Trussville moves closer to implementing garbage fees, council discusses ways to alleviate costs
TRUSSVILLE, Ala. (Trussville Tribune) — The Trussville City Council voted to accept the terms of an amendment to the city's waste collection agreement that would open the door to directly billing residents for service during a special meeting Tuesday evening. The vote was 4-1 with Councilor Perry Cook opposed.
Though the council voted to allow the mayor to agree to the new terms, the agreement is non-binding and will still have to come before the council one final time on June 10 for final approval before it is enacted.
Ahead of that meeting, the council will hold a workshop on June 5 where members will discuss how the new fees will be implemented and ways the city could alleviate costs for customers.
Under the terms of the amendment, residents would be charged $29.90 a month for garbage and debris collection services, which will be the same service they currently receive. Customers would be billed by Amwaste on a quarterly basis.
Family mourning loss of Regina Smith after body recovered from Noccalula Falls
That rate would be subject to an annual price adjustment, which could increase the cost to residents after the first year, based on the consumer price index and fuel costs.
Though participation in municipal garbage collection services would be mandatory for all residents, the state requires an exemption process for citizens whose sole source of income is derived from Social Security or those who have special permits granted by the State Health Department to dispose their own garbage.
In addition to the mandatory exemptions, the council is considering ways to lessen the burden on residents such as expanding who could be eligible for an exemption, covering part of the cost to customers, or attaching a sunset clause to the amendment.
If the council decides to widen exemptions or cover part of the $29.90 monthly cost to customers, the city would have to pay the difference.
The current solid waste agreement with the Cahaba Solid Waste Disposal Authority and Amwaste as well as the new amendment can be viewed below.
During Tuesday's meeting, Mayor Buddy Choat and the council again explained the main drivers behind the change in front of a packed house.
Last year, the city was hit with a significant decline in sales tax revenue, which makes up about two-thirds of its general fund budget.
In FY24, the city budgeted for sales tax revenues of $33.6 million but only took in $30.9 million. This fiscal year, the city budgeted sales tax revenues of $32.4 million, representing a 3% drop.
Choat said the drop was not something the city had anticipated as sales tax revenues had steadily risen over the last five years. He attributed last year's drop to the post-pandemic economy, inflation, and the rise of online shopping.
The city receives a smaller portion of sales tax revenues from online sales, and he added that if all the online purchases in 2024 had been made at a Trussville business instead, the city would have around $4 million more in revenue.
'[Online shopping] is here, it's gonna stay here, so we're trying to find a way to rebuild our bottom line to where if online shopping continues, which it will, then we have to find a way to subsidize some of the things that the city's gonna need,' Choat said
With the decline in revenue, the city passed its latest budget with a deficit spend of almost $1 million, believing that the deficit can be made up and they can end the year with a balanced budget by taking actions such as shifting the cost of garbage services.
'To be quite honest with you, that's not something we were proud of, but there was no way around it,' Choat said while speaking on the budget.
'We had some things that were already happening that we were responsible for that were coming in this year that we had to paid for that were [purchased ordered] out the year before or even the year before that, but when we saw that we started looking at different ways of producing some other revenues for the city.'
Some of those measures the city has taken include doubling the city's lodging tax from 6% to 12% as well as instituting a hiring freeze and limiting overtime for city employees in an effort to balance the budget.
Councilor Ben Short noted that about 80% of the city's spending is on salaries while about 6.8% is on residential waste collection.
The city has paid for residential garbage services since 2002 under an agreement made by Mayor Gene Melton's administration after the city raised its sales tax by 1 cent to help create Trussville City Schools.
Since then, Trussville has grown significantly, rising from 12,000 people in 2002 to about 27,000 now. With that, the city has gone from budgeting around $500,000 annually for resident garbage collection to $2.6 million.
Choat also addressed funding for Trussville City Schools following last year's failed vote to increase property taxes, which would have gone toward funding three major TCS expansion projects.
