TORRINGTON – The City of Torrington held a public meeting Wednesday evening to present the city’s justification for proposed changes to the sanitation ordinance and to allow the city council to hear from concerned citizens. The most recent public draft of the ordinance included two provisions which have caused widespread concern among Torrington residents and the business community: an increase in fees for most sanitation services by 6% in 2025, 6% in 2026, and 3% every year thereafter; and a prohibition on private trash collection vendors providing any services within city limits.

The meeting opened with introductory remarks from Torrington Mayor Herb Doby, who stated it was the council’s constitutional duty to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of Torrington residents. He emphasized sanitation has always been treated as a public utility in the town and noted increased fees are not the same as increased taxes. He then urged the group to support additional taxes during the general election by voting “yes” on the proposed 1% optional sales tax in Goshen County.

Mayor Doby also informed those in attendance during the first reading of the proposed updated ordinance, there was no verbal reading of the ordinance into the record, which disqualifies the vote by the council from being counted as an approved first reading. Therefore, a new first reading will be held at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on November 19.

City clerk/treasurer Lynette Strecker and city engineer Jeff Harkins then presented the argument for the city’s determination which it needs a new baler facility. The presentation included two updates to the previous draft: the first updated the proposed automatic 3% annual increases which are proposed to start after the two 6% increases in 2025 and 2026. The new draft language allows the council to forgo or reduce the inflationary increase for the coming year if “the fund has met its target reserves and is capable of paying its operating costs and current and/or future indebtedness.” 

Many residents had requested the council proactively review and approve the increase every year, so the updated language serves as a compromise which does not require the council to vote on the increase annually but allows for a stay in specific and infrequent circumstances.

The second update to the proposed changes concerns the prohibition of other sanitation vendors from providing services within city limits. The new draft allows exceptions for “any business that provides the labor to clean out residential or commercial properties of unwanted items may utilize their own equipment including roll-offs,” and permits other vendors to provide recycling and removal of offal. Mayor Doby stated this would include demolition services, although the new proposed language does not explicitly mention the exception.

The city’s first argument for a new baler facility is, a baler compresses trash into orderly cubes, creating what Strecker described as a “nice and tidy” landfill facility, while a loose landfill without a baler requires daily covering of refuse with dirt. The current baler was originally purchased pre-owned in 1975 for $141,000 and underwent significant improvements and repairs in 2014. Since 2020, the city states it has spent almost $38,000 in repairs on the baler, with repairs becoming increasingly difficult as parts are no longer manufactured. The estimated cost of the new baler and facility is $5.5 million. The sanitation fund’s revenues and expenses were also reviewed, showing a surplus in 2020, 2021, and 2022, but an almost $100,000 deficit in 2023 and a $228,436 deficit in 2024. The deficits were primarily attributed to equipment purchases. In 2024, for example, the city purchased a truck with a dump bed and crane, a roll-off truck, a garbage truck, and a compactor dozer. The city noted the replacement costs for the vehicles is increasing every year.

City staff then reviewed the proposed rate increases. Since the last public meeting, the city reviewed sanitation fees from 60 Wyoming municipalities. Torrington had the 16th highest rate, placing it approximately in the top 25% of Wyoming towns. The city emphasized the comparisons often do not represent “apples to apples.” They encouraged residents to compare Torrington’s fees only to those of Douglas and Powell which have similar populations, even though this comparison remains challenging as Powell collects residential trash twice a week and neither have their own landfill. Of the list of 60 municipalities provided by the city, 23 have contracted out their residential trash services, making them poor comparison points. Even including all 60 Wyoming municipalities, along with Gering and Scottsbluff, Nebraska, the average fee according to the city’s findings is $28.97, while Torrington currently charges $37.44.

Additionally, there seemed to be some confusion from city staff regarding the current charges for a second roll-out container for residential trash. During the budget work session on September 19, city staff stated residents were not being charged for a second roll-out container. However, staff at this meeting indicated an additional $37.44 was being charged. The proposed ordinance would charge $8 for an additional roll-out, which could either represent significant savings or an $8 additional charge for residents, depending on the current practice.

Finally, city staff presented revenue for roll-off services, noting the proposed ordinance would limit the city to operating only within city limits and would prohibit any other providers from operating there. Year-to-date out-of-town revenue for the city indicates out-of-town sales represent 64% of the revenue collected. In prior years, this figure has ranged from 25% to 47%, with a general upward trend. Data was not collected on how many roll-offs are being provided in town by private businesses, which is crucial for determining whether the city has enough equipment to meet new demands if the updated ordinance is passed.

The meeting was then opened for public comment.

