Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nacogdoches council approves ordinance raising solid-waste fees after public objections over transfer practices
Summary
On Oct. 7, 2000, the City of Nacogdoches approved an ordinance amending Chapter 82 (solid-waste fees) to increase sanitation collection and disposal charges; city staff said the changes would generate about $300,000 and cover landfill and fleet costs. A resident publicly criticized large interdepartmental transfers from utility funds to the general fund.
The City of Nacogdoches approved an ordinance amending Chapter 82 of the Nacogdoches Code of Ordinances to revise sanitation collection and disposal fees during its Oct. 7 meeting.
Mike Neu, executive director of development and infrastructure, told the council the item was a continuation from a previously tabled meeting and that revised numbers had been added to the materials. "This item tonight is, continuation of what council, tabled at the last meeting," Neu said, summarizing the consultant-backed proposal.
Neu said the changes are intended to bring solid-waste rates closer to cost recovery for operations, fleet replacement and planned landfill capital improvements. "The new rates for this fiscal year would generate an additional $300,000," he said, and referenced consultant materials showing the adjustments would move the fund nearer to covering projected costs. Neu listed fees included in the update, such as residential and commercial collection, front-load and roll-off dumpster charges, special-waste collection and landfill gate disposal.
Neu told the council the city would not implement the changes until Nov. 1 to allow for post-action notification and to start a clean billing cycle.
During public comment, a resident identifying himself as Sammy said he was not opposed in principle to higher sanitation fees but raised detailed objections about how the city allocates utility revenues to the general fund. Sammy said his household sometimes receives two bills and gave a recent bill amount of "$500.41" as an example of the burden. He cited budget figures for the sanitation fund and the share attributed to interdepartmental transfers (IDTs), arguing a large portion of new revenue from fee increases would be transferred out of the sanitation fund rather than remaining for sanitation operations. "That doesn't make any sense to me," Sammy said, urging the council to review transfer practices and consider outside counsel or consultants to examine the allocation method.
Neu and the presiding officer responded with an accounting explanation: interfund transfers are used to reimburse the general fund for personnel and services devoted to enterprise operations and finance staff could provide a detailed breakdown in the adopted budget materials available on the city's website.
After discussion the presiding officer moved to approve the ordinance "as written." The council recorded a second and the presiding officer called the vote; the motion carried. The meeting concluded with the presiding officer's closing remarks and adjournment.
The ordinance amends the city's solid-waste fee schedule and, per staff statements, is intended to help fund landfill improvements, vehicle replacement and ongoing collection services. Implementation is scheduled to begin Nov. 1, following required notifications to affected customers. The council did not record individual vote tallies in the public discussion documented in the transcript.
The next procedural step is implementation of the revised fee schedule on Nov. 1 and any follow-up reporting the council requests from finance staff regarding interdepartmental transfer methodology.
