Public works outlines full-service solid waste operation and growing budget gap; staff proposes phased fee approach to reduce general-fund subsidy

Dave Derek, director of public works, told Greenville City Council the city provides a high level of solid waste services — weekly curbside trash, recycling, yard waste, bulk pickup and drop-off centers — and outlined proposals to reduce an enlarging general-fund subsidy.

Derek said the department’s total operating cost for solid waste is about $8.9 million. “About $4.3 [million] comes from the rate payers and $4.4 [million] from the general fund,” he told council, adding that the transfer from the general fund is “growing every year.”

Why it matters: Council members and staff framed the item as a service-level and budget-structure question: whether to continue city-funded subsidies that keep resident fees low or to pursue a combination of modest rate increases and operational efficiencies that would make the solid waste fund more self-sufficient.

Key points from the presentation

- Service profile: Derek said the city serves roughly 17,000 residential customers with unlimited trash, yard waste, bulk pickup and door-to-door recycling. The department also runs two unmanned recycling drop-off centers, neighborhood cleanups, electronic-waste events and seasonal programs such as Christmas-tree collection.

- Funding and gap: Derek presented the fiscal snapshot in which the fund’s operating cost is roughly $8.9 million, with residents paying about $4.3 million in fees and the general fund providing about $4.4 million in subsidy. He said the general-fund portion now covers more than half of operating cost in the current year.

- Cost pressures: Staff identified several upward cost drivers, including county disposal and tipping-fee increases (yard-waste tipping fee rose from $0 to $15 per cubic yard in a recent county change and municipal solid-waste fees moved as well), rising maintenance and parts costs (parts up about 35%) and higher vehicle acquisition costs tied to new emissions standards.

- Operational improvements and proposals: Derek described potential efficiency measures and investments that could reduce the subsidy, including adding compactors and staffing at drop-off centers to clean and separate recyclables for higher sales value, exploring yard-waste processing options (e.g., incineration/curtain burners) to lower hauling and tipping fees, and modest, phased residential rate increases (an example $5 per year) to reduce the general-fund transfer over time.

Council discussion and follow-up requests

Council members raised equity concerns about across-the-board fee increases and asked staff to examine tiered approaches that account for household ability to pay or property value. Several members also asked for precise figures on how recent county tipping-fee changes increased the city’s costs; Derek and finance staff committed to return with exact impact numbers (staff estimated the yard-waste tipping change increased costs by roughly $400,000 last year and an overall county-change impact in the neighborhood of $600,000–$700,000).

Council members asked whether hospitality or tourism taxes could cover some downtown services (public trash pickup in the central business district) and staff said they will evaluate hospitality-tax-eligible shares and include suggestions in the upcoming budget materials.

What the staff did not recommend at this meeting

Derek said the department does not recommend eliminating curbside recycling or cutting basic service levels; instead, staff proposed a combination of modest rate changes and targeted operational improvements. No rate increase was adopted at the work session.

Provenance and next steps

Staff will provide council with a detailed estimate of county-fee impacts, consider tiered or property-value–based rate structures, and present formal budget recommendations during the April budget cycle. Council encouraged staff to consider equity measures to shield lower-income households from abrupt rate changes.