Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City consultant warns East Point’s $21.50 trash rate won’t cover costs; three increase scenarios proposed
Summary
Consultant NewGen told council the current single‑family trash rate under‑recovers service costs and leaves solid waste reserves far below policy targets. He offered three multi‑year rate scenarios and suggested shifting multifamily billing and evaluating in‑house recycling to stabilize revenue.
A rate study presented April 6 by NewGen Strategies and Solutions found East Point’s single‑family residential solid‑waste charge of $21.50 per month does not fully recover operating and capital costs. Consultant Seth Cunningham said current service levels are comparatively generous, but rising disposal and labor costs mean the enterprise fund is projected to run deficits and fall short of the city’s four‑month reserve policy.
NewGen modeled three scenarios to rebuild reserves and eliminate the structural deficit: (1) an aggressive set of increases that reaches policy targets in 4–5 years; (2) a moderate path over 6–7 years; and (3) a slower approach over 9–10 years. All scenarios include small annual CPI adjustments plus targeted rate increases in early years; the consultant noted the city currently carries roughly $200,000 in reserves against a targeted minimum of $1.6 million.
Council and staff focused questions on operational savings that might reduce the need for rate hikes. City solid‑waste leaders and the consultant identified potential savings in route restructuring (congesting routes for fuel and maintenance efficiency), greater enforcement and prevention of illegal dumping, and the possibility of bringing recycling collection in‑house instead of contracting it out. Council requested follow‑up documentation including a truck inventory (age/make/model), the administration cost breakdown, lease/royalty/franchise revenue from the transfer station, projected fuel impacts from route changes, and a cost estimate to operate recycling in‑house.
The city manager and department said they will return to council with the requested clarifications; any change to rates will require an ordinance and public notice. Council referred the purchasing‑card policy discussion to Budget & Finance in the same meeting; the solid‑waste item will return as staff refines cost, route, and communication plans.
Next steps: staff to provide requested operational detail and comparative cost breakdowns before the council considers any specific rate ordinance.
