Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to reconsider $38 solid-waste fee, cite seniors and lack of transport
Summary
Multiple public commenters told the Chesterfield County Council they oppose a proposed $38 annual solid-waste fee, raising concerns about seniors without transportation, duplicate charges for city residents, and offering alternatives including opt-in fees, pay-as-you-go vouchers and rebates for households with private trash service.
Several residents used the Nov. 5 public-comment period to press Chesterfield County Council to rethink a proposed $38 per-household solid-waste fee that will appear on 2025 tax bills.
Sherry Porter told the council the fee poses a hardship for seniors and residents who lack transportation and rely on private curbside pickup. "My car is not a trash truck," Porter said, describing trips she'd made to help neighbors and asking the council to consider accommodations for people who cannot haul trash to county dumpsters. Porter asked council members to "think about everybody" when deciding the proposal.
Kirby Hughes said he had collected 1,236 signatures opposing the fee and estimated that, at $38 per household across roughly 148,000 homes in the county, the levy would produce about $5,000,000 a year. Hughes told council members that many residents already pay private trash services and proposed alternatives including an opt-in user fee for county disposal sites, pay-as-you-go vouchers, radius-based fees keyed to proximity to disposal sites, or a property-tax credit for households that can show proof of private service.
Another commenter, identified as Mr. Plyler, called for stronger outreach and enforcement on roadside dumping and suggested more publicity and 24/7 cameras at convenience centers to deter illegal disposal.
Council members did not take immediate action on the fee during the meeting; the comments were received during public comment. A council member reminded the public that the comment period is limited and that staff will share contact information with council members to follow up.
The concerns raised at the microphone underscore transportation and equity questions the council will need to address if it advances the fee: how to exempt or accommodate residents without transport, avoid duplicate charges for city residents already receiving municipal pickup, and design mechanisms to credit or rebate households with private services.
