A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

City asks county to pilot downtown recycling trailers to serve apartment residents

August 26, 2025 | Des Moines County, Iowa


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

City asks county to pilot downtown recycling trailers to serve apartment residents
At the Des Moines County Board of Supervisors meeting Aug. 22, a representative of the City of Burlington asked the board to allow the city to pilot placement of one or two county-owned recycling trailers downtown to give apartment and second-story residents a nearby recycling option. The request would use trailers the county owns through an arrangement with the regional solid waste commission and would be tested as a limited pilot before any permanent placement.

The city representative said the Renewable Energy Commission has discussed “putting a recycle bin somewhere in the downtown area for the residents that live downtown,” because many downtown residents “don’t really have options for recycling other than to box it all up, put it in the car, and take it out to area recyclers, which can be an impediment.” He asked the board to consider using one or two of the countytrailers in the downtown area as a pilot.

Supporters and county staff described operational constraints and recommended a trial period. County staff said the trailers require a larger space because collectors need to drop a full trailer while picking up an empty one, and noted the county pays for hauling the material to the processing center. County staff also said there are currently six county trailer locations outside Burlington and that “a couple of extras” are available for a pilot. The city representative suggested a limited pilot — for example, several months including winter — to test whether a downtown site is practical and to avoid removing service from existing rural locations.

Supervisors and county staff raised common concerns about downtown placement, including cross-contamination and improper use. One supervisor recalled a past rural site that became misused when left permanently onsite and described a shift to scheduled pickups ("we'd bring it out for, like, a day or 2, once a week") that reduced misuse. County staff said Danville and other drop-off operations currently run on set days and that staffing/collection schedules would need coordination if a downtown pilot were approved.

The board did not vote on the request at the meeting. The city representative said he would "work with the auditor then to formalize some actionable items to bring to your attention then, and we'll go from there." No fees, formal site, or contract were approved; supervisors asked staff to return a formal proposal for future action.

If the board moves forward, the pilot would test several operational issues identified during the discussion: suitable downtown placement that fits two trailers, a schedule to reduce contamination, hauling logistics paid by the county, and whether the city would consider buying its own unit if a permanent downtown site proves viable.

Details discussed at the meeting include:
- County-owned trailers: staff reported six existing county trailer locations outside Burlington (Flint Hills Golf Course area, south of Burlington, Jarmoth, Washington Road, Kingston and others) and said a couple of trailers are currently unused and could be repurposed for a pilot.
- Operational model: options reviewed included permanent placement (which county staff and supervisors said had led to contamination elsewhere) versus scheduled or weekly placement, which staff said had worked better in other communities.
- Pilot length: the city representative proposed a pilot period (example mentioned: through winter) to evaluate use, compliance and costs; no formal pilot length was set.

Next steps: the city representative will coordinate with the county auditor to present a formal action item and site recommendation to the board. The board gave no formal approval or motion at the Aug. 22 meeting.

The discussion occurred during the regular agenda; no public vote or ordinance change was taken.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Iowa articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI