Augusta administrators propose renaming garbage collection fee and using surplus for demolition, vacant‑lot cleanup

Administrator Allen presented an update on the city's garbage collection fund during the Nov. budget work session and recommended changing the fee's name to the "environmental services fee" for 2026 to better reflect the range of services paid from that enterprise fund.

Allen said the transition to a new waste hauler and recent operating adjustments have produced a projected 2026 surplus in the fee fund. "The department has asked to retain $400,000 of that surplus as an operating contingency for 2026 to address unforeseen issues on collected revenue and to help smooth future rate increases," she said.

Allen laid out two options for the remaining $1,170,000: use the funds to restore ancillary services or decrease the fee so the surplus is eliminated and residents see a roughly $14.50 lower rate in 2026. Under the restoration option, the administration proposes adding $600,000 for demolition (which Allen said, "at an average cost of $8,500 would be 65 to 75 structures per year"), funding two vacant‑lot crews and keeping mosquito control at its current $240,000 level.

Interim Director Schroeder explained the projection for "cost recovery" revenue (about $300,000) represents billed charges for county work such as vacant‑lot mowing; commissioners asked staff to provide a five‑year history of collections and cautioned that the amount collected can fall if property owners begin complying, reducing billed work.

Commissioners discussed whether the fee could be collected if the name remained "garbage collection fee," with staff noting the original ordinance language and noting the governing body would need to schedule an official vote to change the ordinance. Attorney Madden said the ordinance originally used the environmental services designation and staff will research whether rewording is necessary.

At the work session commissioners indicated a consensus to change the name on customer bills and to pursue Option A as a funding source for the surplus; no official vote was taken at the work session.

Staff were directed to return with: a five‑year cost‑recovery collection history, a clearer breakdown of ancillary fund uses (demolition versus vacant‑lot work), and the legal analysis on the fee's ordinance language so the commission can consider formal action at a future stated meeting.