Chester presents 2025 budget with $50 rubbish fee increase amid pension and legal-cost pressures

City of Chester officials presented an overview of the proposed 2025 budget at a public hearing Dec. 9, 2024, emphasizing a balanced general fund before accounting for unpaid prior-year pension costs and several budgetary pressures including a decline in certain Commonwealth cash-flow support and elevated projected legal expenses.

The city’s chief financial officer, Richard Troutman, told council and members of the public that “there’s no real estate or library tax increases proposed in this budget,” and that, before unpaid prior-year pension costs, general‑fund revenues and expenses are equal. Troutman outlined a mix of grant-funded investments (including ARPA, CETA and LSA) and operating adjustments proposed for 2025.

Why this matters: The budget frames how Chester will cover day-to-day services and several one-time or grant-funded projects while responding to a year‑to‑year drop in available cash and rising litigation costs. Council and the public focused on who will bear service costs, how delinquent accounts will be enforced and the size of contingency spending for pensions and legal fees.

Major budget points

- Rubbish fee: The budget proposes increasing the annual residential solid‑waste (rubbish) fee by $50, from $300 to $350. City staff said the increase is intended to bring fees closer to the cost of contracted collection and tipping; the projected general‑fund subsidy for rubbish next year is about $525,000. Troutman said the fee increase “is the only increase that our residents will see this year.”

- Collections and delinquency enforcement: The administration plans more aggressive and earlier collection efforts for delinquent rubbish fees and delinquent real‑estate taxes. Staff described a timeline change that would align delinquency enforcement to a Dec. 31 year‑end and an intent to begin stronger legal collection steps for large, multi‑year accounts. City officials said roughly 30% of annual rubbish fees go unpaid in a typical year, producing “multi‑millions” in outstanding balances over time.

- Pension and cash‑flow pressures: Troutman said the city had “about $7,000,000 less to work with next year,” and that roughly $3,000,000 of that change reflects a lower TRAN (a Commonwealth short‑term cash loan that had been reduced). The budget includes an added supplemental pension contribution the city expects to pay above the actuarially determined minimum municipal obligation.

- Legal fees and bankruptcy costs: The city projects about $4,000,000 in legal expenditures for fiscal 2025, up from about $2,000,000 projected for 2024. Officials said the increase stems from the city taking responsibility for legal bills previously paid by the Commonwealth and from anticipated bankruptcy‑related case work. Troutman said the city began paying some of those outside counsel bills in late 2024.

- Grants and capital: Troutman said ARPA funds remain a major capital resource, with the 30‑million initial award nearly fully allocated to projects; roughly $9.1 million of ARPA was identified for spending in the next year. Other named grant lines include CETA (about $2 million targeted investments), LSA (about $1 million), and various smaller grants totaling about $2.5 million. Specific line items called out in the presentation include about $277,000 for Lloyd Street bridge work (city share), roughly $945,000 designated for roads (CETA), about $500,000 for demolition, approximately $600,000 for equipment, and nearly $400,000 for trails and parks.

- Staffing and operating changes: The budget adds eight cadet positions; staff said those costs will be phased in so full benefit costs do not materialize immediately. Officials reported several retirements will not be backfilled and highlighted contract reductions and insurance savings as part of the plan to close the fiscal gap without raising real‑estate or library taxes.

Public questions and council discussion

Residents asked for department‑level detail on where the $7 million difference occurred and whether positions were filled. Livia Smith, who identified herself and provided a street address during public comment, asked for clarification on departmental givebacks and legal‑fee trends. City staff responded with line‑item explanations (pensions, fewer capital purchases charged to the general fund, insurance and workers’‑comp adjustments, and reductions in expected use of a state TRAN loan). Officials noted some savings resulted from lower than expected health‑insurance cost growth and contract reductions.

What the hearing did not decide

The hearing provided the administration’s budget presentation and public comment; the transcript records no formal council vote adopting the budget at that session. Multiple items described in the presentation — including the proposed rubbish fee increase, the timing of delinquent collection changes, and the allocation of grant funds — were presented as the administration’s proposals and expected actions for council consideration.

Ending

City officials said they would finalize ARPA project designations and continue work on collections and contract decisions in the coming weeks. Troutman and other finance staff invited council members to engage earlier in the budget process in subsequent years.