TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the North Port Commission
FROM: A. Jerome Fletcher II, ICMA-CM, MPA, City Manager
TITLE: Discussion and Possible Direction Regarding Assessment Options for Funding the Solid Waste Transfer Station Completed by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Recommended Action
Provide direction on assessment options for funding the Solid Waste Transfer Station prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
City Commission Options
Option 1: Provide direction on the use of an acreage-based assessment.
• Pros: Allocates costs proportionally based on parcel size, ensuring that larger properties contribute more toward system needs.
• Cons: Larger parcels with limited development potential may be disproportionately impacted; results in a wider range of assessment amounts for vacant parcels.
Option 2: Provide direction on the use of a density-based (per-unit) assessment.
• Pros: Aligns costs with the number of units allowed or developed on each property; provides a tighter and more predictable range of assessments for vacant parcels.
• Cons: Smaller lots with higher density development may pay more, potentially impacting multifamily or high-density housing sites.
Option 3: Provide direction on the use of the baseline scenario (10% rate increase).
• Pros: Requires only a 10% rate increase to maintain current service levels for residential and commercial customers.
• Cons: Does not generate sufficient revenue to meet long-term financial needs, including fund balance requirements and construction of the transfer station in Fiscal Year 2027.
Option 4: Provide direction on the use of a one-time Fiscal Year 2027 transfer station assessment.
• Pros: Provides full funding for the transfer station in Fiscal Year 2027 while maintaining a 0% increase to the residential baseline rate; supports a pay-as-you-go approach to major capital costs.
• Cons: Creates a significant one-time assessment in Fiscal Year 2027, which may be more impactful to customers than spreading costs over multiple years.
Option 5: Provide direction on the use of a two-year transfer station assessment (Fiscal Year 2027 & Fiscal Year 2028).
• Pros: Spreads costs over two years, reducing the financial impact in any single fiscal year; maintains a 0% increase to the residential baseline rate in Fiscal Year 2027; allows transfer station construction in Fiscal Year 2028.
• Cons: Delays construction of the transfer station by one year and may increase future project costs due to inflation or scope changes.
Option 6: Provide direction to not revise the Solid Waste District assessment funding options.
• Pros: Avoids any immediate rate or assessment impacts on residents and businesses.
• Cons: Limits the District’s ability to plan and fund necessary infrastructure and capital improvements, potentially leading to service level reductions or higher costs in future years. Additionally, maintaining the current methodology would be inconsistent with previous actions taken by Commission regarding the Solid Waste Transfer Station.
Background Information
Based on current, actual, anticipated growth, and market conditions, the Department of Public Works recognized the need to revise the Solid Waste assessment funding options and worked with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., (Stantec), to refine the methodology, allocation, sufficiency, rates and future projections for the Solid Waste District residential and commercial collection fees.
The analysis includes a comprehensive Cost of Service (COS) review and Revenue and Expense Projections (REP). These tools evaluate the Solid Waste District’s financial requirements for the next five fiscal years and provide long-term projections through Fiscal Year 2031. A key focus of the assessment options is determining how to adequately fund the construction of a new Solid Waste Transfer Station.
During the City Commission Workshop held on September 8, 2025, the Commission made the following consensus:
Ø Direct the City Manager to move forward with the pay-as-you-go approach for the Solid Waste Transfer Station (SW22TS), utilizing Non-Ad Valorem Assessments, and to reject the Public-Private Partnership (P3) option in accordance with the Code of the City of North Port, Florida, Section2-420, Public Private-Partnerships (P3), subsection (7) b and the Certificates of Participation (COPs) option.
This direction established the framework for evaluating the Solid Waste assessment options.
Based on the baseline analysis, staff requested several assessment funding options from Stantec for Commission consideration. Each scenario provides a different method for generating sufficient revenue to meet operational needs; maintain required fund balances; and support the Solid Waste Transfer Station Project.
Upon the Commission’s direction and selection of a preferred option, staff will coordinate with Stantec to finalize the assessment methodology and bring the final recommendation back for Commission approval.
Strategic Plan Pillar
Infrastructure & Facilities Integrity
Financial Impact
Financial impact to Solid Waste District revenues, expenditures and fees will vary based on the scenario approved for implementation.
Procurement
Not applicable.
Attachments:
1. Presentation
Prepared by: Garrett Woods, CPWP-M, Senior Business Manager
Department Director: Chuck Speake, Public Works Director