Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bucyrus committee pauses plan to raise dumpster rates after members seek more cost data
Summary
A Bucyrus Service Committee discussion on commercial and residential dumpster fees ended with members tabling a motion to raise rates, after debate over how additional pickups are charged and requests for comparative vendor pricing and cost recovery figures.
The Bucyrus Service Committee discussed proposed changes to commercial and residential dumpster fees and decided to table a motion to raise rates until members collect more cost and market-comparison data.
Committee members reviewed how current fees are calculated — including that monthly commercial rates were effectively converted into per-pickup amounts — and that the residential program also charges a flat drop fee. Staff explained that additional pickups are derived by dividing a monthly rate and that some line items had changed over time.
Members debated whether to lift residential fees, to increase only additional-pickup fees, or to raise commercial rates more substantially than residential ones. One committee member proposed a $5 across-the-board increase to additional pickups; another, Cody Scott, recommended much larger increases for additional pickups (proposing $35 for 3-yard, $45 for 4-yard and $55 for 6-yard additional pickups for commercial accounts) to better cover labor, fuel and landfill charges. Members cited a reported annual shortfall of about $41,296.41 as reason to consider changes.
Several speakers urged the committee to collect vendor comparisons before adopting big changes. Members cited a recent single hauler price (a 17-yard pickup for $270) and suggested calling neighboring jurisdictions and private haulers to benchmark rates. Committee members also flagged legal constraints: rate increases must be supported by data and cannot be “arbitrary and capricious.”
A motion was made to raise dumpster rates by $5 across the board (commercial and residential) but procedural confusion about a valid second and resistance from some members led the committee to postpone action. The chair and several members agreed to table the matter and to ask staff to gather competitive pricing, per‑trip landfill and labor costs, and other supporting figures before reintroducing an ordinance.
The committee did not adopt any ordinance or final rate changes at the meeting; members instructed staff to return with comparative vendor rates and a cost‑recovery analysis before voting.