Without the additional tax revenue to support bonding at a cost of $90 million, the district has prioritized the construction of the C-Wing at Hewitt-Trussville High School, which is currently at 104% capacity.
'Going into the budget year we knew we had a shortfall, we had discussions, and there's a lot of misconceptions out there that this is punishment for the property tax vote not passing–it is not,' Choat said. 'This is not a school funding issue, this is about a general fund issue.'
Multiple residents spoke at the meeting, posing questions about how the garbage fees would be implemented and the possibility of costs rising as well as criticizing the council for purchasing the properties at Glendale Farms and along Service Road.
The city spent around $4 million on Glendale Farms to use as the site of new elementary school and $5 million for property on Service Road to prevent the construction of a proposed 500 unit apartment complex.
The city has since agreed to sell the Service Road property to a developer who plans to build about 190 homes, but was only able to make up $3 million on the sale with the mayor saying that city had to match the price the apartment developer was willing to pay but that selling it for the same amount would be too expensive for a housing developer.
Choat defended the Service Road purchase, saying the city felt an obligation to buy the property in order to keep the apartments out and combat overcrowding in the area.
Though Glendale Farms was initially intended to be used as the site of Trussville's next elementary school, the failure of the recent property tax vote has put those plans on hold and the city is now accepting offers to sell the property.
During the council's discussion on the amendment, Councilor Alan Taylor discussed the rapid development and growth of the city as well as the cost of it.
'We'll get through this, and we're determined to get through it and I certainly love having the downtown, the Edgar's, and the places have versus Sticks N Stuff and a thrift store and all of those things which we could've had which also would've affected our school system,' Taylor said.
Councilor Lisa Bright added that according to the Alabama League of Municipalities that between 2000 and 2020 the City of Trussville grew 83%, saying that the city is now playing catch up with its schools and infrastructure because of how fast the city has grown.
'Yes, we don't want a deficit, and we are gonna get through it, but we can't just stop what we're doing because if we stop we're gonna go backwards, and if we go backwards we're gonna lose families, and if we lose families we're gonna lose our school system,' Bright said.
Councilor Jaime Anderson personally apologized to the public for the city coming in under its projected revenue.
'I would like to personally say, you know, that I'm sorry about that. We really do want to do what's best for Trussville,' Anderson said.
'What I won't apologize for is the decisions that we made to keep apartments out of Trussville and to try our very best to provide for the school that we thought we we're gonna have.'
She added that she would like to see a sunset clause in the waste collection amendment and believes the city is taking every step to end the year with a balanced budget without losing services.
Councilor Perry Cook and Councilor Short also spoke in support of a sunset clause with Short adding that he would like to see some way the city could subsidize payments.
If the amended garbage services agreement is approved by the council at the June 10 meeting, direct billing would likely begin in July or August.
The council will next meet for a workshop on Thursday, June 5 at 5 p.m.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security's 2026 COLA Forecast Was Just Updated. Here's How Much Benefits Could Increase and Why It Might Not Be Enough.
