Casella opposes proposed increase in franchise fee

20110318_trashBinsSliderThe state’s largest waste hauler opposes a fee increase that would be used help small recycling centers retool for impending changes in solid waste disposal.

On Tuesday, Casella Waste Systems asked the Senate Finance Committee to strip a provision designed to raise money for smaller recycling businesses that will need to make capital investments in their facilities.

The full Senate will take up a bill designed to subsidize the capital costs of collecting and processing materials that will soon be banned from the state’s landfill under the state’s new recycling law. The bill, S.208, proposes raising the franchise fee haulers pay to bring trash to the state’s landfill by $1 to kick start the new system.

Casella, a $500 million company based in Rutland, says the fee increase should be removed from the bill. Instead, the state should redirect its existing revenue to help small haulers, the company said.

“They want to develop a funding stream and they are doing it on a declining revenue source,” Joseph Fusco, vice president of Casella Waste Systems, told VTDigger on Tuesday. “The more successful the state is in increasing the recycling rate, the less sustainable the franchise tax will be.”

Lawmakers would have to offer a floor amendment to change the bill (which is scheduled for a vote Wednesday), according to Sen. Tim Ashe, D/P Chittenden, the committee’s chairman.

Mandatory composting for some large food producers begins July 1, and next year all recyclables will be banned from the landfill. This is part of a plan to increase the state diversion rate, or the amount of material kept out of the landfill, from a stagnant 36 percent to 50 percent over the next several years.

Lawmakers’ intent is to provide more money to small, rural solid waste districts in need of new equipment and infrastructure, such as new trucks, to deal with the added requirements. The Agency of Natural Resources will decide where the new revenue will go, according to the bill.

“We’re asking for rural areas to maintain a competitive level of service,” said Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange, a member of the committee. “And the larger company is suggesting that maybe that dollar shouldn’t be collected.”

The bill sets up a special account, funded in part through an increase in the waste disposal franchise tax from $6 to $7. (The fee, which has not changed since the 1980s, is placed on each ton of trash brought to a transfer station.)

Casella also recommended allowing more time for stakeholders to tweak a proposed pilot project, which will require some facilities to accept and recycle construction and demolition debris starting July 1. That includes wood, wallboard, asphalt shingles and metal, according to the bill.

Casella said it has the capability to comply with the standards in the pilot program.

“It’s not opposition to this,” Fusco said. “It’s saying let’s do it the best way possible.”

The bill requires municipalities to join a solid waste district to share waste disposal and recycling infrastructure. Towns that do not join one of the districts will not receive state money to prepare for the new system.

The Vermont League of Cities and Towns opposes the mandate to require towns to join solid waste districts because some towns already have programs in place that meet state regulatory standards.

Those towns save money by managing their programs independently rather than sharing resources with their districts, according to Karen Horn, a lobbyist for the organization.

“They are doing the job for considerably less money than their towns would be spending if they were in the districts,” she said, adding that the organization has not evaluated those claims.

Lawmakers want to consolidate districts to simplify reporting requirements to measure the program’s progress and allow towns to share resources to save money.

DSM Environmental Services, a consulting firm from Windsor, last year released a report detailing the phase-in of the state’s universal recycling program set up under Act 148.

If you read us, please support us.

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer.

We moderate every comment. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

John Herrick

Recent Stories

  • Bob Stannard

    Casella has built an empire by skirting and manipulating the system. It’s about time the state takes action to help out the smaller facilities.

    Casella opposes this fee, because it might weaken his monopoly. Thank you Sen. Ash.

  • Do big companies write regulations for smaller competitors to choke on? Say it ain’t so. Not in heroin-free, embezzlement free green mountains. That’s a big city problem.

  • Teddy Hopkins

    Mr Stannard I have been a Selectboard member in Readsboro Vermont for over a decade and my Town has never used Casella for the removal of its routine trash. So a monopoly it isn’t.
    I am of the opinion that a better search for dollars may be the location of the unclaimed 5 cent returnable dollars and why those dollars not funneled back to the solid waste districts?
    Casella is right when this is a fee/tax on a declining revenue same holds true for your energy efficiency charge. All this amounts to is the State getting its foot into the door and forever increasing the fee/tax on rubbish.

    • Bob Stannard

      Mr. Hopkins Casella controls the waste and end disposal for most of Vermont’s waste. I’m delighted that Readsboro has opted to use someone else

  • Craig Kneeland

    The most reasonable legislation would reduce the incentive for transporting trash or compost. Most trucks on our small highways are hauling trash many miles to Coventry. Any reasonable energy conservation proposal needs to address the hauling of garbage on state highways that were not designed for these large trash trucks.

  • Jim Christiansen


    Could you provide a total amount currently collected and a breakdown of how that 6 dollar fee is used/distributed today?

    Is this a dedicated fee?

    The initial recommendation was to double the fee to 12 dollars. Is the fee increase is needed to grow the program or is it a cash grab to fund other needs?


    • Mike foley

      The state should be providing quick facts and education to the general public ,schools ,food banks ,farmers and especially supermarkets and other big producers.This food in the waste stream should be diverted to feed people ,then animals ,no one should have to raise money to pay for good food to be trucked around the state looking for a compost pile