually. In 2024 the city received 10,155 tons total: about 8,400 tons from curbside collection, 54 tons from residents driving in, roughly 250 tons from county residents, 34 tons from park facilities and 75 tons from city departments. Two outside contractors brought in 1,200 tons and 122 tons respectively.

- Disposal contract and pricing: the city currently sends refuse to Seneca Meadows under a contract that expires June 30. Talbot said the city pays $43 per ton under the current contract; the first year of that contract had been $29 per ton. Staff told council they plan to solicit bids for disposal services in February so the council can act before the June 30 expiration.

- Post‑closure monitoring: the city remains responsible for post‑closure monitoring for two closed landfills (Landfill No. 1 closed 1992; Landfill No. 2 closed 2020). Talbot said the state currently requires quarterly groundwater monitoring for 30 years after landfill closure and that Auburn has performed consistent sampling without evidence of contaminant impacts. “We’re hoping to have it removed because the groundwater data doesn’t show any impacts,” Talbot said, but he acknowledged any reduction in monitoring frequency would be a state decision.

- Equipment, staffing and borrowing: Talbot reviewed refuse staffing (one foreperson, account clerk, five MEO‑2 drivers, seven full‑time laborers and part‑time labor) and vehicle fleets purchased in 2020 for the transfer station. Leeson said the city must move short‑term borrowing from 2019 and 2020 to long‑term debt this year and that staff will work with bond counsel to set maturities so vehicles and refuse packers are paid off before the end of their expected useful lives.

- Potential revenue steps and contractor rates: Talbot said the city charges outside haulers $80 per ton to dump at the transfer station and that staff plan to evaluate an increase to contractor rates. He also noted some residential properties may not be paying the refuse fee (for example, newly rented units or properties claiming an exclusion) and that staff and the treasurer are working to reconcile exclusions and billing.

Discussion vs. decisions

- Discussion: Councilors and staff discussed options for post‑closure monitoring frequency, the classification and potential handling of dried wastewater sludge once the wastewater plant project is complete, vehicle replacement timing and whether the city could haul some wastewater byproduct internally. Talbot said he and the wastewater superintendent had discussed the possibility of city staff hauling dried material depending on how the new process classifies the product.

- Direction taken by staff (non‑binding): Talbot and Leeson said they will put the city’s disposal services out to bid in February and that Leeson and finance staff will meet with bond counsel and staff (including Christina Selvig) to plan transition of short‑term borrowing into long‑term debt. Talbot also said staff will review contractor rates for haulers who use the transfer station.

- Formal action: No council vote on policies or rate changes occurred during the presentation. The council did vote on unrelated procedural items later in the meeting (see “Votes at a glance” below).

Details and clarifications

Talbot described monitoring procedures for groundwater sampling (purging three well volumes and sampling the following day) and said the city operates nested monitoring wells across the landfill sites. He also noted the transfer station uses walking‑floor trailers and roll‑off equipment purchased in 2020 and warned that buying multiple major pieces of equipment in the same year increases the risk of simultaneous replacements in future years.

Ending

Staff recommended the council use the presentation as background for upcoming budget deliberations; Leeson said the fund’s cash‑flow dynamics and a likely need for general‑fund interfund borrowing make the timing of rate or policy changes important ahead of the FY2026 budget process. Talbot and Leeson said they will return with detailed proposals after the disposal bid results and bond counsel consultations are complete.