Board confirms delinquent solid-waste accounts but directs staff to expand dispute and exemption process

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors conducted an extended public hearing on July 1 on delinquent solid-waste collection accounts identified by Waste Management under the county's unified franchise agreement. The board confirmed the contractor's delinquent-accounts report but gave staff authority to review and reduce individual charges and directed a set of process changes and follow-up reports.

Why it matters: Hundreds of residential and commercial parcels in unincorporated Monterey County were listed as delinquent for charges dating to 2023 and 2024, and dozens of residents attended the hearing to dispute charges they said they never incurred, to report missed notices, or to say they lack physical ability to take carts to the curb. Supervisors and staff said the county needs a stronger, permanent administrative dispute procedure and clearer owner notification before delinquent balances are finalized on property tax rolls.

What the board decided: After hearing more than three hours of public testimony, the board adopted a motion that: - Confirms the delinquent-account report but authorizes staff to make case-by-case reductions or removals where evidence supports them; those final amounts are subject to adjustment downward (not upward) after review. - Instructs staff and the contractor to accept and process dispute submissions through a central email and a local call center; staff will return with a recommended formal dispute/hearing and hardship-payment plan process. - Directed staff to examine and propose revisions to the exemption process (the narrow category of residents exempt from mandatory service) and to report back to the board.

Key details and context: Environmental Health Bureau Chief Rick Encarnacion and Waste Management representative Liz Hall said the county and contractor sent multiple notices in early 2025 and that the list of delinquencies had fallen as account holders responded. The initial mailing covered about 3,600 residential accounts and 120 commercial accounts; by the time of the hearing those numbers had dropped to roughly 1,148 residential and 47 commercial accounts totaling about $1.66 million (residential + commercial) that remained unresolved.

Public testimony: More than 40 speakers described failed communication, duplicate accounts, cans that were never delivered, tenants who left without cancelling service, and hardship among elderly residents. Several property managers described situations where tenants opened accounts in their own names and then defaults left owners responsible. Multiple speakers said they had been unable to reach a live Waste Management representative before a local call center was provisioned two weeks earlier.

Board directions and follow-up: The board set a procedural runway: staff will process dispute submissions received by the contractor and county billing teams; staff will return with recommended administrative procedures for disputes, expanded exemption definitions if warranted, and possible payment-plan options. The board and counsel also directed staff to pull the list and submit finalized amounts to the county auditor-controller for placement on tax rolls only after the review window. Supervisors agreed to be available to assist constituents and urged residents to route disputed accounts to Waste Management's dispute inbox and to their supervisor's offices for help.

Ending: The board sought to balance the county's ordinance that requires service to curb illegal dumping and maintain countywide sanitation with due-process protections for property owners who say they were not notified or who never received service. Staff will return with more detailed procedures and a timeline for any remaining placements on property-tax bills.