Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Miami weighs expanding city garbage pickup beyond three‑unit limit; staff offers three scenarios
Summary
Staff told commissioners the city currently serves several multi‑unit properties that exceed the municipal code limit of three units and outlined three scenarios (up to 9, 20, or 50 units) with differing operational and financial impacts; commissioners asked for further legal and tipping‑cost analysis and directed staff to return in August.
City staff presented a detailed review June 17 of how the city provides garbage and trash service compared with the municipal code, revealing a mismatch between written policy and long‑standing practice and prompting a multi‑hour commission discussion about options.
Director Munoz said the city code limits municipal garbage service to single‑family and duplex properties (city practice excludes most multi‑unit commercial/residential properties), with private haulers responsible for buildings of four or more units. Yet staff identified seven properties totaling about 150 units that the city is currently servicing in apparent departure from that standard.
To address the misalignment, staff modelled three paths:
• Scenario 1 — extend city garbage service to properties up to 9 units (low impact, roughly a 2% increase in workload compared with current volumes; staff said this could be absorbed without additional capital or staffing).
• Scenario 2 — extend service to properties up to 20 units (a larger but still absorbable change, roughly a 7% increase in route volume; staff said it could be accommodated within existing routing but would reduce franchise fee receipts paid by private haulers).
• Scenario 3 — extend service to properties up to 50 units (a significant expansion that would add ~743 units to the city’s route universe in staff estimates and require purchase of a truck, an additional operator and material budget increases).
Munoz and finance staff estimated lost franchise fee revenue associated with each scenario and flagged tipping‑fee and franchise contract complexities that will influence cost and timing. Staff estimated that scenarios 1 and 2 could be absorbed operationally without immediate new capital; scenario 3 would require an added truck and an equipment operator and thus would require budgetary and procurement planning.
Commissioners expressed differing policy approaches. Some urged starting at the city code baseline (service for up to 3 units) and studying a roll‑out from there; others favored scenario 2 as a pragmatic step that reflected long‑running practice and would cover many of the properties staff currently serves. Several commissioners asked the attorney to analyze whether the city can lawfully grandfather a small set of long‑served properties (for example, two complexes that have received municipal pickup for decades) and whether franchise agreements with private haulers impose contractual restrictions on unilateral changes.
City Attorney staff agreed to review franchise agreements and provide legal guidance on grandfathering and contract termination timing. Director Munoz said staff will return in August with additional financial analysis (tipping‑cost projections, unit‑by‑unit volume estimates), legal opinions and recommended rollout/communication plans for residents. No binding policy change was adopted at the June 17 meeting.
