Board adopts solid‑waste financing ordinance after industry objections and MMPC opposition

The Ottawa County Board of Commissioners voted June 23 to adopt a solid‑waste financing ordinance designed to generate ongoing revenue for landfill remediation, materials‑management operations and related capital needs.

The proposal would impose a per‑ton user fee on solid‑waste disposal at county facilities to address legacy costs and fund materials‑management programs. County staff said the fee shifts a portion of long‑term remediation and program costs away from general taxpayers; commissioners described it as an effort to make users of landfill capacity bear a fair share of future costs.

The ordinance drew strong objections from local waste‑industry representatives and the Materials Management Planning Committee (MMPC). Tom Mahoney of Republic Services told the board the MMPC had unanimously voted to oppose the ordinance as presented and asked the board to allow the committee to define financing needs and ordinance language. "We were asking that the committee be allowed to work through the process to better understand and define the financing needs and the ordinance language," Mahoney said.

Russ Borsma of Aerowaste asked for clearer budget language and an annual reporting requirement so haulers can explain a new county fee to their customers; he suggested the ordinance include explicit language requiring a public annual report on how revenues are spent.

Board members debated multiple technical and policy issues: how much of the county’s own waste should be shielded from the fee, enforcement mechanics, the possibility of remitting some revenue to origin counties, and whether certain definitions (for example, "reasonable notice" and "relevant records") needed tightening. County staff confirmed many of the data points underlying the ordinance are regularly reported to the state and that origin‑county information is technically feasible to track.

Several amendments were proposed and rejected; one amendment to set a zero in‑county fee and charge out‑of‑county waste a higher fee was defeated. Commissioners ultimately approved a revision that clarifies the county board’s approval is required before certain cross‑county fees may be collected at local disposal facilities.

Commissioners emphasized monitoring and flexibility: several members said they wanted regular reporting and the ability to adjust the program as actual costs and behavior become clearer. County staff and supporters said the ordinance covers a 10‑year funding horizon for multiple capital and operating needs while providing a mechanism to revisit the formula and reporting requirements.

The MMPC’s June 17 letter — delivered to the board a day before the meeting — urged delay until the county completes the materials‑management plan and provides clearer budget projections. MMPC membership includes representatives of local haulers, recovery facilities and municipal officials; the committee’s unanimous opposition was noted on the record during the meeting.

What happens next: staff will implement the ordinance under the terms approved by the board and produce the reporting required by the final language; county officials said they will continue to meet with industry partners and the MMPC to refine implementation, monitoring and enforcement.

(Reporting note: quotations and actions are recorded from the board’s June 23, 2026 meeting.)