Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews solid waste fees, yard‑waste options and plans for a transfer station
Summary
Staff said current fees cover roughly 40% of residential solid waste costs and outlined service, automation and transfer‑station studies; councilmembers asked for options on fee alignment, small business rates and capital planning to reduce pressure on the general fund.
Solid waste staff briefed the council on residential collection services, longer‑term cost drivers and several service options staff are studying as the FY 2026 budget is developed.
“...the fee currently covers roughly 34% of the rollout container cost and right at 96% of the dumpster,” staff said, summarizing how a single current fee applies to multiple service types and under‑recovers the full cost of rollout (curbside) service.
Staff noted residential services — garbage, yard waste, bulky and recycling pickups — cost roughly $86 million in total; current fee collections recover about $40 million (about 45 percent) of that cost. Staff proposed analyzing fees by service type (for example a separate rollout versus dumpster fee), re‑examining small‑business rates (currently $250 per year), and considering cartization for yard waste to improve worker safety and equity.
Rodney Jamieson, who leads solid waste operations, described the operational case for a transfer station: full trucks now travel to landfills and sometimes “wait in line, sometimes hours, in line to dump its load,” increasing vehicle wear and route time. He said the city and county are studying long‑term options and that council previously set aside planning funds for a transfer station; no site has been selected.
Council members asked for clearer capital and operating forecasts tied to proposed fee changes. Councilmember Ed Driggs asked whether capital costs and debt service for solid waste equipment are captured alongside operating costs; staff said debt service is included in the loaded cost used to calculate fees. Several councilmembers urged that any fee change be paired with an analysis of who benefits from which services and options for phased implementation to limit sudden increases for residents.
Staff described several implementation issues under review: continuing the move from plastic to paper yard waste bags (already completed), piloting yard‑waste carts and seasonal augmentation of services during leaf season, and benchmarking peer cities that have moved to yard‑waste carts. Staff noted the current interlocal agreement with Mecklenburg County on facility operations runs through 2028 and advised that landfill tipping fees and the county relationship will be central to future costs.
No fee changes were approved at the workshop. Councilmembers and staff agreed to bring more detailed revenue, cost and equity options to committee and the May budget deliberations so the council can weigh fee adjustments against reductions elsewhere in the general fund.
