Council hears city solid‑waste update: recycling center limits, bear‑resistant bins and a proposal to bundle recycling

City solid‑waste staff briefed the Leavenworth City Council on operational constraints at the recycling center, recurring bear activity at commercial collection points, and options to change how residential recycling is funded and delivered.

A staff member in the Feb. 25 meeting said the city collects commercial and multifamily garbage and cardboard; residential single‑stream recycling is optional through the private hauler Waste Management. The city has deployed 50 Kodiak (96‑gallon) cans for commercial customers, but space, equipment and bear activity limit wider use of large plastic toters downtown. The staff member said the city is discussing interim memorandums of understanding with Waste Management to provide metal, bear‑resistant dumpsters to some commercial customers while a longer‑term solution is pursued.

“As we have quite a few bear issues, we’ve been contacted by WDFW on multiple locations where they say they have a bear issue and they’re asking us to do something about it,” the staff member said, adding that the city has pursued a 300‑gallon bear‑resistant tote that would be compatible with the city’s side‑loader trucks. A prototype and quote were expected in summer 2025, the staff member said.

On the recycling center, staff described a constrained site footprint, winter freezing problems and frequent overfilling of yard‑waste containers on opening days. The recycling center is paid for by the city’s garbage enterprise fund; staff reported residents who use the center are not necessarily commercial garbage fund customers, which creates an inequity where commercial and multifamily customers that pay garbage enterprise fees effectively subsidize residential drop‑off recycling.

To address that imbalance and to capture recyclable material currently going to landfill, staff proposed amending the municipal contract with Waste Management to require bundled curbside recycling for residential customers. Under that option, Waste Management customers would receive a curbside recycling container as part of their service and the city could convert the stand‑alone recycling center to a facility focused on commercial single‑stream recycling. Staff and several councilmembers discussed cost impacts and the fact that many residential customers already opt into curbside recycling (staff cited about a 70% participation rate among in‑city Waste Management accounts).

Staff and council also discussed glass recycling: there is currently no local market in eastern Washington accepting glass; vendors who handled glass on the West Side have closed. Staff said the state is studying glass solutions but no local processing outlet exists now, so much glass ends up in landfill.

Staff noted smaller‑scale operational fixes already in use elsewhere — for example, cast‑iron dome curb‑ramps to resist damage — and discussed the limitations of existing collection equipment: the city’s side‑loader fleet is designed to service 300‑gallon toters, so any permanent metal bear‑resistant solution must be compatible with that equipment.

No ordinance or contract amendment was adopted at the meeting. Staff recommended pursuing bundled recycling through amended service contracts, pursuing grant funding for bear‑resistant equipment, and continuing operational changes at the recycling center to reduce contamination and overflow.

Ending: Staff said it will return with concrete contract language, cost estimates and grant‑funding options for council consideration and will continue coordination with WDFW, Waste Management and regional partners on waste‑stream solutions.