Case Title: NW VT Solid Waste v. Central VT Solid Waste

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-619


 Northwest Vermont Solid Waste                Supreme Court
 Management District
                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Washington Superior Court

 Central Vermont Solid Waste                  May Term, 1992
 Management District


 Alan W. Cheever, J.

 Steven F. Stitzel of Stitzel & Page, P.C., Burlington, for
   plaintiff-appellant

 J. Paul Giuliani of McKee, Giuliani & Cleveland, P.C., Montpelier, for
   defendant-appellee Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Conrad W. Smith, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee State


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Northwest Solid Waste Management District, which disposes
 of solid waste at landfills in central Vermont, appeals from a superior
 court order upholding a charge on that disposal imposed by Central Vermont
 Solid Waste Management District.  We affirm.
      Both Northwest and Central Vermont are union municipal solid waste
 management districts chartered by the Vermont Legislature.  Northwest
 disposes nearly all of the waste generated in its district at two privately
 owned landfills located within the Central Vermont district.  The charge at
 issue, provided for in an ordinance promulgated by Central Vermont, imposes
 a $4-per-ton fee on all solid waste deposited at landfills in the district.
 It is collected by the landfills, paid into Central Vermont's general fund
 and, together with revenue from annual assessments to member
 municipalities, used by Central Vermont to carry out its planning and
 management functions.  Northwest challenged the charge in superior court,
 seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory ruling that the charge was
 unlawful.  The court concluded that the charge was a properly authorized fee
 for which Northwest received services and entered summary judgment for
 Central Vermont.
      On appeal, Northwest argues that Central Vermont lacks a grant of
 authority, in either its charter or related statutes, to impose a charge for
 services that it does not directly provide.  It further argues that the
 charge is an impermissible tax, rather than a fee, because the revenues
 collected are not used to provide services to those who pay it, and that the
 Legislature did not convey to Central Vermont the authority to impose such a
 tax.  Finally, Northwest argues that the trial court erred by going outside
 the parties' stipulation of facts when it concluded that the charge was a
 fee, rather than a tax, for which Northwest "certainly receives benefits,
 although perhaps indirect, in terms of planning and other services of
 Central Vermont."  We are persuaded that Central Vermont has the authority
 to impose the disputed charge, whether it is deemed a fee or a tax, and that
 Northwest receives benefits from Central Vermont in return for the charge.
       In 1987, the Legislature reinforced the state's comprehensive scheme
 for the management of solid waste by requiring the involvement of each
 municipality through participation in regional districts.  1987, No. 78, {
 3; 24 V.S.A. { 2202a(c).  Furthermore, Act 78 declares as the state's policy
 that "[t]he generators of waste should pay disposal costs that reflect the
 real costs to society of waste management and disposal."  10 V.S.A. {
 6601(3).   Each municipality has responsibility for participating in a
 regional district, 24 V.S.A. 2202a(c)(1), and each region is required to
 develop a plan to meet the priorities established by 10 V.S.A. { 6604(a)(1).
 24 V.S.A. { 2202a(c)(2).  Section 6604(a)(1) establishes the following
 priorities in descending order: reduction in the amount of waste generated,
 reuse and recycling, waste processing to reduce volume, and, last, disposal
 of residuals.  The real cost to society of waste management and disposal
 thus includes the costs for implementing each of these priorities, which
 combine "to reduce the amount of waste generated and to promote
 environmentally acceptable and economical means of waste management."  10
 V.S.A. { 6601(2).
      Central Vermont's charter grants the district broad powers that enable
 it to fulfill its statutorily mandated responsibilities.  1987, No. M-8.
 The ordinance at issue relies on sections 5(a), (h), and (u) of Article I of
 the charter for authority to impose the disputed charge.  Northwest argues
 that section 5(a), which allows Central Vermont "to operate, cause to be
 operated, and/or contract for the operation of any and all facilities for
 the collection, transportation, resource recovery, recycling and disposal of
 solid waste, and to determine and make proper charges for such services,"
 should be construed to prohibit charges for any service not directly
 provided by Central Vermont.  The trial court held otherwise, but we need
 not address this provision, or others expressly relied upon in the
 ordinance, because we conclude that a different section of Central Vermont's
 charter provides adequate authority for the disputed charge.
      In Article IV, section 8 of the charter, the Legislature explicitly
 granted to Central Vermont the authority to set fees for solid waste
 disposal within its district.  Section 8 provides that the district's "Board
 of Supervisors may from time to time establish and adjust a disposal fee
 structure (tipping fee) for the purpose of generating revenues from sources
 other than assessments to member municipalities, particularly concerning the
 operation and maintenance of any District solid waste and/or resource
 recovery facility."  This grant of authority is clear, and we do not read
 the word "particularly" as limiting Central Vermont to make charges at
 landfills that it may operate.  We give the word its plain and commonly
 accepted meaning, Central Vermont Railway v. Department of Taxes, 144 Vt.
 601, 604,