Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Sites topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bonner County officials weigh options as unattended trash sites are repeatedly misused
Summary
Bonner County solid waste staff told commissioners unattended household collection sites are being used for commercial dumping and large-item disposal; staff recommended a standalone discussion to consider closing sites, limiting hours, adding attendants, or installing compactors.
Bonner County solid waste staff told the Board of County Commissioners on Oct. 5 that two unattended household collection sites are being repeatedly misused by people dumping appliances, mattresses and commercial loads.
The discussion matters because the county pays for cleanup and staff time when sites intended for household use are treated like commercial drop-offs, increasing costs for all ratepayers.
Melissa Galt, operations manager for the county solid waste program, said the county’s unattended sites are being abused: “because they're not attended, everybody dumps up their appliances. It's supposed to be for household… residents are using it. The community… they dispose of mattresses, appliances. Last year, we had a motor home up there that we had to go up and dismantle.”
Galt and Director Bob Howard described the county’s network: 13 collection sites total, including two unattended “households-only” sites, four attended household-only sites and seven full service sites. Staff reported seasonal staffing of 30 employees, two seasonal, and provided tonnage and material breakdowns for the year so far (wood ground: 4,901 tons; metal baled: 1,351 tons; metal revenue cited at about $121,000). Galt said commercial vehicles and businesses are using the unattended sites, a pattern the department has raised previously with local stakeholders including the Schweitzer community, Fish and Game and the highway district.
Commissioners and staff discussed realistic responses: close the sites, convert them to attended sites with limited open days, restrict use to residents only, or install a trash compactor paid for by a local association with the county continuing haul costs. Galt described the compactor option as one Schweitzer stakeholders had proposed, and noted liability concerns: the county could be only removing compacted waste while another party would assume installation and equipment liability.
No formal vote was taken. Commissioners directed staff to prepare a focused workshop on the future of the two unattended sites presenting options, expected costs and liability implications for each option; staff said they will return with the requested information.
The county also discussed enforcement and public education as part of any response, including re-running public-service announcements explaining correct site use. Commissioners stressed that changes could affect sticker fees and the county budget if staffing or equipment costs increase.
Galt asked commissioners whether the county should hold a standalone discussion; the board agreed to schedule a workshop so commissioners could review options and cost estimates before budget season.
Funding and implementation details for any chosen option were not decided at the meeting; staff will provide more cost information at the next workshop.