Key Points The latest Social Security COLA estimate is higher than projections from previous months. However, the projected Social Security benefit increase might not be enough for many retirees. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Retirees won't know how much higher their Social Security benefits will be in 2026 until mid-October. But that doesn't mean they can't at least have a clue what the increase might be. The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) recently updated its forecast for the 2026 Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). If you're a retiree, here's how much your benefits could increase based on the nonprofit organization's estimate -- and why it might not be enough. The latest COLA estimate The Social Security Administration (SSA) calculates the annual COLA using an inflation metric called the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The agency determines the percentage increase (if any) of the average CPI-W during the third quarter of the current year compared to the average CPI-W during the third quarter of the previous year. In July, the CPI-W rose 2.5% year over year. If this rate of increase remains steady, the 2026 COLA would be 2.5%, exactly the same as the benefit increase retirees received this year. However, TSCL doesn't think the CPI-W rate of growth will remain the same. The nonprofit seniors advocacy group uses a statistical model that includes inflation, interest rate, and unemployment data to estimate the next COLA. The organization issues a new COLA prediction each month. Its estimated COLA has steadily risen over the past three months as inflation has inched higher. In May, TSCL projected that the 2026 Social Security COLA would be 2.5%. Its announced an estimated COLA in June of 2.6%. TSCL's latest COLA forecast, released last week, was 2.7%. Not enough? Will a 2.7% Social Security benefit increase be enough for most retirees? Probably not. TSCL recently conducted a survey that found nearly two-thirds of seniors weren't satisfied with the amount of their monthly Social Security benefits. Even more strikingly, a whopping 94% said they thought the 2025 COLA of 2.5% was too low to keep up with inflation. TSCL Executive Director Shannon Benton doesn't think a 2.7% COLA will correct this issue. She stated last week: "With the COLA announcement around the corner, seniors across America are holding their breath. While a higher COLA could be welcome because their monthly benefits will increase, many will be disappointed." Part of the problem lies with the inflation metric the COLA uses. The CPI-W doesn't focus specifically on expenses incurred by seniors. Some argue that the metric doesn't accurately reflect retirees' spending and the higher prices they incur, especially with healthcare. Another factor is timing. Retirees pay higher costs before the COLA intended to offset those higher costs goes into effect. What can retirees do? It's entirely possible that the 2026 Social Security COLA won't be enough to cover the higher costs that retirees incur. What can they do to address this issue? Perhaps the least popular alternative is to watch expenses even more closely. This could be difficult for many seniors who already pinch their pennies to make ends meet. For those in this group, take advantage of any government program that can reduce costs, such as the Medicare Part D Extra Help program for individuals with limited income. Retirees with access to other income sources, such as IRAs and 401(k) plans, might need to withdraw more from those accounts to cover their higher cost of living. Talk to a reputable financial planner first, though, to ensure the retirement accounts won't be depleted too quickly. Some seniors might consider working part-time to boost their income enough to make up for an insufficient Social Security COLA. However, this won't be an option for everyone. For retirees seeking a broader solution to the underlying problem, consider advocating for a change to how Social Security COLAs are calculated. TSCL's survey found that 96% of seniors favor reforming the COLA calculation, with the most popular solution being replacing the CPI-W with an inflation metric that better reflects seniors' spending. Calling congressional representatives is one way to push for such changes. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security's 2026 COLA Forecast Was Just Updated. Here's How Much Benefits Could Increase and Why It Might Not Be Enough. was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
43 minutes ago
- USA Today
Do Americans have personal Social Security accounts? Answers here.
American workers pay taxes into a Social Security 'trust fund.' The more you earn now, the more you will reap later in retirement benefits. You can monitor your progress in a government account called 'my Social Security.' Those facts might lead some people to believe that everyone has a personal Social Security fund, money earmarked just for them. Roughly one in four Americans thinks exactly that, according to a new survey from the libertarian Cato Institute. The poll asked respondents how Social Security is funded. Only 45% of respondents chose the correct answer: 'My taxes pay for current retirees, and future workers will pay my benefits.' How does Social Security work? Most of us don't know. Confusion runs rampant on the basic workings of Social Security, according to recent surveys from Cato and AARP. Both polls coincide with Social Security's 90th anniversary, marked on August 15. In the Cato survey, released August 7, only 9% of Americans correctly identified the maximum annual Social Security benefit, which exceeds $60,000, on a multiple-choice list. Only one-quarter correctly guessed the average annual benefit, which falls between $20,000 and $30,000. The AARP survey, released in July, found that three-quarters of Americans believe they are informed about how Social Security works. But are they? In that survey, only 40% of Americans knew the earliest age you can claim Social Security: 62. Only 24% knew the claiming age when your benefit check maxes out: 70. 