Washington County staff recommend 6.5% residential, 7.2% commercial garbage-rate increases; board signals support to return with final adoption June 17

Washington County officials presented the annual solid waste and recycling collection rate review during the Board of Commissioners'9 meeting on June 3, asking the board to direct staff to return with a final adoption on June 17. Staff said the system brought in $45,280,948 in 2024 and that the systemwide return on revenue was 5.25%, short of the county'9s 10% target.

The presentation, led by Mira Samantha, director of Health and Human Services, laid out staff'9s recommended rate changes and a proposed code amendment to raise a quarterly certificate fee charged to haulers from 3% to 4%. Samantha told the board, "Our total return on revenue came in at 5.25%." She said staff recommend a 6.5% rate increase for residential customers, a 7.2% increase for commercial customers and no change for dropbox/compactor services.

The rate review matters because county staff use a 10% return-on-revenue target for certificate holders (the private haulers authorized to collect trash and recycling in unincorporated areas). Samantha said staff calculate return on revenue by subtracting allowable system expenses from total revenue; the resulting income divided by revenue yields the return percentage. Staff identified rising disposal and recycling processing costs, vehicle repairs and depreciation, and higher employee salaries and benefits as the main cost drivers.

For 2024 the county reported $2,377,019 in net income for the system. Staff said residential service returned 4.58% in 2024, commercial returned 3.92% and dropbox/compactor services returned 10.06%. To move residential and commercial lines closer to a 10% return, staff estimated a 6% residential increase would generate about $1.8 million and raise the average can-cart customer roughly $1.72 per month; staff'9s recommended 6.5% residential increase is slightly higher. They estimated a 6.7% commercial increase would add about $600,000 and raised a typical four-yard commercial customer roughly $19.90 per month under earlier modeling; staff recommended 7.2% for commercial.

Staff also proposed a code change (Washington County Code section cited in the presentation as 8.04 0.35) to raise the certificate fee charged on haulers'9 gross receipts from 3% to 4%. Samantha said staff estimate that change would produce about $380,000 in additional revenue for fiscal year 2025-26; prorated for the August 1-to-December 31 period used for this rate package, staff estimated approximately $175,000 would be collected. To limit immediate bill impacts, staff proposed applying a separate half-percentage-point increase to residential and commercial rates this year to cover the certificate-fee change; they estimated that half-percent would add about $0.18 per month (about $1.80 annually) to the average can-cart customer.

Samantha described the county'9s annual process: certificate holders submit detailed cost reports by March 15, staff and the county'9s CPA firm review filings and perform site visits for the largest haulers, the Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee (GRAC) reviews findings in May, and staff return to the board for rate-setting in June. GRAC voted 5-1 to recommend staff'9s adjustments; the dissenting member said repeated annual increases were having a real community impact. Swatco Sanitary Services (identified in the record as sanitary certificate holder number 7) submitted comments seeking supplemental increases for rural service areas and prompted a robust GRAC discussion.

Commissioners who spoke during the discussion expressed support for staff recommendations while asking for parallel analysis of urban versus rural collection costs. One commissioner said the county'9s certificate fee "has been static since 1967," and Samantha confirmed the fee has not been raised in decades. Another commissioner said, "I'm supportive of maintaining the 10% return on revenue and also the proposed 0.5% increase to cover the increased certificate fee," and multiple commissioners asked staff to return with more granular analysis comparing urban and rural collection costs and to engage an economist as GRAC recommended.

Staff recommended final adoption on June 17 and noted that, if adopted, the county would provide 30 days notice to customers with rates effective Aug. 1. The presentation also reiterated existing equity measures: a reduced-rate program established two years ago designed to be self-funded, simple to apply for and available at scale; staff said about 575 households enrolled in year two, and the county has served just over 1,000 households to date. Staff estimated the program cost at the time of the cost-report submissions at $343,000 for year two, approximately $0.42 per month (about $5.16 annually) per ratepayer; modeled at peak (year four) that cost would be about $8 annually per ratepayer.

Board members requested that staff scope an RFP for a consultant/economist to assess urban vs. rural cost differences and evaluate the Recycling Modernization Act'9s likely impacts on processing costs. Several commissioners said the county should proceed with the recommended rate adjustments but pursue the deeper analysis in parallel before the next rate cycle.

No formal vote was recorded in the transcript. Staff asked for board direction to return on June 17 with an action item for final adoption; commissioners expressed support for that approach and for staff'9s recommendations, subject to the additional analysis requested.

A snapshot of the key financial figures and staff recommendations is below: - 2024 total system revenue: $45,280,948 - 2024 net income: $2,377,019 - 2024 system return on revenue: 5.25% (target: 10%) - Staff recommendation: residential rates +6.5%, commercial +7.2%, dropbox/compactor no change - Proposed code change: raise certificate fee from 3% to 4% (estimated +$380,000 FY25-26; prorated ~$175,000 for Aug 1

Dec 31)

The board directed staff to return with a formal action item on June 17 for possible final adoption and asked staff to include additional urban/rural cost analysis and consultant scope options in follow-up materials.