Commissioners at the Chittenden Solid Waste District on July 30 requested more frequent, clearer reporting on the district's reserve-designated funds and sought updated information on a City of Burlington recycling generation tax the district has been paying.

Board members asked staff to add flags or notes showing when a reserve balance changes and what the target or purpose of each fund is, to make it easier for commissioners who review the packet intermittently to see why numbers moved. "I would love . . . an indicator on a monthly basis whether it's changed or not," Commissioner Ken said during the consent-agenda discussion. Staff said they will present a fuller year-end accounting in September and intend to update some of the reserve balances monthly going forward.

The discussion also touched on whether CSWD is obligated to pay a Burlington charge that the presenters described as a recycling generation tax levied on haulers who collect recycling in the city. Executive Director Alan (role identified in the packet as executive director) said the district has paid a fee historically tied to Burlington's bag revenue and that the district's memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Burlington expired in 2008. "We no longer have an active MOA with the city for this tax," Alan said. He said he has requested a meeting with Burlington's Department of Public Works to clarify responsibility and related benefits to host communities.

Staff told the board the tax doubled starting July 1 to about $12.06 per household from roughly $6 and that, under the district's prior MOA language, the cost was folded into the bag price rather than billed separately. Alan and staff said the annual dollar impact on CSWD is small, roughly a few thousand dollars a year, but the increase and the timing of notice are matters for follow-up. "It was not in our budget," Alan said. Commissioners asked whether host communities such as Essex could require payments for road maintenance; staff replied that such arrangements are typically handled through lease or MOA language and that CSWD has several site-specific agreements.

The board removed two consent-agenda reports (the finance warrant and the executive director update) for discussion and, after staff's explanations, accepted the remaining consent items as presented. Staff said they will circulate an explanatory memo about fund targets and plan to present final fiscal 2025 year-end figures at the September meeting so commissioners can see how reserve-designated funds moved during the year.

The discussion included technical clarifications from staff about how designated reserves are recorded in CSWD's financial statements: "The funds are actually a claim against equity," a staff member identified as John said. Staff explained the cash is commingled although the district maintains labeled designations for particular purposes (for example, a capital fund for the Murph project, a landfill post-closure fund, a community cleanup fund) and some funds are capped until operational calculations require adjustment. Commissioners recommended additional monthly context and clearer hierarchies or labels; staff agreed and noted a memo exists that will be recirculated and that the September presentation will include year-end reconciliations.

The matter was presented as informational; the board did not take new policy action on the tax or the reserves at the July meeting and directed staff to follow up with Burlington and provide more regular reporting to the board.