Dec 22, 2014 3 min read

Washington officials adopted the 2015 budget with no tax increase amid a testy debate over garbage that devolved into shouting at some points between the mayor and a councilman.

Mayor Brenda Davis raised questions about whether the city was overcharging residents for garbage collection and why a surplus from the budget’s solid waste fund was being transferred to pay for other administrative services.

“I’m not going to sit here and rubber stamp something,” Davis said. “We need every single one of our eyes on this (budget) to make sure we’re not in the same position we were a few years ago.”

But Councilman Joe Manning said the solid waste fund must help pay for administrative services associated with garbage collection and that the increased fee to residents two years ago was caused by a lack of competition in bidding.

Both argued at length with each other and got personal at times, an escalation from the Dec. 4 meeting in which the council failed to pass the 2015 budget. Like before, Davis and Councilwoman Tracie Graham voted against the $12.85 million budget, while Manning and Councilman Terry Faust voted in favor.

However, the deciding vote to pass the budget Monday night came from Councilman Ken Westcott, who did not attend the previous meeting because he was recovering from knee replacement surgery at the time.

The budget increases spending by just $35,000 over 2014’s plan with no property tax increase.

Several residents asked council to reduce the annual $243 garbage fee that is part of the three-year contract with Waste Management. It increased from $173 in the previous contract due to what Manning said was the result of last-minute changes to the bid request that whittled away potential competitors. He thinks the city will be in a better position in 2016 when it bids the service again and expects to receive more options. The current contract with Waste Management expires at the end of 2015.

Manning added that there are “direct and indirect” administrative costs included in the fee that go above just the contract with Waste Management. He said the solid waste fund is not “excessive” and won’t require a fee increase next year.

Davis disagreed and suggested those administrative line items are too high and should be lumped into the general fund rather than coming from solid waste services.

“That’s what we’re not agreeing on, we’re not considering it reasonable,” Davis said. “You cannot overcharge for a service you’re contracted for and attach all of these other (administrative) services.”

Davis, who wanted a workshop session before Monday night’s meeting to discuss the spending plan, said she still wants to revisit the solid waste fund in January.