Polk County board approves recycling special charge as two-year pilot after amendment

The Polk County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 12 approved Resolution 54-24 to impose a recycling special charge on property tax bills, voting to adopt the measure as amended so it applies to the 2024 and 2025 property tax bills.

Board members spent much of the meeting debating whether the change should be permanent or run as a pilot, and how to apply charges fairly across property types. "We're putting ourselves in a position to make a $300,000 cut in a year," said Speaker 6, warning that freeing levy funds this year could force future cuts if the special charge is later discontinued. Speaker 3 countered: "I already paid for recycling. I don't know why I gotta pay again." Staff cited concerns that a one-year pilot may not allow enough time to deploy equipment and measure results; Speaker 12 said a two-year pilot would give staff time to install equipment and evaluate performance.

Why it mattered: The measure shifts the way recycling is funded from the general levy to a special charge on property tax bills, which officials said will change who pays for recycling services. Supporters pointed to other Wisconsin counties that use a similar approach; opponents said the plan as written risks charging small outbuildings the same fee as a house and could create equity and legal problems unless exemptions and charging rules are clarified.

How the board acted: The board debated and voted on two separate amendments. An amendment to strike certain Whereas clauses (lines 9–12 and parts of 15) failed on roll call. A subsequent amendment to extend the special charge to both the 2024 and 2025 tax bills (effectively a two-year pilot and related clerical edits to lines 11 and 16) was proposed, seconded and folded into the final resolution. A roll-call vote on the final, amended resolution recorded the following votes (yes/no): Ralph Sargent: yes; Keith Karpinski: yes; John Bonaprise: yes; Brad Olsen: yes; Doug Rowdy: yes; Steve Warnock: no; Pamela Garvey: no; Tracy LeBlanc: yes; Dan Rock: yes; Sharon Kelly: yes; Jeremy Hall: yes; Tim O'Connell: yes; Jay Luke: yes; Francis Duncanson: no. The board approved the resolution by recorded vote.

What remains unresolved: Several supervisors asked staff to clarify who will be charged (for example, whether multiple parcels with a single household or outbuildings would be billed separately) and how exemptions will be applied. Multiple speakers requested clearer definitions of property types and an explanation of implementation steps. Legal counsel noted that removing a Whereas would be largely scrivener's change and not necessarily alter substantive effect, but board members nonetheless pressed for precise language to avoid ambiguity.

Next steps: Staff were asked to return with clarifications about exemptions, implementation mechanics and how the county will monitor the pilot's financial and operational effects over the two-year period. The board moved on to other agenda items after the vote.