Faced with a half-million dollar general fund revenue shortfall, Warrenton aldermen are considering repealing free trash service for city residents. 

The notion came up at a work session Aug. 31 called to discuss requiring owners of multifamily units to use the city-provided trash hauler.

Last week’s meeting was a follow-up to a July meeting when the board passed an ordinance   allowing the city to charge all nonowner occupied properties, including multifamily and single-family residences, for trash service beginning Jan. 1, 2011.

Board members said by keeping the properties under the same hauling company it will allow the city to have more leverage in negotiating future bids. City officials also believed that most multifamily properties may find higher rates if attempting to contract trash service on their own.

After hearing comments from a few property owners who said it wasn’t fair for the city to single out single-family rental properties and who pointed out that the new fees would be passed on to tenants, aldermen agreed the city needs to consider charging all residents for trash service.

No official action was taken at the work session. Instead, the board scheduled a public hearing for Tuesday, Sept. 21, beginning at 5:30 p.m. to solicit further input from residents and property owners. The regular board meeting will follow at 7 p.m.

In the meantime, Director of Operations/Finance Officer Terri Thorn said it was important for the board to finalize a decision on the multifamily properties. Some owners had approached the city about wanting to be able to select their own vendor in hopes of getting a better price, similar to a commercial property.

“It’s really important we let them know what the answer is,” Thorn said. “It is quickly approaching Jan. 1. It’s not fair to let people sitting out there waiting.”

Currently, the city provides free trash collection service for all residential properties. Only commercial properties are required to pay for trash service.

Based on the August billing under the current contract with Wilson Waste Hauling, which expires December 2011, the city is paying $346,143 annually for trash service. Of that amount, the city paid $45,720 for collections at multifamily apartment complexes. The remainder of the expense was for residential ($257,040) residential senior ($832) and recycling ($33,399) pickups.

In a comparison compiled by Thorn, the city’s current trash rates are lower than other nearby municipalities. Of the 508 multifamily units in the city, representing 15 separate complexes, the city’s monthly charge from Wilson Waste for multifamily properties is $3,810.

Based on estimated bids received by Montgomery City and St. Charles from trash vendors Danes and Allied,  the city’s monthly fee would increase to $5,580 and $4,316 respectively. A monthly estimate from Waste Management was $5,380.

According to Thorn, only four multifamily properties — Arlington Apartments, Moccasin Lane, Navaho and St. Clare — would see their rates be higher than what the city could possibly offer.

Under the city’s current contract with Wilson Waste, the monthly fee for a residential unit — or “hand stop” — is $8.75, including multifamily units that don’t use dumpsters. For multifamily properties with dumpsters, the monthly charge is $7.50 per unit. The fee is $8 for residential senior units.

The city also incurs an additional $2.25 monthly fee for residents who choose to recycle.

City officials believe trash collection rates will increase substantially once it goes out to bid again. They also believe that if the city allowed multifamily properties to choose between selecting their own rather than staying with the city-provided vendor, the city would lose bargaining power in the bid process.

“If you give (multifamily properties) an option to opt in or opt out, you don’t have the solid numbers,” city attorney Chris Graville said.

Noise and road maintenance issues also were cited as concerns because more trash trucks would be traveling on city streets if more trash haulers were allowed.

“I noticed the garbage trucks seem to have gotten larger, you’re running that weight down a residential street,” Ward 3 Alderman Don Broering said. “If they are doing it once a week for trash and recycling, if you open this up to five or six people, if they make one or two trips a week, I think we will grind our streets into nothing.”

Keith Wilson, owner of Wilson Waste, also acknowledged at the meeting that future bids would be lower if the bids included a set number of properties rather than letting the multifamily owners opt out. He also offered to help with future billing of the multifamily properties by making sure only the units that are occupied are billed. For now, the city is billed for all units whether they are occupied or not.

Even as the city considers different ways to handle trash pickup, officials are facing a difficult decision on how to pay for the rest of the year’s trash bill. According to Thorn, the city is facing a $504,877 loss in the city’s general fund budget with the trash service making up more than half of that figure.

The city has been able to offset the deficit by transferring $594,112 from several areas, including park management fee ($165,965), tourism special events (58,247), cemetery costs ($1,900), capital sales tax ($185,400) and water/sewer fund ($182,600).

Thorn said you normally “want the general fund to break even.”

Free residential trash service was promised to residents years ago when voters approved a city sales tax, Jerry Cullom, a former alderman, said in previous meetings.  

Graville stated at the work session that city records have been reviewed and no instances found where funds generated from a sales tax approved by voters had been dedicated to pay for trash service.