HOW WE SEE IT: Who Will Take Out This Garbage?

— Two regional waste districts were stripped of most of their revenue recently by court decisions.

Apparently, they have an option to raise revenue locally but at least one of those districts is reluctant to take the step.

This sensitivity to the local anti-tax mood is one good reason why there are regional solid waste districts.

These districts exist because nobody wanted one state agency deciding where local landfills will go, what hours they will operate and what type of waste they will accept. We agree with the principle. We also acknowledge that the geology of Arkansas is wide and varied. There is no “one size fits all” way to manage waste that works as well in the Ozarks as it does, for instance, in the Grand Prairie.

The state’s regional waste districts are run by boards that consist largely of city mayors and the local county judge or judges - the people in charge of getting the trash hauled off, and the ones who face the consequences if anything goes wrong.

Creation of these districts some 40 years ago stopped a lot of open dumping. They haven’t totally cured the problem of illegal dumping, of course, but things are a lot better than before. The districts also run recycling, figure out how to dispose of household hazardous waste and bulky items including tires and help handle electronics and cartridge recycling. They stop a lot of troublesome things from getting into landfills.

Our two local districts also had the budget stuffing knocked out of them last week by court rulings that districts covering Benton, Washington and Madison counties cannot collect waste assessment fees because they don’t directly handle the garbage. The Boston Mountain Solid Waste District, which covers Washington and Madison counties, could lose about $200,000 in expected revenue in the last two quarters of the year. The Benton County Solid Waste District projected about $180,000 in revenue lost from a $450,000 budget.

Last week, the Benton County district’s board split over the idea of imposing a fee on county residents that would be gathered by the tax collector. State law apparently allows the district’s board to impose such a fee by a simple majority vote. Some members objected to imposing a fee without a vote by the people.

While we admire their sensitivity on the issue, we must point out that unless somebody comes up with more money - either directly or by asking member cities and counties to hike their contributions - there is no way to make up for lost revenue without going to the Legislature when it convenes in January.

In this year’s budget and economic environment, we thoroughly doubt that any appeal to the state for either state taxpayer money or a new state-imposed tax will get passed without a lot of opposition, a lot of scrutiny in how these districts operate and a lot of strings attached.

We’d be glad to have the scrutiny but the possible attachment of strings worries us. We recommend that the district come forward with a legislative proposal that can be pre-filed and examined by the public as soon as possible. We also recommend that the districts come up with realistic local options, including permanent cost cuts.

The last thing we want is some measure hammered out by the Legislature and to be forced into a budget corner that requires us to accept it, whatever the result.

Opinion, Pages 8 on 07/25/2010

Upcoming Events