Residents Lash Out Over Solid‑Waste Billing; Council Rejects Placing New Annual Assessment on Tax Roll

New Port Richey 'City Council on Aug. 19 heard more than three hours of public comment on how the city should bill for solid‑waste collection after it moved to a single hauler under a multi‑year contract.

City staff had recommended collecting the proposed annual charge through the county's non‑ad valorem assessment roll, which would appear as a line item on property tax notices. Finance staff presented three options: the county assessment roll (staff's preference for collection compliance), direct quarterly billing by the city and a utility billing approach tied to water service. Staff said the consolidated annual assessment would total $258.08 per typical residential unit (with $230.43 attributed to the hauler, a $23.44 city franchise portion and an estimated $4.56 county administrative fee).

The meeting drew a sustained turnout of residents and property owners who described billing mistakes, delayed mailings and missed service. "You have a lot on the ad valorem this year," said John Saint Martin, a multi‑property owner, who warned the change adds hundreds of dollars to owners' tax bills. Bruce Pileggi, another landlord, said putting the cost on tax bills removes residents' direct ability to start, stop or withhold service as a form of consumer pressure: "This effectively locks the residents into a mandatory arrangement with one provider without flexibility or accountability," he said.

Several residents detailed instances of duplicate bills or receiving a delinquency notice after they had already paid. Finance staff said timing of mailings and the multi‑step submission to Pasco County contributed to the apparent discrepancies: the preliminary file was remitted July 25 and notices mailed Aug. 15; staff allowed payments received through Aug. 14 to be applied before the delinquency tally was finalized.

After public comment, a council member moved to deny the specific measure to place the city's new solid‑waste assessment on the property‑tax roll. The motion carried by council majority, leaving the larger question of how to collect the fee unresolved and directing staff and council to pursue alternatives.

Council did, however, take a separate vote on a related but narrower item: a staff request to place outstanding solid‑waste delinquencies on the county non‑ad valorem roll so collection could proceed through the tax process. Staff said that as of Aug. 14 the delinquency total to be remitted was about $130,270.34. Council approved placing delinquencies on the roll but amended the measure to exclude small balances under $100; that motion passed 4–1.

Council members said the $100 floor was intended to reduce the number of clerical disputes that had surfaced during public comment while preserving the city's ability to collect materially overdue accounts. Several council members also asked staff to return with a work session focused on relief for residents affected by recent hurricanes and on more precise reconciliation of mailing and payment dates.

The debate underscored a split in public preference. Some residents favored an annual assessment on the tax roll for convenience and guaranteed collection, while many others said the assessment approach unfairly burdens snowbirds, renters and low‑income households and provides less direct accountability for service quality than a monthly or quarterly water or direct billing system. Several speakers urged the council to return billing to the hauler or place the fee on monthly water bills so property owners could manage charges by tenancy.

What happens next: council rejected placing the new annual assessment on the county tax roll tonight, but approved forwarding only delinquencies above $100 for collection via the county. Staff will return with follow‑up options and proposed administrative procedures for hurricane‑impacted properties and an appeals pathway for disputed delinquencies.