Hollywood commission hears Solid Waste Authority master plan; members debate long-term commitments and opt-out terms

Hollywood City Commission workshop — May 20, 2026 — The City Commission spent a workshop on May 20 reviewing the Solid Waste Authority of Broward County’s master plan and a proposed facilities amendment that would pool member cities’ tonnage for long-term disposal and processing contracts, establish countywide recycling education, and fund permanent drop-off centers.

The plan, presented by the Solid Waste Authority’s chair, Mike Ryan (City of Sunrise), and SWA staff, frames Broward’s situation as a long-term disposal challenge: “we produce 5 million tons of trash annually here in Broward County,” Ryan told the commission, calling the county’s current system “a trash crisis” driven by lack of regional infrastructure and short-term contracting. Daniel Deitch, the plan’s consultant from SCS Engineers, said the master plan emphasizes leveraging existing facilities and behavioral-change programs rather than building large new plants in the near term.

Why it matters: The master plan would change how cities buy and pay for disposal and recycling services, moving from city-by-city, short-term contracts to countywide procurement meant to secure longer, more predictable pricing and expanded diversion programs. Supporters say pooling tonnage will increase buying power, expand recycling and lower long-term costs; some opponents say the approach trades short-term savings for long-term contractual risk.

What the plan would do: Presenters described a three-phase funding approach: initial participation fees assessed by population for FY26–27; a move to tonnage-based assessments in later years; and an eventual FY2031 switch to a non ad valorem assessment billed directly to residents. The authority set example maximum service charges in the plan (a cited initial surcharge figure was $2.22 per ton) and anticipated an educational program and up to eight permanent drop-off/recycling centers. SWA staff said the facilities amendment would allow transfer stations, recycling and organic-processing sites but would not authorize new landfills or new waste-to-energy plants.

Costs and practical examples: SWA presenters estimated the illustrative residential impact at roughly $3 per household per year (about $0.30 per month), while noting that multifamily and commercial accounts would be billed differently through hauler scale data and dumpster/cubic-yard calculations. The agency said participating cities could realize a modeled $250,000 annual savings compared with some current municipal disposals in Hollywood’s example.

Opt-out mechanics and deadlines: The SWA described a second amendment (issued May 18, 2026) that would let cities withdraw at the end of the RFP/award process if award prices exceed the guaranteed maximums in the master plan. Presenters said the governing board would report whether RFP results met the plan’s market-rate guardrails by Nov. 15, 2027; if the governing board nevertheless accepted prices above the plan’s maximums, individual cities would have a 45-day opt-out window. Staff and several commissioners stressed the group is working under an outside timetable tied to county disposal agreements, and the city clerk and staff highlighted an August deadline for certain decisions.

Industry and public comments: Resident Stephanie Joffe urged approval, calling the proposal “affordable” and necessary to avoid future financial and environmental costs. Grant Smith, representing the city’s current disposal partner, Waste Connections, warned of legal and price risks from long-term commitments and presented a projection — derived from master-plan escalation assumptions — that a $2.22/ton starting figure could, under certain escalation indexes, grow substantially over decades. SWA presenters and other commissioners repeatedly said the authority includes governance safeguards (member inspection rights, a wind-down provision, and a governing-board seat for each participating city) intended to protect municipal interests.

Governance concerns raised by commissioners: Several commissioners pressed for clearer rules about executive-committee seats, voting weight (large/medium/small city seat allotments were explained by presenters), and the county’s role in approving certain major changes (for some actions the ILA requires a two-thirds population threshold plus county approval). Commissioners also asked for more precision on where proposed drop-off sites would be located, how multifamily units and private-hauler customers would be charged, and whether the one-year opt-out window after RFP results is sufficient time to evaluate contracts.

Industry perspective and risk framing: Grant Smith argued the plan lacked firm pricing guarantees and an unambiguous exit path, while Bob Healy of FCC Environmental (waste-to-energy operator) said increased recycling yields avoided disposal costs — roughly $57 per ton in avoided disposal in his example — and that private operators could expand capacity if long-term commitments justify the investment.

What didn’t happen: Commissioners did not vote at the workshop. Staff offered follow-up one-on-one briefings, and presenters said the SWA governing board and executive committee would continue refining amendment language and timetable before any formal municipal action.

Next steps: Staff and the commission signaled more meetings and briefings to resolve representation, opt-out timing and pricing-guardrail questions before the key municipal decision window later in 2026. The commission did not take formal action at the May 20 workshop.

Representative quotes: “‘We produce 5 million tons of trash annually here in Broward County,’” Mike Ryan said, framing the master plan as a response to capacity and market pressures. “‘This is a long term structural commitment that you’re making,’” Grant Smith said, urging caution and highlighting potential contract-enforcement risks. “‘The status quo is not sustainable,’” resident Stephanie Joffe said during public comment, urging the commission to approve the plan.

Ending: The workshop closed without a vote; staff said they will schedule additional briefings and return with refined information before the commission is asked for a final decision.