Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Waseca County staff present two alternatives to fund solid-waste operations; commissioners direct modeling of a tiered option

Waseca County Board of Commissioners · July 22, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff presented two solid-waste funding approaches — a flat-rate fee and a commercial square-footage tier — and showed a model that would raise roughly $460,000; commissioners asked staff to model scenario 3 (tiered commercial, flat residential) and return a resolution for the board to consider.

Staff member presented two options to change how Waseca County funds solid-waste operations, saying, “we came up with 2 scenarios.” The flat-rate scenario used a $50 residential fee and a $200 commercial fee and produced an estimated $468,000 in revenue; staff noted a median residential bill would rise from about $35 to $50, roughly a 46% increase. Commissioners and staff discussed the trade-offs between moving operations into a fee versus retaining costs in the property-tax levy.

Under the second approach staff described, residential accounts would remain a single flat fee while commercial and industrial properties would be placed in square-footage tiers (examples provided: $85 for 0–2,500 sq ft; $135 for 2,500–5,000; $200 for 5,000–10,000; $310 for 10–20k; larger accounts up to $3,500). Staff said tiering aligns charges to likely service use and would only require recalculation when a property adds significant building area. Staff also noted administrative gains from moving away from a unit-based system to a special-assessment upload process.

Commissioners raised equity concerns for farms and bare land paying under the levy and discussed apartment buildings and businesses that share dumpsters. One committee member framed the policy trade-off: shifting operating costs to a fee increases transparency and ties cost to service users, while keeping costs on the levy spreads costs across property owners whether or not they use the transfer station. There was no formal vote; the board asked staff to model scenario 2, 3, or a hybrid and return a resolution with system mock-ups and implementation impacts.