Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Recycling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional waste district outlines 2025 performance, says rates likely stable through 2027
Summary
Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling District presented 2025 operational and financial results to Millcreek Council, citing districtwide collections, a 21% curbside diversion in Millcreek, and cost‑saving measures intended to avoid rate increases through 2027.
Get email alerts on the Waste Recycling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evan Tyrrell, general manager of the Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling District, told the Millcreek City Council the district served about 86,500 homes in 2025, including nearly 16,000 in Millcreek, and that it collected more than 100,000 tons of trash and 18,000 tons of recycling last year. Tyrrell highlighted Millcreek’s curbside diversion rate of approximately 21 percent in 2025, exceeding the district goal of 19 percent, and tied lower local tipping costs to strong participation in green‑waste and glass diversion programs.
Tyrrell described several operational and financial measures intended to hold rates steady through at least 2027: prioritizing routing and fleet efficiencies, adjusting billing formats to reduce costs, and a recent vendor change for payment processing that is expected to save roughly $140,000 annually. He said a minor e‑billing issue led some customers to see apparent duplicate charges but “was quickly identified as a processing glitch and has since been resolved.” Council members asked about service boundaries and the seasonal container reservation program (SCRP); Tyrrell said waitlisted customers were given priority year‑to‑year and staff are evaluating a potential SCRP overhaul in 2027 to expand capacity and reduce delivery costs.
The presentation included specific cost pressures the district is watching: recycling market volatility, rising labor and fuel costs, and higher vehicle procurement costs (CNG trucks were noted to be about $60,000 more than diesel models). Tyrrell also described targeted policy tools such as a nominal return‑trip fee and a recycling contamination fee intended as enforcement after education measures. No Council action was required; the report was received for discussion.
