Dunedin advances first reading of solid-waste rate ordinance as county disposal fees and labor costs rise

The Dunedin City Commission on Feb. 19 approved on first reading Ordinance 26-01, a change to the city code that will raise residential and commercial solid-waste collection rates beginning April 1 and again the following year, with a plan to index future changes to a trash‑and‑collection price index.

Consultants from Raftelis and the city’s public-works team told commissioners the fund that pays for solid-waste services is an enterprise fund that had developed a shortfall driven by higher disposal charges, increased labor costs and a backlog of vehicle and equipment replacements. “We estimate about a dollar per year,” Raftelis consultant Terry Bowery said when describing a portion of the model’s phased increases and the plan to index fees so the fund does not fall behind again.

Why it matters: The solid-waste enterprise is funded entirely by user fees. Without rate adjustments the city risks deferred maintenance, service reductions and a shrinking reserve to cover capital replacement. Bowery said one of the biggest new cost drivers is Pinellas County’s planned increases at its waste‑to‑energy facility — about an 8% annual bump over the next several years after a power‑purchase revenue stream ended — which raises disposal costs billed to Dunedin.

What staff said: Public Works Director Sue Bartlett and the solid-waste team described a redesigned vehicle‑replacement plan and incorporated recent efficiency gains into the rate model. They told the commission that some previously anticipated savings from withdrawing from unincorporated county service have been realized and were included in updated projections, but that disposal and labor increases still required rate action.

Public reaction: Residents at the public hearing questioned the city’s comparator cities and urged the commission to seek cost reductions and alternatives. Laurie Parelli, a Dunedin resident, said the mailed comparisons included much larger cities and asked the city to use more realistic peers. Several speakers asked whether options such as opt‑out recycling, separate curb‑sort programs, or lower‑cost service tiers were feasible; staff said some options had been explored but that single‑stream recycling markets and local processing availability limited immediate alternatives.

What commissioners requested: Members pressed staff for clearer multi‑year forecasting and for a March workshop that would show exactly how efficiencies and vehicle‑replacement changes affect rates. Commissioners also asked staff to consider a three‑year rolling lookahead rather than a longer forecast, so alerts on changing cost drivers come earlier.

Next step: The city passed the ordinance on first reading unanimously and set a second reading and final vote for March 2026.

Vote: The first reading passed unanimously (Commissioners Dugard, Gao, Walker, Sandbergen and Mayor Mo Franey recorded aye votes).