Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Denison staff to study shifting solid-waste charges after council flags $13,000 shortfall
Summary
City staff presented proposed ordinance revisions on solid-waste billing — whether to charge per electric meter or per housing unit — and told council a per‑meter approach could reduce revenue by about $13,000 a year; council asked staff to run financial scenarios and return with draft ordinance language and exemption criteria.
City staff presented proposed changes to Denison’s solid-waste and recycling ordinance and asked the City Council whether charges should be assessed per electric meter or per residential unit.
The city’s presenter (staff member) said the current spreadsheet from DMU shows the municipality has been charging per unit in some multi‑unit buildings and that moving to a strict per‑meter model could reduce solid‑waste account revenue by about $13,000 a year. “If we charged per meter as opposed to per unit in a building, I believe it was a loss of about $13,000 a year,” the staff member said during the discussion.
Council members discussed practical complications: apartment complexes that pay a private hauler, trailer parks with one meter but multiple households, and commercial properties that use dumpsters. Staff described potential exemption language: properties that contract exclusively with a private hauler could apply to the enforcement officer for an exemption with proof of private service. One council member said a per‑ton charging model would better align costs with waste generation, but staff noted operational difficulties in implementing per‑ton billing at the residential collection scale.
Rather than adopt ordinance text at the meeting, council directed staff to produce written scenarios showing revenue impacts, draft exemption criteria for properties with private hauling arrangements, and options for separating residential, multifamily and commercial categories before a future vote.
Council did not vote on ordinance text at this meeting; staff said they will bring a proposed ordinance and financial analysis back for further consideration and public readings.
