Middletown residents and council spar over sanitation program, fees and oversight

Dozens of residents used the council's public comment period to press officials on the city's sanitation district, criticizing the program's costs, enforcement and management and asking officials to reconsider fines and program structure.

Yuri Bransberg, who said he submitted documents under the state Freedom of Information Act, asked the council to table a related personnel item and to open an ethics review into the recycling coordinator, arguing that grant-seeking and vendor contact left the program appearing as a "vanity project." Bransberg said he could not reconcile the administration's reported 30% reduction in trash with any demonstrable increase in recycling and said outreach spending raised questions.

Rick Sienna and other residents said they had struggled to obtain information about the program and said the $150 penalty for noncompliance amounted to unfair economic pressure on some households. Jody Demir warned the council that trash cans at the curb are not tamper-proof and that fining homeowners for items placed in their cans by others could lead to contested court cases. Several residents urged ending the sanitation district altogether unless officials fix communication, enforcement and cost issues.

Council action did not fully respond to those requests but did include two measurable steps. The council approved an additional $50,000 appropriation for the sanitation fund to cover increased sorting and disposal costs. That appropriation (item 6d) was adopted on a 6–4 roll-call vote to address immediate costs tied to processing and disposal.

On the policy side, Councilman Nocera advanced a multi-part proposal (item 10o) that would reduce bag costs for trash-cart users, adjust residential billing to reflect lower tipping rates, implement a missed-pickup fee for repeated noncompliance, change the assistance program to offer lower-cost bags instead of free bags, and expand education and enforcement until the program stabilizes financially. The council voted to table that package to the Sept. 3 meeting to allow further review and public input.

Supporters and critics voiced sharply different views about the program's design and fairness. Yuri Bransberg alleged improper influence by an outside vendor and questioned program reporting; the council did not debate those specific FOI-backed assertions on the record and no council action was taken to open an ethics inquiry during the meeting. City staff responses were not presented in the public-comment period; the mayor and council said they would refer submitted materials to the appropriate departments for follow-up.

What happens next: City staff and councilors will have until the Sept. 3 meeting to gather additional data, including cost and contract details, and to present firmer proposals on bag costs, billing adjustments, enforcement thresholds and the proposed missed-pickup penalty. The supplemental $50,000 appropriation addresses near-term disposal expenses but does not resolve the underlying operational controversies raised by residents.

Quotes from the meeting: "No one can explain where 30% of the trash went," said Yuri Bransberg, urging an ethics review and more transparent accounting of the sanitation program. "If they're not gonna listen to us, then they need to do away with this program," said Douglas Pierce, one of several speakers who urged ending the district.

Ending note: The council approved short-term funding to keep the sanitation operation running, but residents and council members signaled that the program's design and enforcement will be a focal point at the September meeting.