Mayor proposes ending curbside recycling in budget; council debates costs, messaging and self‑hauling analysis

The mayor proposed eliminating curbside recycling in the coming budget and asked the council to consider using regional collection points for aluminum, paper and cardboard instead.

That proposal is part of the draft budget the mayor presented to the Riverton City Council during its May work session; staff told the council state law and the city’s contract with Waste Management require six months’ notice to discontinue curbside recycling. The mayor said household recycling represents roughly 8% of annual collected weight and that contamination cuts the amount actually recycled to about 6–7% of total pickup.

The discussion matters because recycling is currently subsidized from the general fund and the city is weighing whether to raise sanitation fees, continue curbside service, or end curbside recycling and direct limited resources to regional drop‑off sites. Mayor: "That's why I'm proposing the elimination of curbside recycling in this budget. We have to give us 6 months." Kevin, a city operations staff member who presented analysis, said diversion averaged 8% in calendar 2024 and contamination averaged about 19% in recent audits; for the first two months of 2025 diversion rose to about 10%.

Council members split on next steps. Councilmember McKay said she toured the local material recovery facility and supports keeping recycling — at least under an opt‑in model to reduce contamination — arguing many residents want to keep curbside recycling: "We had 72% of residents that said that they wanted to keep the recycling." Councilmember McDougall and others said recycling of much of the plastic stream is no longer economically viable and that collection and processing emissions plus contamination reduce the environmental benefits. McDougall said: "I think the carbon emissions that we are creating…collecting a second run on trash…is creating more pollution than we're saving in recycling." Several council members emphasized that any decision will need a robust communications campaign to explain the change to residents.

Staff described alternatives discussed in the draft budget: maintain curbside recycling but raise the per‑household fee, end curbside recycling and provide regional collection containers at parks and city facilities (the mayor's budget included a partial allocation for that), or keep curbside but institute an opt‑in/opt‑out model at the end of the current Waste Management contract in June 2028. Staff also prepared a self‑hauling (in‑house hauling) analysis, which includes roughly $5.5 million in startup costs for vehicles and facility improvements; staff said that approach could buy the city a few years before fees would need to rise again but would require debt to finance vehicles and infrastructure.

Councilmembers asked for more detail before a final decision. Several asked staff to return with a communications plan, more precise net cost savings (including tipping fees and processing fees), and scenarios showing fee changes and resident impacts if curbside recycling is removed. Staff noted the contract’s processing‑fee cap would allow monthly recycling charges to reach a worst‑case $4.47 per can, but current processing fees were lower.

City staff said that if the council directs elimination of curbside recycling, six months’ notice would provide time to execute public outreach and to bid any regional recycling contract.

Council members did not take a formal vote on the proposal during the work session; they asked staff for additional financial scenarios and a public education plan before final budget deliberations.