Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recycling Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors discuss draft rural recycling ordinance; staff to revise fines, signage and rules for commercial use
Summary
The board discussed a draft rural recycling ordinance focused on rural drop‑off sites: enforcement mechanisms, fine amounts, signage tied to haul destinations, designation of an enforcement designee with camera access, and whether commercial users should be permitted. No ordinance vote was taken; staff will revise and return with a new draft.
County supervisors spent an extended portion of the June 11 meeting discussing a draft rural recycling ordinance intended to govern county rural recycling drop‑off sites.
Kelsey (staff) presented a draft ordinance adapted from other counties and sought direction on enforcement, fines and eligibility for use. The draft removed a mandatory recycling requirement that other counties included; the presenter said she believed the board would not favor criminalizing household noncompliance. She asked the board whether to specify fines by offense level or list a single maximum amount for all offenses.
Board members and staff discussed legal limits on municipal fines for a simple misdemeanor; the transcript records a staff reference to a current statutory maximum of $855 for a simple misdemeanor and the possibility of using statutory language that refers to the “maximum penalty provided for a simple misdemeanor” instead of naming a dollar amount so the ordinance would stay current if state limits change. Supervisors indicated they preferred a larger deterrent amount for self‑haulers than the $50 figure in the draft: discussion coalesced around setting a $500 fine for rural self‑hauler violations, with the commercial collector subject to the municipal maximum (noted in discussion as $855 at the time of the meeting).
The board also discussed signage and the county’s ability to rely on the hauling facility’s published list of acceptable materials. Because the list of accepted materials can change at the receiving facility, staff proposed aligning ordinance language to require posted signage at drop‑off sites that mirrors the current acceptance list at the hauler’s facility rather than enumerating every accepted item in the ordinance itself.
Supervisors discussed enforcement procedure: municipal infractions generally are handled through the courts and would require filing by the county’s attorney. The county needs to designate a staff member who would review potential violations, access camera footage and, when appropriate, ask the county attorney to file. Participants suggested county staff who already have camera access (staff names discussed include Brody, Ethan, Steve, Scott and Chris) should be formally designated so footage foundation can be established if filing is requested. The board discussed limiting who has camera access to a small group to preserve accountability.
Members debated whether rural commercial businesses should be allowed to use the rural residential drop‑off sites. The board indicated a preference to restrict the sites to rural residents only, with any unusual cases (for example, a rural resident who also operates a business in town) to be handled case‑by‑case by the supervisors.
No formal motion to adopt the ordinance or to set a public hearing was recorded in the transcript. The presenter said she would revise language on fines, signage and permitted users and return the draft to the board; supervisors requested the item be placed back on the agenda for further discussion (the presenter specifically asked to return the item on the 17th).
