Residents urge Winfield board to soften SBC subscription plan, cite senior impacts

Dozens of residents told the Winfield Village Board on Thursday that a planned switch from a sticker-based garbage system to a flat SBC subscription would hit seniors and single-person households hardest.

"I pay $4 a month right now to put my garbage out and I'm going to $20 a month," said Joel Beber, a 12-year Winfield resident, during audience participation. Beber said many Winfield Square townhome households produce little garbage and that a flat monthly fee will be unfair; he urged the board to retain stickers or adopt tiered pricing so low-use households are not forced to subsidize larger families.

Cheryl Worley, who said she serves on the Winfield Square townhome association board, told trustees she used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the SBC proposal and found the document reads like a vendor proposal rather than the output of a competitive bid. Worley pointed to contract language that she said did not specify senior discount eligibility and raised questions about customer service, can-delivery fees and whether the village compared SBC to other vendors.

Village Manager Evan Summers, who said he negotiated the agreement, told the board he accepts responsibility for communication gaps and described key contract features: an average subscription rate of $22 per month for a typical household, a $20 rate (a 10% senior discount) for seniors, weekly refuse and recycling collection, a $5 monthly compost option, free curbside events for bulky items and e-waste, and a vacation mode that pauses billing for residents who are away. Summers said vendors the village contacted indicated they could not match SBC's price, which drove staff to negotiate directly with SBC.

Trustees acknowledged the public concerns and asked staff to reopen limited conversations with SBC about customer-service issues and senior discounts. "We'll take a look at it," President Carl Sorgas said, noting the village will discuss options with the contractor and try to identify mitigations for low-use households. Staff cautioned that a signed contract creates logistical and legal hurdles to wholesale reopening but said staff and the president would meet with the contractor to pursue possible changes.

The public comments and the manager's explanation left several outstanding questions residents had posed: whether the contract resulted from a competitive bid (staff said the change was a renegotiation and vendors declined to match SBC's rate), the exact contract term (heard in public comments as five years), and the administrative details of senior discounts and can-delivery fees (not specified in the materials read into the record). The board did not take a formal vote to amend the contract at the meeting but directed staff to meet with SBC and to revisit discount/implementation options.

The board opened this topic during audience participation and continued discussion in open session; trustees asked staff to try to identify options that could address the concerns raised by seniors and low-use households.