St. Marys council debates proposed $29 monthly garbage rate as officials warn of vehicle and fund shortfalls
Loading...
Summary
Council members and public-services staff discussed proposals to raise residential solid-waste rates (a $29-per-month proposal was discussed), the utility's 2025 operating shortfall, uncertainty about vehicle lifespans that drive long-term cost estimates, second-tote fees, dumpster options, and the city's decision not to privatize collection.
St. Marys council members spent a substantial portion of the meeting discussing the city's solid-waste utility finances and possible rate increases.
Staff and committee members presented 2025 revenue and expense figures and early 2026 numbers: 2025 revenue was reported as $1,122,007.11 with expenses of $1,697,896.75; January 2026 revenue and expenses were reported as $61,006.99 and $283,951.81, respectively. Council members said the utility cannot sustainably operate at a loss and discussed options for closing the annual shortfall while also saving for expensive vehicle replacements.
A proposal discussed at length would raise residential rates to $29 per month (a two-year proposal was discussed) to stabilize the utility fund and allow some savings toward truck replacement. Public-services staff cautioned that the critical uncertainty in long-term projections is vehicle life span: studies used different assumptions (some assumed five-year useful life, others longer), and council heard that several collection trucks are older and unreliable. Staff said that if the trucks last longer than a short assumed span, the fund pressure eases; if they fail sooner, the city will need larger reserves.
Council also discussed second-tote fees and one-time dumpster rentals for resident projects and whether a reduced price should apply to a second tote under a new rate. Staff said second-tote charges are currently applied and that one-time commercial dumpster pricing varies by size and job. Privatization of collection was raised; staff said privatization had been considered in other municipalities and produced negative customer-service outcomes, and the administration does not support privatizing service now.
Members agreed to continue the committee process, gather additional details and comparisons (including more-conservative vehicle-life assumptions), and revisit the rates at a future meeting. No final rate ordinance was adopted at this meeting.
