Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jacksonville council approves major increase to residential solid-waste assessment after lengthy public objections
Summary
The City Council approved a near-doubling of the annual non-ad valorem residential solid-waste assessment, increasing the fee to roughly $27 per month (about $324 per year) on a recorded 11–7 vote after extensive public comment and debate over fairness and exemptions.
Jacksonville’s City Council approved a high-profile increase to the city’s non-ad valorem solid-waste assessment on Tuesday evening, voting 11–7 to raise the annual per-household charge from about $151.80 to roughly $324 — equivalent to roughly $27 per month.
The proposal was the subject of a long public hearing: dozens of residents, including seniors on fixed incomes and homeowners with special circumstances, came to the microphone to oppose the increase and to request exemptions or a phased approach. Speakers described being unable to afford the proposed assessment and said the flat, parcel-based charge would hit households that generate little waste and seniors hardest.
Supporters on the council and city staff said the increase reflects years of underfunding and rising disposal and operating costs. Council members who favored the measure argued that the existing fee had not been adjusted for many years and that the city had been subsidizing solid-waste operations from the general fund, a practice they said was unsustainable. Several councilors noted that other Florida municipalities have comparable or higher monthly collection charges.
Council members who opposed the increase urged changing the structure of the assessment so properties without residents would not be charged the same as occupied homes and asked for targeted relief for low-income and senior households. Speakers during the public comment period offered examples of properties with little trash generation — and accounts of perceived poor service by private haulers.
The council session included multiple requests for detail: residents sought written itemized explanations, asked whether recycling streams were being fully monetized, and requested clarification about exemption and hardship procedures. Some homeowners reported receiving the mailed assessment notice without clear explanatory materials.
With the 11–7 vote, the council approved ordinance 20 25 0 2 6 6 (as read into the record) to set the new assessment level. Council members urged staff to refine administrative processes and to provide clearer information to residents about appeals and exemptions.
