Huntersville board weighs replacing $154 solid-waste fee with higher property tax or larger fee

Huntersville staff told the board at a budget workshop that the town's $154 solid-waste fee produces about $3.4 million in revenue but currently covers a shrinking share of collection costs, prompting debate over whether to raise the fee, roll the revenue into the property-tax rate, or adopt a cost-driven fee policy.

Jackie, the staff presenter, walked the board through audited FY25 numbers and a spreadsheet of scenarios. She cautioned that "I would not recommend that you eliminate it without replacing it with something," and said rolling the fee into the tax rate would most likely require a property-tax increase. Using the FY25 baseline, staff showed that fully replacing the fee with tax revenue would require a tax-rate change roughly in the 2.1- to 2.25-cent range.

The board tested household impacts using the county's reported median Huntersville home value of $447,800. Under one scenario presented, moving the solid-waste revenue into the tax rate would lower the line-item fee to zero but raise the tax portion of a typical bill; staff estimated that a median homeowner could see about a $60 net change in the July property-tax bill under those conditions, while commercial property owners would experience larger percentage increases because most commercial parcels do not receive town collection service.

A board member argued for a policy that ties the fee to the actual annual cost so the town does not repeatedly shift the general-fund burden to cover collection. "If it's $277 this year, that's what we charge people," the member said, urging what they called "ripping off the band-aid" so future years would not require repeated adjustments. Jackie and other staff noted that costs rise with tipping fees, contract inflation and monthly growth in accounts, and that any change should include an alternative revenue source if the fee is reduced or eliminated.

Board members also raised fairness questions: a flat per-residence fee affects lower-value homeowners differently than higher-value homeowners, while rolling costs into the tax rate spreads the burden by assessed value and affects vehicle taxation differently, because vehicle value is part of the tax levy calculation but not part of the flat fee. Staff warned that sales-tax receipts and assessed-value shifts in surrounding jurisdictions create uncertainty in forecasting whether rolling the fee into the rate would yield long-term revenue stability.

No formal motion or vote was taken. Staff asked the board to provide direction or feedback before the manager brings the recommended budget in May; the board paused and planned additional discussion at upcoming budget sessions.