Mayor proposes ending curbside recycling, cites contamination and costs; council weighs options

The mayor of Riverton proposed removing curbside recycling as part of the fiscal 2025-26 budget, saying curbside recycling contributes little to the city's diversion while costing the general fund money.

"I'm in favor of stopping that practice," the mayor said as the budget discussion opened, noting the city's contract with its hauler requires six months' notice before stopping curbside collection. Staff and council then reviewed data from the city's hauler and considered alternatives including regional drop-off at parks, an opt-in program and changes to user fees.

Why it matters: the city's sanitation fund currently requires a subsidy from the general fund under the mayor's proposed budget. Staff and council members said reducing or eliminating curbside recycling could reduce that subsidy and free general-fund dollars for other priorities; opponents warned of political backlash without thorough resident education.

Staff presented the hauler's figures showing diversion and contamination rates. According to the material staff attributed to the hauler, roughly 8% of the total tonnage collected is diverted for recycling; of that diverted stream an average of 19% is contamination (residue that ultimately goes to landfill). Applying those numbers, staff calculated about 6.7% of total pickup is successfully recovered through the material recovery facility.

Mayor: "We have to give six months" notice under the contract, he said, and then summarized his rationale: the energy and emissions from a separate recycling route, commodity market declines since China's 2018 import restrictions and the city's methane-to-energy program at the Trans Jordan Landfill mean curbside recycling may not deliver the environmental benefits residents expect.

Council debate and options

Council members split on next steps. Council member McKay said tours of the local materials recovery facility (MRF) convinced her some materials are recycled and pushed for an opt-in/opt-out model so committed households could continue curbside service. "We had 72% of residents that said that they wanted to keep the recycling," McKay said, referring to a communication she led; staff said that figure was not an official city survey.

Council member McDougall said he could not defend plastic recycling because global markets have changed since 2018: "I can't push back on plastic at all," he said, and pressed for a strong communications plan if the city cuts curbside service.

Several council members and staff floated a middle ground: discontinue curbside pickup but fund regional collection points at parks and other city facilities. Staff provided a half-year estimate of $50,000 to establish containers at city parks for certain materials (glass, cardboard, aluminum), with final costs to be determined through competitive procurement.

Fees and household impacts

Under the current fee structure described by staff, a standard residential bill is $13 per month for a household that receives one trash cart and the curbside recycling service. Staff said the hauler's charge for a trash collection container is roughly equal to the charge for a recycle container and that if curbside recycling were eliminated, some households might request a second trash cart. Staff explained the city's posted resident rates (not the hauler's internal hauling fees): $13 for the first service (trash + recycle), $7 for each additional garbage cart and $5 for each additional recycling cart. If a household that currently has one trash and one recycle cart replaced its recycle cart with an extra trash cart, that household's bill would change from $13 to $20 under the city's current fee schedule because the additional trash cart is charged at the additional-cart rate.

Self-hauling and longer-term cost outlook

City finance staff also reviewed a separate analysis of self-hauling (the city providing collection instead of contracting). Staff said a transition to city-run hauling would require significant startup spending, including vehicle and facility upgrades; the pro forma presented included roughly $5.5 million in start-up costs amortized through vehicle financing and a facility bond. Staff estimated such a shift could buy the utility a couple of years of relief before further fee adjustments would be necessary.

What council asked for next

Council members asked staff for more thorough communications planning before any policy change is adopted and for additional detail on opt-in models, contamination trends, the MRF audits and the seasonal diversion numbers. Staff said they would return with a communications plan and more detailed cost scenarios before the council adopts final fees as part of the budget process.

Ending note

No formal decision was made at the work session; the mayor's budget proposal includes the elimination of curbside recycling as a policy alternative and staff will return with messaging, refined cost estimates and scenarios for opt-in or regional collection before the council adopts a final budget.