Jacksonville residents are paying higher prices for a long list of consumer products and services today than they were in 2010, but not for trash hauling.
The monthly fee of $12.65 has remained in place for the past 15 years. Today it’s a deceptively low rate, because the actual cost of the service from the city’s contracted providers has more than doubled over the past 15 years to $30.40, according to Jacksonville City Council auditors.
The city has been making up the difference largely through a “loan” from the city general fund. Due to the city’s interlocal agreements with the Beaches communities and Baldwin, which have their own contracts with trash service providers, the city cannot legally use those tax dollars for trash pickup and therefore must eventually pay back the funds it is drawing from the general fund.
As the gap between the fee collections and the cost of service has grown, the city’s annual payment rose from about $3 million in 2017 to about $36 million in 2024. The “loan” is on track to surpass $500 million by 2031.
Carlucci’s plan
City Council member Matt Carlucci believes it’s time for the city to deal with the ballooning obligation.
He has introduced twin pieces of legislation, Ordinances 2025-0001 and 2025-0002, that would increase the fee to residents and create an exemption for low-income individuals and families. The ordinances are scheduled for a first reading at the Jan. 14 Council meeting.
“I’ve got 2½ years or so left,” said Carlucci, who is term-limited, “... and I don’t want to be accused of not trying to do something to keep from saddling the next Council members and future generations with all the dollars that are being tied up in loans that could be used to increase and enhance the quality of life in Jacksonville.”
Ordinance 2025-0001 would raise the fee to cover the full cost of service. Ordinance 2025-0002 establishes an exemption program for low-income residents modeled after one the city has established for stormwater fees. The program would apply to residents whose gross household income is at or below 150% of the federal poverty level.
Carlucci said that some of his colleagues consider increasing the fee to be “Kryptonite for getting reelected” in that it would draw backlash from local residents.
He disagrees. Carlucci points out that he was reelected in 2023 after making an unsuccessful push to raise the fee three years earlier. As he sees it, not addressing the fee will turn out to be Kryptonite for the city budget.
Carlucci describes the situation as “pension-esque.” In 2017, Council approved a plan by Mayor Lenny Curry’s administration to extend the Better Jacksonville Plan half-cent sales tax to pay down $2.86 billion in unfunded liability for benefits earned by employees and retirees.
According to information supplied by Carlucci’s office, Jacksonville’s fee is well below that of other Florida cities. Among them, fees are $22.55 in Orlando, $38.23 in Tampa, $28.68 in Daytona Beach, $25.64 in Tallahassee and $32.45 in Sarasota, to name a few.
Bill detractors
Detractors of Carlucci’s legislation say that city leaders have overpaid service providers, leading to cost increases that Carlucci and his supporters would pass on to residents.
On X, Council member Rory Diamond issued a one-word reaction to Carlucci’s proposal: “Nope.” Diamond signaled support for a post by Curry’s chief of staff, Brian Hughes, calling for the city to move trash collection into its general fund and treat it as an essential service like public safety, maintenance of streets and sidewalks, and so on.
Regarding the issue with the Beaches towns and Baldwin, Hughes said the city should “fix that too” but offered no details on a solution.
Meridian Waste veto
Criticism over contracts stems partly from decisions this year by Council to approve a 29% rate increase for Meridian Waste, a higher amount than a Rate Review Committee had recommended. Legislation containing Council’s increase, Ordinance 2024-0800, provides $4.02 million from the city’s reserve funds to pay for the increase.
Supporters of the increase say Meridian made a compelling case that there was an imbalance between the company and another provider, Waste Pro USA, and that the Rate Review Committee had not considered some costs of doing business, such as interest payments on trucks, in making its recommendations. The review committee was made up of Council auditors and the mayor’s administration, according to legislation related to the Meridian rate, Ordinance 2024-0800.
On Jan. 13, Mayor Donna Deegan announced she was vetoing the ordinance.
“In vetoing this bill, I am holding true to my commitment to be fiscally responsible and always seek return on investment for our citizens,” she said in a news release. “The dramatic increase passed by the City Council – with $4 million coming from reserves – is fiscally irresponsible and comes at the expense of city priorities like affordable housing and homelessness.”
In explaining her veto, Deegan also cited an opinion from city General Counsel Michael Fackler stating the Council violated separation of powers requirements in the city charter.
Separation of powers
Deegan’s announcement puts the ball in Council’s court for a possible override vote. Council is expected to question Fackler on when he first became aware of the separation of powers issue and when he notified Council about it.
Council member Ken Amaro, who supports Carlucci’s bills on trash fees, likened the Meridian increase to the cost of automobile servicing.
“A year ago an oil change was $39.95, and this year I go in and it’s $69.95,” he said. “What do I do? Do I look at the dealer and say, ‘You guys need to control your costs?’ Their explanation is, ‘Our labor went up, our supplies went up, everything went up.’”
Carlucci was one of two Council members to not support the increased payment to Meridian. Will Lahnen was the other.
Carlucci said absorbing the cost would eliminate a revenue stream for the city and force it to cut the budget elsewhere.
With the city having made several high-priced expenditures in 2024, including raises for police officers and firefighters, and with hundreds of millions of dollars in incentive packages for Downtown development and economic development projects coming due in future years, Council auditors have projected budget deficits of up to $105 million in the next five years.
By raising the fee, he said, the city could free up funding for essential services like police and fire protection, parks service, public works and more.
As for the idea of the city taking on the full cost for service and making adjustments for the Beaches communities and Baldwin, Carlucci said he had yet to see a detailed plan on how that would work.
If someone has a “better mousetrap,” Carlucci said he was open to reviewing it.
Council member Rahman Johnson has suggested adjusting the fee with a stepped-in approach that would increase it gradually over several years to the point where it covers the costs of the service.
Starting point for debate
Carlucci said he would entertain a discussion on that approach, but wanted to set the starting point for the debate at resolving the situation as soon as possible.
“I’d rather shoot for the moon and hit the barn than aim at the barn and blow my foot off,” he said.
Carlucci and Amaro said the longer the city waits to close the gap, the higher fee residents will face if and when Council takes action.
“That’s politics: Kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with it,” Amaro said. “It’s unfortunate. But now it’s on my watch.”
To explain the legislation, Carlucci scheduled meetings this month with each of the city’s six Citizen Planning Advisory Councils. Five of those meetings were scheduled through Jan. 13, with the Southeast CPAC meeting set for Jan. 27.
“Some of the people in our current Council leadership want to run for Tax Collector, Supervisor of Elections, mayor, Legislature, whatever,” Amaro said.
“They don’t want this on their record. I look at it in a different way. To me, there’s an equal number of people in the voting public that may not like it but will respect you if you’re giving a plausible reasoning as to why it needs to be done.”