Over opposition from several residents, the Jacksonville City Council voted May 27 to increase the city’s trash removal fee for the first time in 15 years.
The 11-7 vote raised the monthly fee for 2025 from $12.65 to $27, part of a stepped increase designed to take it to $29.50 in 2026 and $32 in 2027. The increases in 2026 and 2027 will both require separate Council votes and opportunities for residents to comment.
In February, Council voted 12-7 to notify residents that it planned to impose the increase, which was designed to address a growing subsidy to provide trash hauling.
At that time, the issue drew little attention from the public.
Then people started getting their notices of the increase in the mail, and things changed.
On May 27, more than three dozen residents turned out in opposition during a Council public hearing.
Their overwhelming sentiment: The higher fee stinks.
Joey Marmo said that during 18 years of living in Los Angeles before moving back to his hometown of Jacksonville, he saw that city’s government impose “tax and spend” policies that harmed businesses, destroyed the economy and drove residents away. He said the trash fee increase was a step in that direction.
“Don’t California my Florida,” he said.
Marmo and other residents criticized the increase as being too drastic, out of reach for ratepayers on fixed incomes and unfair to households that generated a small amount of trash.
Opponents also asked what the city was doing to reduce the cost of service and urged it to negotiate better contracts with trash removal providers.
Thirty-six residents filled out speaker cards to address the issue. Several of them did not come forward when their names were called, possibly because they left the Council meeting after a disturbance that resulted in some residents being removed from the meeting room prompted Council President Randy White to clear the chamber for several minutes.
Council supporters of the increase noted that the cost of service has risen significantly since the $12.65 fee was adopted. According to Council auditors, the cost is $30.40.
Councils did not adjust the fee accordingly as that figure rose, but instead chose to subsidize the service with a “loan” of tax dollars from the city general fund.
The result was a growing obligation to pay back the subsidization, for which the city was legally barred from using general fund revenue to cover. The annual cost of the “loan,” according to Council auditors, had grown from $3 million in 2017 to about $36 million in 2024 and was on track to surpass $500 million by 2031.
Council member Matt Carlucci said he held community meetings and spoke to media organizations about the proposal after introducing it in January 2025. When it was explained to the community, he said, residents understood that it was a responsible step to take.
Carlucci said he understood that raising the fee was difficult, but urged his colleagues to back it.
“By our action tonight, we’ll have voted not for what’s easy, we’ll have voted for what’s right – what’s hard,” he said.
Council members voting yes were White, Ken Amaro, Raul Arias, Joe Carlucci, Matt Carlucci; Tyrona Clark-Murray, Ju’Coby Pittman, Rahman Johnson, Will Lahnen, Chris Miller and Jimmy Peluso.
No votes came from Vice President Kevin Carrico and members Rory Diamond, Terrance Freeman, Nick Howland, Reggie Gaffney Jr., Mike Gay and Ron Salem.
Member Michael Boylan was on an excused absence, celebrating his wedding anniversary.
Gay said the comments from the audience showed that the increase was unaffordable for some households. He suggested exploring different options.
“Where I see this hitting the hardest, and it’s very concerning to me, is the working family that is living paycheck to paycheck,” he said.
Arias noted that Council also passed companion legislation, Ordinance 2025-0002, allowing households earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level to seek an exemption that freezes the fee at $12.65.
For many households, Arias said, the increase was affordable.
“We’re arguing about $14.35 a month here,” he said, referring to the difference between $12.35 and $27. “That’s lunch.”
White, a former firefighter who retired as a deputy director assistant chief, said the vote was difficult for him, but he supported it out of concern that the growing “loan” would add to budget pressures that could affect fire and police protection.