Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dunedin considers phased trash‑rate plan after study finds vehicle and disposal costs outpaced prior forecasts
Summary
Consultants told the commission that rising disposal, labor and vehicle costs, plus a plan to stop serving unincorporated customers, create a funding shortfall in the solid‑waste enterprise fund; staff recommended a two‑year phased rate increase (about $6.75 then ~$4) with indexing thereafter and the commission gave consensus to proceed with ordinance drafting while staff seeks any remaining efficiencies.
Raftelis consultant Terry Bovary presented the results of a solid‑waste sufficiency and rate study to the Dunedin City Commission on Dec. 2, outlining why the city’s solid‑waste enterprise requires rate adjustments.
Bovary said the city provides curbside residential trash, recycling, yard waste and bulky collection, and serves roughly 15,000 accounts. He told commissioners the 2020 rate model did not anticipate the pronounced rise in disposal and labor costs after 2021, and that vehicle acquisition costs have jumped from about $350,000 five years ago to near $500,000 today for an automatic side‑loader. The consultant said the forecast shows operating revenues are insufficient to cover both operating costs and required capital lease payments for fleet replacement without rate changes.
To address the shortfall the study modeled: (a) implementation of efficiency recommendations (including eliminating non‑city/unincorporated routes), (b) a capital replacement schedule that layers debt service for about 13 vehicles over the next five years, and (c) a two‑year rate plan that front‑loads increases to avoid negative cash reserves. The recommendation presented would raise a typical residential monthly bill from about $24 to about $34 over two years, with the first increase proposed effective April 1, 2026 and a second increase around April 1, 2027; thereafter the plan would index increases to a solid‑waste component of the consumer price index.
Staff and the consultant provided these illustrative figures: the elimination of outside‑city service was modeled to remove roughly $5.4 million in operating expense over an eight‑year period while creating net savings of about $2.4 million under the assumptions used; the fund’s projected ending cash balance was near $2 million before the recommended increases and would otherwise decline toward negative levels without action; and PSTA‑style fare recovery analog (for solid waste) is low, meaning ratepayers cover only a portion of total city service expense.
Commission debate focused on the fairness and timing of front‑loaded increases, alternatives such as raising outside‑city rates instead of eliminating service, the asset‑replacement cadence (5‑year lease term vs. 8‑year vehicle life), and options to soften the near‑term impact. Commissioners asked staff to provide more detailed line‑items and vehicle‑specific funding shortfalls; some asked whether affordability discounts or targeted assistance could mitigate impacts for low‑income residents.
Outcome and next steps: the mayor summarized that the commission had a 3‑to‑2 consensus to move forward with staff and consultant recommendations and to direct staff to prepare ordinance language and public hearing dates. Staff agreed to continue searching for additional efficiencies and to return with ordinance materials and any further data the commission requests.