Gary Olson representing Olson Tire in Torrington expressed concern over the rate proposed for tire disposal. He stated his business uses roll-off containers to keep discarded material off the city streets but to replicate his current operations using exclusively city services would be cost prohibitive. “We can’t even start to afford (the city rates)” he stated, “we can’t pass (the cost) on, and we can’t absorb it.” He admonished the city council, “doing away with competition is not the answer (…) This is the opposite of economic development.” Beyond his own costs, he identified the higher fees for tire disposal would be a significant cost to farmers who need to dispose of tractor tires. Rather than disposing of the tires at a high cost, they may leave the tires to accumulate on unused property.

Shawn Allen, a local businessman who lives near the site of the proposed new landfill and baler facility, told the council he was displeased with the additional industrial activity would be occurring at the new landfill he was not anticipating. He asked whether the city had looked at maintaining the current baler facility and city staff responded they had not due to the age of the facility. He also asked whether the additional costs of the garbage trucks driving out to the landfill rather than to the existing baler facility had been considered, and city staff said they had not calculated those costs. Finally, Allen stated as a businessperson he understands the importance of keeping expenses low and he does not see effort going into minimizing expenses in the sanitation fund. Considering the D Street project and the proposed projects, he urged the city staff “expenses need addressed.”

Kurt Sittner represented TDS and raised issues of the message the council is sending to the local business community when it votes to “take competition out of the picture.” He said the message is “we really don’t want a new business in town.” He was also concerned about the higher fees for the roll-off containers should they be supplied exclusively by the city. As the fees would be significant for many residents, he projected trash “would have gone to a roll-off will now either be broken up for bins, left in the alley, or left in a county road somewhere” which would defeat the stated effort of the city to maintain a clean and trash-minimal atmosphere. 

LaDonna Feagler spoke on behalf of Nature’s Composites. Feagler stated her business had paid $300 for a roll-off container prior to a significant increase in 2022, which led her to shift to a more cost-efficient vendor. The proposed rate for her city services is $479.23. She stressed the importance of being able to have options for her business.

“I’ve been fortunate enough lately we’ve actually needed to hire a few additional people, and it’s exciting to see people come to work and be happy to get a good wage, to support their families. That means a lot. Nature’s Composite put more than $831,000 worth of payroll into Goshen County last year. We care about our town, but we also have to worry about the bottom line. The proposed rate is more than 270% of what I currently pay,” Feagler said.

Scott Smith, Wyoming State Representative for House District 5, stated he has received many telephone calls regarding the increase. He relayed a conversation with an attorney who questioned whether creating a monopoly for services other than residential trash would be in violation of Wyoming Statute 97, Articles 32 through 35. Section 35 states, “No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be made” which may conflict with the city’s efforts to prohibit contracts for trash services which are not otherwise specifically reserved for municipal service.

“If the city does not support businesses, how will we afford extra fees?” Marie Flanagan, local business owner, questioned 

Flanagan reflected concerns a council which does not factor in the needs of local businesses should not ask for businesses to pay additional fees to support the needs of the city. 

Bob Peterson, local resident, asked if the city had considered all sources of funding like economic development funds or grants in addition to increased revenue. He expressed concerns about increasing construction costs due to the proposed ordinance. He also asked the city staff if they had considered the reason they were not making more in revenue is they are already overcharging for services.

Margaret Martinez asked city staff whether the fees would also increase for Wheatland, who uses Torrington’s landfill. City staff responded there is a Memorandum of Understanding with Wheatland which states the current rate and does not allow the city to unilaterally increase the rate like they can for city residents. She asked the council to consider those who live on a fixed income who would struggle with an increase in trash fees. 

Mark Estes, representing Off the Hook Butcher Shop, echoed previous concerns about solving government financial concerns by limiting private industry. He stated there are many other types of waste which have not been addressed in the ordinance and where services are not provided by the sanitation department, including grease at restaurants and medical waste. Not being able to provide for disposal of various types of waste, he said, would limit new businesses. On the other hand, providing exceptions for every type of waste would undermine the intent of the ordinance. Estes stated Torrington residents and businesses should be able to pay for “luxury services” which are not provided by the city. Further, he questioned if the sanitation department would comply with the proposed ordinance when they acknowledge they have not complied with existing provisions regarding providing roll-off containers outside of city limits. He ended his time with a call for change: “I challenge the city to have a growth mindset rather than a mindset of scarcity.” 

The City Council concluded the meeting with each councilman saying they welcome feedback from the community as they prepare to move forward with the proposed ordinance. The first reading is scheduled to be heard during the council meeting on November 19, with the second and third reading during the December meetings. The ordinance, if passed, will go into effect on January 1, 2025.