New Port Richey council votes 3-2 to pursue placing residential trash fees and delinquencies on tax roll

At a special meeting, the New Port Richey City Council voted 3-2 to approve two intent resolutions authorizing the city to use the uniform method of non-ad valorem assessments to place residential solid-waste collection fees and delinquent accounts on the tax roll, with the interlocal collection arrangement slated to begin with the October 2025 tax bill.

The votes cover Resolution No. 2025-12 (intent to place delinquent solid-waste accounts on the tax roll) and Resolution No. 2025-13 (intent to place regular solid-waste collection fees on the tax roll and to enter an interlocal agreement with the Pasco County property appraiser and tax collector). Both measures passed 3-2 after public comment and extended council discussion.

Why it matters: moving collection to the tax roll would change the timing and enforcement mechanics for hundreds of residential accounts. City staff said the county tax collector would assess and collect the fees under Florida Statute section 197.3632. Council members and residents raised questions about accuracy of the delinquency lists, opt-out procedures for vacationing residents and potential liens or tax consequences for seasonal homeowners and renters.

Council members and staff described the vote as a statement of intent that will be followed by additional hearings to set exact amounts, exclusions and administrative terms. City staff said the Pasco County tax-collection partner would charge an administrative fee not to exceed 2 percent and that the city currently assesses a 10 percent franchise fee and a separate city administrative fee (1.5 percent under the present arrangement). The staff recommendation, as read to the council, said the interlocal agreement would allow the tax collector to place collection fees on the October 2025 tax bill and transmit payments to the city.

Public commenters urged caution. "Can we ensure that the billing system is accurate before we put it added to their taxes?" asked Lisa Tinker, a resident, citing door-hanger notices left at homes of people who were hospitalized. Angela Palitano told the council she opposed the tax-roll approach as "despicable" and warned it could harm vulnerable residents and seasonal homeowners. Other residents asked why the city would not instead place liens on specific properties or make additional vendor-performance protections part of the plan.

Elected officials debated tradeoffs at length. "We are an administrator of a payment," Councilman Altman said, arguing the city had little role in delivery and that billing transparency was inadequate: "It is still being done privately. The only difference now is that we are a middleman collecting the payment and we can't explain to the public why we can't do that." Another council member who served previously as finance director urged more precise accounting of how much the city actually loses from nonpayment before permanent placement on tax rolls. Several council members and staff noted an existing vacation opt-out (three months or more) and said the council would return with rules for exemptions and for hurricane relief or similar circumstances.

Motion and next steps: A council member moved and another seconded the motion to approve the first intent resolution. Council members then moved and seconded approval of the interlocal-agreement intent resolution. In both cases the motions passed 3-2. City staff told the council the approvals express intent; subsequent, separate votes will set exact assessment amounts, confirm the county administrative fee, define exemptions and address contract timing and payment flow to the hauler. Staff committed to returning with more detailed numbers and clarifications about how existing contracts with the hauler would be affected.

What the measures do not do: The council emphasized these votes do not immediately place charges on tax bills or change service delivery; they authorize the city to use the statutory collection method and to pursue agreements that would allow the county to collect and remit funds. The council also said it would bring back itemized figures and opt-out language for further public review. Several members warned that a voter referendum or future litigation might arise if the approach is later reversed while a hauler contract is in force.

The meeting concluded with community announcements and a motion to adjourn. The city will return to the topic with additional staff reports and specific ordinance or assessment figures before any charges appear on property tax statements.