Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drop Off Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two surveys show awareness of CSWD drop-off centers but mixed willingness to switch from curbside
Summary
A UVM countywide survey and an in-house drop-off customer survey presented March 25 found strong awareness of CSWD drop-off centers, lower usage (about one-third), affordability and convenience as principal factors, and two favored options for raising capital: a small per-bag trash fee increase and a $1 facility user fee.
Two survey presentations at the March 25 Chittenden Solid Waste District meeting gave staff and commissioners new information about drop-off center use and public preferences for funding capital improvements.
Why it matters: Understanding who uses drop-off centers and how residents prefer to pay helps the district weigh revenue measures and outreach strategies while avoiding unintended diversion consequences.
Countywide survey (UVM Center for Rural Study) Michael Moser of the UVM Center for Rural Study presented a countywide instrument focused on drop-off centers. The February survey reached about 420 Chittenden County residents (margin of error about 4.8%). Key findings included 97% awareness of drop-off centers and only about one-third reporting they use those centers. Respondents who do use drop-off centers frequently cited affordability and the ability to bring multiple materials at once; those who do not use centers most often cited curbside convenience, mobility constraints and concern about putting trash in a personal vehicle.
In-house drop-off customer survey (SurveyMonkey) Staff also reported results of an in-house survey run at drop-off centers (780 responses). Respondents were asked to rank four options for raising capital: (1) increasing trash bag fees by roughly $1, (2) charging a $1 facility user fee per visit, (3) charging customers who bring food scraps with trash, and (4) charging $1 for blue-bin recyclables. Raw and weighted results showed a close preference between a modest per-bag fee increase and a $1 facility fee. About 64% of commenting respondents were positive about modest fee options provided the district safeguards diversion outcomes and limits impacts on fixed-income households.
Board reaction and next steps Commissioners discussed marketing opportunities (highlighting cost savings at drop-off centers vs. curbside), equity concerns, and the district’s historical caution about competing with private haulers on convenience. Staff said they would use survey comments to shape outreach and will bring fee/revenue recommendations to the finance committee and into the forthcoming budget discussions.
The surveys will inform upcoming budget deliberations and outreach strategy; staff will present a recommendation to the finance committee as part of the revised budget this spring.
