Hanford staff: refuse fund faces $274,000 shortfall; proposed rate increases to be implemented after hearing
Loading...
Summary
City refuse staff presented a rate study showing a projected structural shortfall and proposed a 10% increase in each of the first two years (then 5% annually); written protests were far fewer than the majority threshold, so staff will implement the proposed increases effective May 1, 2026 unless the council directs otherwise.
City public‑works staff told council the refuse enterprise fund is structurally out of balance and presented a consultant's rate study recommending a rate adjustment to maintain service and meet mandated equipment and disposal costs.
Rust Sterling and Deputy Public Works Director Alvin Diaz summarized the R3 study: the refuse division is operating efficiently but faces a projected annual shortfall of roughly $274,000 driven by higher KWRRA tipping fees, elevated vehicle and container costs, regulatory compliance (airborne and organics mandates) and rising maintenance needs. The study proposed a rate structure that begins with two 10 percent increases (the first effective in May 2026), followed by 5 percent annual increases in subsequent years.
Sterling explained comparative agency costs and said the city remains competitive with neighboring jurisdictions but cannot absorb further deficits without either service reductions or rate adjustments. Diaz and refuse supervisors described operational needs including route‑management software, additional staffing for recycling mandates, and vehicle replacements that have risen sharply in unit cost.
Staff reported 46 written protests against the proposed adjustments; the protest threshold to block the increases is a majority of the roughly 24,000 notices sent (about 12,000 protests). Because the number of written protests was far below that threshold, staff said the proposed increases will be implemented effective May 1, 2026 unless council takes another action.
Residents voiced frustration at both the need for higher rates and occasional service lapses; speakers requested improved reliability and suggested potential developer contributions for growth‑related costs. Councilors and staff emphasized the distinction between enterprise funds (which must be self‑supported by ratepayers) and general‑fund or Measure H revenues (which cannot be used to subsidize refuse operations). The council moved to proceed per the staff recommendation; staff will implement the new rates and return with operational improvements and monitoring metrics.