'When we started asking questions, it was obvious people aren't as knowledgeable as they think they are,' said Bill Sweeney, senior vice president of government affairs at AARP. Pay as you go: How Social Security really operates Here's how Social Security actually works: A portion of your income goes into a pair of Social Security trust funds, one for retirement, the other for disability. Social Security benefits are paid from those funds. Social Security is known as a 'pay as you go' program, which means that benefits paid to today's retirees are mostly collected from current workers. In other words, the Social Security benefit you receive is not money you earned. In that sense, the term 'trust fund' might be a little misleading. 'The terminology, alone, confuses things,' said Robert Brokamp, a senior retirement adviser at The Motley Fool. Relentless messaging on Social Security, from politicians and personal finance websites, might suggest workers are socking away their own money to pay for their eventual retirement. It is true that how much you earn determines the size of your eventual benefit checks. The money in those checks, however, will come mostly from future workers. 'People who don't understand the way it works think that they have been contributing to their Social Security benefits through their paychecks,' said Caleb Silver, editor-in-chief of Investopedia, the financial journalism site. 'It's definitely not sitting in an account with your name on it,' he said. 'It's sitting in an account with everyone's name on it.' Social Security faces a fiscal cliff Through most of its history, the Social Security program collected more money than it paid out, yielding a reserve that totaled $2.7 trillion at the end of 2024. Yet, as America ages, the reserve is dwindling. The latest projections show Social Security will face a shortfall by 2034. When the reserves run out, the federal agency will have sufficient funds to pay only about 81% of full benefits, according to AARP. Most Americans know that. In the Cato poll, 79% of working-age adults said they don't believe they will receive full benefits when they retire. Roughly one in 10 expect no benefits at all. The AARP poll, too, found Americans deeply pessimistic about the future of Social Security. More than one third of respondents said they believe that when the reserves are gone, benefit payments will cease. American workers have been predicting Social Security's demise for years. AARP has polled Americans about the federal program for four decades. Faith has never run high. 'People back in 1985 didn't have confidence Social Security was going to be there for them,' Sweeney said. 'And what's interesting is, that number has been consistent.' Social Security has faced insolvency before Social Security has faced insolvency before. At one point in the early 1980s, amid economic downturns, program trustees predicted a shortfall was months away. In 1983, policymakers fixed Social Security by collecting new taxes and gradually raising the full retirement age, among other changes. Congress will have similar options to shore up Social Security between now and 2034. Policymakers could choose to collect more Social Security taxes. They could again raise the retirement age, asking Americans to wait longer to collect larger benefit checks. Or they could borrow the money. 'I think that Congress will definitely do something to avoid reducing benefits,' said Emily Ekins, vice president and director of polling at Cato. 'I don't think they're just going to allow a quarter in benefits to be cut.' But how might Congress fix the program? Raise taxes, borrow money, or reduce benefits? Cato posed that question in its survey. The largest share of Americans, 37%, said they would favor higher taxes. Slightly fewer, 35%, favored borrowing the funds. Only 28% said they'd prefer reduced benefits. What if every Social Security check was $1,800? There are more radical solutions. Congress could abandon its complex benefit formulas in favor of a flat monthly check, the same amount for everyone: say, around $1,800. In the Cato survey, 38% of respondents said they would support a flat benefit as an alternative to tax hikes or program cuts. Clearly, it's not for everyone. 'A really foundational part of Social Security is, the more you pay in, the more you get out,' said Sweeney of AARP. 'And I think that's really important to the way the program is structured.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Women lean harder on Social Security. Here's what that means for advisors
