5.7. SR 11-21-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - - ~:~:- - ..-~~?-~ ....-.-:--..-' 7 .3.4 Rest~~!Urethe'€i~aDd"T OWIi' SolidWasfe Fee' (Minn:-Stat. ~ 115A.921) Twenty cities and nine towns reported revenues from solid waste facilities collected under Minn. Stat. SI15A.921., totaling $7 million. Of this amount, $4 million was spent on solid waste activities in 1993. The remainder was usually set aside for future expenses related to the facility, or transferred into the city's general fund for purchasing or maintaining parks, roads, buildings, or other public infrastructure. State law requires cities and towns to spend 25 percent of fees collected at solid waste facilities and two-thirds of fees collected at construction waste facilities towards solid waste purposes. Four of the twenty cities reporting revenues from facility fees indicated that they are spending the maximum amount allowable on general fund activities. In keeping with theOEA's recommendation to move away from additional facility-based fees, the OEA suggests that the fee be restructured so that all revenues from the fee.are used only for solid waste activities. This change may lead cities and towns with facilities to reduce their reliance on additional facility-based fees to fund a variety of activities. As a result, the fees should more accurately reflect the cost of waste management in that area. 7.3.5 Work to increase efficiency and collections within the current solid waste fee system. A. Greater Minnesota counties and cities could continue the trend of establishing dedicated environmental funds for solid waste revenues and spending. Special funds and enterprise funds, unlike general funds, allow jurisdictions to easily track the collections from solid waste revenues and intragovernmental grants and the spending associated with those revenues. Establishing this structure would help ensure that all funds collected are used for solid waste activities. As is shown in Table 7.1, a number of counties have moved toward this structure in the past seven years~ the OEA recommends that additional counties and cities with solid waste activity adopt this account structure. B. Counties should avoid financing parts of solid waste programs with general tax revenues that provide no incentive for solid waste abatement Local governments should avoid financing parts of solid waste programs with general tax revenues. Instead, governments should use specific, identifiable fees. This issue is especially important for those jurisdictions that have had to drop tip fees at facilities in 1994 and have lost program revenue. The OEA recommends that counties make up this revenue through the use of an identifiable charge that provides an incentive for solid waste abatement (by being tied to the amount of waste generated, for example) rather than through the use of general tax revenues so that waste generators can continue see the true cost of waste management reflected in their bills. In addition, the fee amount in the 46 counties that currently charge solid waste service fees should reflect the total cost of solid waste management. Currently, some governments have OEA - Page 53 - DRAFT