CSWD closes 2026 preliminary budget hearing with no public comment; board adopts enforcement hearing policy

The Chittenden Solid Waste District on Jan. 22 closed a public hearing on its proposed preliminary fiscal 2026 budget after no members of the public attended or spoke, adopted a formal policy setting procedures for enforcement hearings, and reviewed recent changes to Vermont’s open meetings law.

The board opened the hearing on the draft 2026 budget — the fiscal year that runs July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026 — and noted a correction to how tipping-fee lines were displayed in the published packet. Executive Director Sarah said the misordered lines did not change the bottom-line figure, which she stated as a total income of $16,000,004. With no public attendees online or in the South Burlington meeting room, commissioners moved and seconded a motion to close the public hearing, and the motion passed by voice vote.

The board then proceeded with regular business, beginning with the formal welcome of John Belparta as CSWD’s new director of finance. Sarah introduced Belparta and noted his background as a CPA and recent experience with NetSuite; Belparta said he recently worked as a commercial pilot and is “much happier to be here.”

On a separate agenda item, the board adopted a written enforcement-hearing process policy intended to codify steps staff and the board follow when compliance matters advance toward a formal hearing. Sarah said the policy reflects recommendations from the district’s attorney and reiterates procedures already in the district ordinance. The document adds a provision giving the chair discretion to accept relevant third-party testimony, Sarah said, and clarifies that quasi-judicial enforcement hearings use one vote per commissioner rather than population-weighted voting.

Joey, CSWD’s compliance manager, summarized appeal rights spelled out in the ordinance: a respondent may appeal an executive-board decision to the full board, and after that the respondent may seek review in the Environmental Court of Vermont. Sarah told commissioners that once an executive-board determination is issued in writing and signed by the chair, that written document becomes the operative notice and a separate confirmatory vote is not required.

Staff also briefed commissioners on changes to Vermont’s open meeting law that took effect this year. Sarah said the law requires annual training (she and Paul have already taken the roughly 38½-minute training offered by the secretary of state’s office), and confirmed that local public bodies must designate and staff a physical meeting location even when offering a hybrid option. She warned that hybrid meetings that produce non-unanimous votes require roll-call voting and that actions taken in violation of the open meeting law may be invalidated and must be reconsidered in compliance with the statute.

In other business commissioners discussed whether to form an ad hoc board committee to review the district’s new materials-recovery facility project. Some commissioners said a full-board deep-dive at the next meeting would benefit all members; staff noted the project is well advanced in design and vendor selection but faces outstanding items including a wetlands delineation, permit work and an anticipated tariff that could raise material costs. Commissioners agreed to schedule an extended project update at the next full meeting rather than form an immediate ad hoc group.

Before adjourning, the board accepted the consent agenda — which included minutes, program and finance reports and the formal retirement of an earlier ad hoc committee — and then adjourned by voice vote.

The board chair indicated the finance committee will hold a full-day review of the FY2026 budget on Feb. 19; that meeting will be open to the public.