Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Millville commission debates senior/disabled solid‑waste deduction and late‑fee authority
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a first‑reading ordinance to add a senior/disabled deduction and to authorize late fees for solid waste service; discussion focused on whether late‑fee authority belongs in an ordinance (not a resolution), the application process and that any fee would apply only prospectively, not retroactively.
Millville commissioners took up a first reading on an ordinance to amend the municipal code to (1) add a deduction in solid waste service charges for seniors and disabled residents and (2) establish authority to levy late fees on future unpaid accounts.
Why it matters: the proposed change affects how the city bills and enforces its trash/solid‑waste charges and which customers are eligible for a reduced charge. Commissioners sought clarity on application processes, consistency with other utilities (water/sewer), and whether the proposed late‑fee authority could be established by ordinance or merely by resolution.
At the meeting, one commissioner raised procedural and fairness concerns, saying it was “baffling” the authority to charge late fees had not been established when the original utility was set up and insisting that late fees cannot be applied retroactively. Legal staff noted that the municipal code must explicitly authorize late fees in an ordinance for them to be lawful going forward. Commissioners also emphasized the need for a clear application and verification process to ensure that any senior or disabled deduction is uniformly administered across the water, sewer and solid‑waste utilities.
Outcome and next steps: staff told the commission an amended ordinance will be drafted to add the late‑fee language and the senior/disabled deduction language, with an effective date 20 days after adoption. Commissioners agreed the change would only apply prospectively and asked staff to confirm whether separate application forms or uniform treatment across utilities would be used. The ordinance remained at first reading on Jan. 16 and is expected to return for formal consideration at the next meeting.
Speakers quoted or referenced in the discussion included a city solicitor advising on ordinance requirements and commissioners pressing for written application procedures and clarification on retroactivity.
The commission did not adopt the ordinance on Jan. 16; staff will bring an amended ordinance back for a future vote.
