Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Materials Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent County committee reviews gap analysis, EGLE allocates $360,000 per year to materials planning
Summary
At a Feb. 19 meeting the Kent County Materials Management Planning Committee reviewed a Fishbeck gap analysis for the county Materials Management Plan, discussed an organics pilot and outreach strategy, and heard EGLE staff say $360,000 is available for each of the next two years with an amendment window through July 2027.
The Kent County Materials Management Planning Committee met Feb. 19, 2026 in Grand Rapids and reviewed a Fishbeck gap analysis that will be folded into the county’s Materials Management Plan (MMP). Chair Kari Bliss opened the meeting at 2:02 p.m., and DJ Droski of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) discussed Year Two funding availability, saying the state is assisting the county with amendments to allocate $360,000 this year and $360,000 next year with the ability to amend before July 2027.
Fishbeck, the consultant team leading the gap analysis, summarized background on changes to Part 115 and said the analysis focuses on Kent County–owned properties while Section 1 of the MMP will catalog facilities outside county ownership. Fishbeck told the committee that several operational gaps surfaced: public-venue recycling programs vary in effectiveness; data reporting is inconsistent (Kent County reports to ReTrac while some partners do not); and behavior-change and education work remains a key need.
To close gaps, Fishbeck and staff outlined options including an organics pilot in partnership with Organicycle and increased neighborhood drop-off locations. Fishbeck also noted Grand Rapids recently purchased a composter similar to the one used by Kid’s Food Basket and said the county could pilot drop-off sites in each ward. The presenter cautioned that private businesses may not share details needed to map the circular economy and raised concerns that prescribing minimum service levels for franchise haulers could be financially burdensome in underserved or rural areas.
Fishbeck described logistical trade-offs for haulers if recycling service were required in low-participation areas, saying, “sending a truck 50 miles to pick up 5 pounds of material does more against environment.” The presentation estimated Kent County’s overall recycling rate at about 16% and identified barriers such as limited access for multi-family units, lack of economic incentives for residents, and that some cost-reduction approaches (for example, pay-as-you-throw) would require policy and behavioral shifts.
Committee discussion emphasized setting measurable SMART goals focused on cardboard reduction, food-loss prevention and waste prevention more broadly, and on adding a cadence of waste characterization studies to measure progress over time. Fishbeck asked members to review the MMP draft before the next meeting so notes and edits can be incorporated and said the goals will be circulated in advance.
Public comment included a request from Emma Dillman for a heat map showing where private recycling is occurring to help identify gaps and potential drop-off locations; staff invited anyone with relevant data to share it with Fishbeck for map development. Members also discussed whether drop-off stations might compete with curbside service—potentially reducing hauler route efficiency—and noted staff are investigating whether a service center is warranted in the Lowell area.
The committee approved the Jan. 15, 2026 minutes unanimously and set the draft review and stakeholder outreach steps as the immediate next actions. The next scheduled public presentation is June 4 to the Grand Valley Metro Council.
