Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Trash Carts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee postpones decision on who pays to replace residential trash carts
Summary
The committee postponed a decision on whether to charge up-front fees for replacement residential trash carts or add a small monthly surcharge, asking staff to return with cost data at the next meeting and awaiting landfill contract results.
During the same Public Works meeting (date not specified), the committee discussed how to handle replacement of aging residential trash carts and whether the county or property owners should pay for new units. Staff reported the county's earliest carts (distributed in 2012–2013) are beginning to fail and raised two financing options: a one-time purchase fee (Cliff said a new can costs “somewhere between 65 and $75” and the county charges $100 when residents request a replacement) or an incremental monthly surcharge to cover replacements over time.
Cliff (staff member) told the committee that earlier carts came with a warranty that has largely expired and that the county currently replaces damaged carts regularly; he reported prior initial orders were large and that serial numbers are tracked to recover carts taken from properties. The committee debated fairness and affordability, including whether renters and landlords would be charged and how to treat stolen or missing carts.
Members said they preferred a gradual approach for rate changes rather than a large up-front charge for households. Several commissioners noted the unresolved landfill contract and the need for updated tipping-fee information before finalizing any residential rate adjustment. Committee members voted to postpone the decision to the next meeting so staff can produce detailed cost numbers and to await the final landfill contract terms. The postponement was seconded by Mark Presley and carried by voice vote; no roll-call tally was provided.
Ending: Staff will return with a cost analysis and possible rate-options (one-time purchase fee vs. monthly surcharge) at the next meeting; the committee requested that Cliff provide warranty details and replacement-cost modeling to inform a subsequent vote.
