Chittenden Solid Waste District debates $10 per‑ton increase to solid waste management fee to cover MRF shortfall

The Chittenden Solid Waste District Board of Commissioners discussed a staff recommendation on March 26, 2025 to raise the district’s solid waste management fee from $30 per ton to $40 per ton and to adopt a formula to adjust the fee annually using a rolling 12‑month average of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics garbage-and-trash consumer price index.

Sarah, the district’s executive director, presented data showing the fee historically has lagged the industry-specific inflation measure and said indexing to the garbage-and-trash CPI would reduce the need for infrequent large increases. "My recommendation is to raise it to 40," Sarah said, adding that the industry index would have placed the fee near that level had the district followed it over the last two decades.

Staff told the board the proposed $10 increase would generate roughly $1.5 million in the first year if tonnage remains near the budgeted 128,000 tons, and that revenue would be directed primarily to the capital reserve to cover a projected shortfall on the new materials recovery facility (MRF). Staff said current estimates put the MRF cost near $37.4 million and that the district now faces a shortfall of about $4.2 million compared with earlier expectations.

The district’s charter and local ordinance authorize the solid waste management fee; staff said changes to a set dollar amount in the ordinance would require a formal ordinance amendment and a public process (posting, a 30‑day notice period and a citizen petition option that could force a public vote). Staff said the board would present recommended language for the ordinance and proposed indexing approach at a future meeting.

Commissioners and public stakeholders raised questions about distributional impacts. Several commissioners asked about household impacts; staff estimated an average household would see only modest changes in annual cost because household disposal varies, but exact impacts depend on individual subscription sizes and hauler billing. Tom (commissioner) and others noted that households that already reduce waste by recycling or composting would see lower per-household impacts.

Mike Cassella, representing a hauling firm, said the fees are often invisible to end customers because they are embedded in hauler billing, and warned that increases will be passed through to commercial customers and institutions. "I do think that the fees are kinda hidden to the consumer," Mike said, and urged staff to quantify business impacts and work with haulers and institutional customers.

Staff described alternatives and why they did not recommend them: raising the MRF tip fee would have required a substantially larger per‑ton increase at the plant (staff said an extra $25–$30 per ton at the MRF would be needed to raise equivalent revenue), which would risk losing tonnage to other facilities and make the MRF noncompetitive. Staff also said concentrating costs only on drop‑off center users would be inequitable because only a minority of generators use those centers.

No vote was taken; staff said they will return to the board with proposed ordinance language and additional financial projections, and that the matter is scheduled for further discussion at the next meeting.