Since its inception 90 years ago, Social Security has become a critical safety net for America's retirees. New research shows that's especially true for women, who rely on the program as a primary source of income at a far greater rate than men. The research, conducted by the Transamerica Institute for its 25th annual retirement survey, collected responses from over 10,000 American adults about their views on retirement savings and Social Security. READ MORE:The Next Step: Can a millionaire store clerk retire at 55?As insurers axe Medicare plans, here's what advisors should know4 ways business owners could reap big tax savings under OBBBAWomen clients want clarity, not jargon. Here's how to deliver Across the country, about a third of adults expect Social Security to be their primary source of income, but women of all ages are more likely than men to rely on it in retirement. Given their reliance on Social Security, a greater share of women also say they're concerned about the program being reduced or ceasing to exist in the future. Researchers asked survey participants to rank how they feel about the statement "I am concerned that when I am ready to retire, Social Security will not be there for me." Among working women, 3 in 4 agreed with the statement, with 37% of them strongly agreeing — 10 percentage points more than working men. Financial advisors say the difference in Social Security reliance between men and women has important consequences for retirement planning. Understanding the domino effect on women's retirement Behind the greater reliance on Social Security among women is a long list of social and economic gender dynamics, including a persistent pay gap and unbalanced caregiving expectations. The pay gap between men and women in the United States has narrowed slightly over recent decades, but it still remains. In 2024, women earned 85% of what men earned, up from 81% in 2003, according to the Pew Research Center. "An income gap inevitably creates a savings gap, because most people contribute a percentage of their earnings to retirement accounts," said Hazel Secco, founder of Align Financial Solutions in Hoboken, New Jersey. Across multiple measures, researchers at the Transamerica Institute found that women had far less saved for retirement compared to men. The typical working woman in the survey had saved $35,000 in total household retirement accounts, nearly half of what men saved. About three in 10 men (31%) have saved $250,000 or more, compared with just 21% of women. Beyond the pay gap, caregiving expectations can also hurt a woman's lifetime income. "During time away from work, whether caring for children or aging parents, those contributions stop entirely," Secco said. "That's why I encourage my female clients to be very intentional with their savings. We're not talking about never spending money, but making sure that any extra funds aren't left without a purpose. If there's money left over after covering income needs and spending priorities, I recommend creating a flexible 'future use' bucket, a taxable investment account that isn't tied to an IRA or Roth. This gives women access to funds whenever needed, while still allowing them to grow their wealth and supplement Social Security down the road." Getting real without being discouraging Tackling the retirement preparedness gap with female clients should begin with a serious accounting of their situation. "I like to present my female clients in these situations with nothing but hard facts," said Nancy Listiawan, founder of Vera Wealth in Pasadena, California. "Statistics carry more weight than rhetoric sometimes." When working with women who are behind on their savings, Listiawan said she likes to remind them that even small monthly savings can compound by the time they reach retirement. "I'm working with a client now who is only comfortable adding $100 each month," Listiawan said. "That $100 each month can grow into approximately $60,000 in 20 years at an average 8% return. For clients who are not used to the habit of savings, it's best to start small and gradually increase their regular contributions over time. Some clients are very visual. As they see their account growing, they will naturally want to continue to put away more money for their future." Maximizing Social Security income for business owners For women counting on Social Security, advisors say it's important to make sure they're maximizing their expected benefits in retirement. A female client who didn't make much money — and thus didn't contribute much to Social Security — during her career might only receive a modest Social Security benefit in retirement. But even high-earning female business owners can find themselves receiving meager Social Security payments in retirement if they're not careful about how they structure their taxes during their working years. Oftentimes, female business owners are advised to create an S corporation for their business as a means of minimizing their tax obligations, according to Catherine Valega, founder of Green Bee Advisory in Burlington, Massachusetts. And while that strategy can boost someone's net income in the near term, it can also create problems for Social Security earnings in the long run. Through an S corp, business owners can pay themselves a portion of the company's income as salary and take the rest as a distribution, which isn't subject to payroll taxes like FICA. This approach reduces the amount owed in Social Security and Medicare taxes. But it comes at the expense of the owner's Social Security earnings history — a key factor behind an individual's expected Social Security income. "I just think it's something that people don't talk about," Valega said. "I'm not saying that it's the wrong thing. But no CPA is talking about [a client's] Social Security earnings history. People go to CPAs … to say, 'Reduce my taxes,' and that's what they do." With the right planning, Valega said it's reasonable to minimize FICA taxes if the business owner then uses the extra income to save for retirement on their own. But that virtually never happens without a professional helping the owner plan, she said. "I think that's an okay strategy, but only if I'm actually doing that for them, right? Because if the CPA tells them, people are never going to do it. It's just not in their nature," Valega said. Sign in to access your portfolio
