Solid waste chief outlines landfill expansion funding gap, proposes Sunday closures and recycling changes

City solid-waste staff briefed council on multiple operations issues: a landfill expansion project entering design-to-bid, financing constraints that may require bonds, a proposed reduction in landfill hours, and changes to recycling drop-off sites and glass recycling.

Carlo (city solid-waste staff) said excavation for the landfill expansion had started and that the city is finishing liner design so the project can go out to bid in March or April. He told council the solid waste fund does not have enough balance to cover the expansion (staff cited about a $10 million project) and that staff pursued lower-cost financing through the state Public Works Board and a state treasurer local program but were ineligible because of program conditions (notably treatment of asbestos and other materials). "We are at a point where our fund does not, will not fund the whole project," Carlo said; staff asked the utility advisory committee to recommend pursuing bonds and said a council agenda item will ask for bond authorization so a rate study can follow.

On operating hours, staff said the landfill currently opens seven days a week in summer months and is closed Sundays in winter. Sundays average about 100 customers, roughly 70% of whom are Richland residents. Carlo said Sunday operations cost more than the revenue they generate and that the city is losing about $60,000 a year operating on Sundays. He presented a proposal to close on Sundays and extend weekday and Saturday hours to accommodate customers who cannot come during typical daytime hours. Councilmembers asked about competitor hours and how customers would be notified; several voiced support for closing Sundays if the city conducts broad public communications and extends other hours to accommodate customers.

Recycling operations and drop boxes were a major focus. Staff said curbside recycling reaches roughly 8,000 households and that only about 35% of refuse customers opt into the $7/month curbside recycling service; curbside recycling does not collect glass. The city currently maintains four public recycling drop boxes (landfill, Queensgate, Uptown and a site behind Ace) but staff said the boxes are frequently abused by nonresidents, dumped-over with garbage, and have become safety and maintenance burdens. Staff proposed either securing high‑abuse locations (fencing and gates — Queensgate estimated at about $60,000) and keeping a smaller set of secured locations, or closing all drop boxes except the landfill and the contracted DTG facility and expanding residential curbside recycling (which likely would require raising rates if offered as a base service).

Staff also recommended ending glass recycling because local and regional markets for glass have collapsed and recycling vendors are unable to find financially responsible end markets; Carlo said a recent private facility had closed and that shipping glass long distances is not financially sound. Staff asked the council to consider discontinuing glass recycling and diverting it to landfill disposal.

Carlo also updated the council on a new renewable natural gas (RNG) facility at the landfill that is operating and delivering about $6,000 per month in payments to the city from Pine Creek, with royalties expected to start soon from a separate project at Lamb Weston.

Councilmembers asked about resident verification (billing vs. ID) for landfill use, holiday surges (e.g., cardboard around holidays) and whether contractors' schedules would be affected; staff said those operational details can be refined and that they will study options for a temporary holiday drop-off approach. Staff also said a rate study will follow any bond authorization so council can see the financing and rate impacts before final decisions.