Island County commissioners approve ordinance requiring curbside recycling in unincorporated UTC areas, 2-1

Island County's Board of Commissioners on May 12 approved ordinance C 16 26, amending Island County Code Title 13 (Public Works, chapter 13.02A) to require curbside recycling in UTC-regulated portions of unincorporated Island County. The board adopted the ordinance by a 2-1 vote after a public hearing and extended deliberation over costs and operational details.

James Sylvester, assistant director of public works, opened the presentation and introduced Andrew Riggs of Island Disposal, who led the staff briefing and answered commissioners' questions. "The question why curbside recycling? ... primarily, resident convenience, environmental impact, and then the economic impact that it's gonna have on the county," Riggs said, laying out the program goals and the contractor's analysis.

Riggs and staff offered several data points intended to support the ordinance. They estimated a likely diversion of roughly 2,400 to 2,500 tons annually from curbside pickup, based on a 30% diversion rate in the county's waste stream, and said that a county survey of about 4,200 customers returned a roughly 51% response rate; 78% of respondents expressed high interest in curbside recycling and 94% some level of interest. Using the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission's (UTC) rate model, staff said they expect the program to add about $6.50 to $7 per household per month to customers' bills.

Presenters said the program is structured as a bundled service (tied to existing garbage service) because route density and economies of scale typically make bundled delivery 30—0% less expensive for residents than subscription-only programs. "If it's not bundled with the garbage collection service, the cost to provide the service generally outpaces the appetite for the consumer to pay for it," Riggs said.

Staff also explained the program's "acceptance criteria" for commingled recyclables: aluminum cans, plastics (primarily Nos. 1, 2 and 5), mixed paper and cardboard. The proposal excludes glass from the commingled curbside stream because glass breaks in packer trucks and can contaminate loads; staff cited Department of Ecology best practices recommending separate glass collection. Several commissioners and members of the public raised practical questions about accepted items (for example, when greasy pizza boxes or milk cartons are recyclable) and how contamination would be handled in the field.

During the public comment period, Peggy Shechem urged the board not to adopt the program as written, citing mobility and access problems for rural residents who live long distances from their roads. "I am over 400 feet from my road ... Bringing another container down as I age — this is getting to be a difficulty," Shechem said, asking that rural and elderly residents be able to opt in or out.

David Haskell, another commenter, supported recycling but pressed the board on broader fiscal context, citing a December contract described in his remarks as a $636,000,000 agreement with Republic to ship the county's solid waste to the Roosevelt landfill. "That is a big liability," Haskell told commissioners and urged them to "keep their eye on the prize" of reducing materials sent to Roosevelt.

Commissioners then deliberated at length about the program's fiscal effects. Commissioner concerns centered on whether household charges would truly offset county hauling and tipping costs, and whether reduced volumes at the transfer station could create shortfalls in enterprise-fund revenue that currently support fixed costs such as staffing and compactor debt service. James Sylvester said a straight 30% diversion could reduce the county's hauling/shipping costs by about $600,000 but that the countywide program cost is roughly $1,000,000, leaving a potential worst-case gap of approximately $350,000 a year; staff said the enterprise fund could absorb that amount without delaying loan repayments.

One commissioner asked for a more formal written fiscal analysis before proceeding; others argued the available data and community support justified action. After the discussion, a commissioner moved to adopt ordinance C 16 26 amending Island County Code Title 13 (public works), and the board voted to approve the ordinance, 2 in favor and 1 opposed.

The ordinance approved by the board will be submitted to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission for final rate review and tariff approval, and staff said implementation could occur within roughly four to six months depending on UTC timing, container procurement and vendor scheduling. Commissioners and staff said the board retains the option to revisit or repeal the ordinance if UTC-determined rates or other unanticipated impacts make the program financially untenable.

The action marks a policy change for unincorporated UTC-regulated areas of Island County that could affect household bills, transfer-station operations and county hauling costs. County staff committed to monitor outcomes, provide further fiscal analysis and report back to the board as the program moves toward implementation.

The meeting adjourned after other commissioners' announcements and brief updates.