Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recycling Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Park County board debates recycling costs, contract with Livingston and future fee structure
Summary
Board members and staff reviewed the county's recycling streams and costs on Feb. 19, noting cardboard recycling costs about $75,000 annually but may reduce landfill-hauling costs by roughly $100,000; the board discussed paying Livingston $1,500 per quarter to allow county residents access to the city's recycling transfer station and agreed to continue reviewing fees and public outreach ahead of budget adoption.
County staff reviewed the structure and costs of Park County’s recycling programs at the Feb. 19 Solid Waste Board meeting, telling members that some streams (cardboard) can be cash-positive for the county while other commodity streams (triple-bin plastics, mixed paper) tend to cost more to collect and haul than they return.
A staff presenter said cardboard recycling costs roughly $75,000 per year but helps avoid about $100,000 a year in additional landfill-hauling costs by keeping bulky cardboard out of the waste stream. "It costs us $75,000 a year, but it saves you $100,000 a year in extra trips to load the landfill," the presenter said. The presenter added that plastics and the mixed 'triple-bin' stream still impose net costs because much of that material must ultimately be landfilled.
Board members discussed the county’s arrangements with the city of Livingston, where county residents are allowed to use a city transfer station; staff said the county currently pays Livingston about $1,500 per quarter to preserve that access. Members weighed whether the county should attempt to provide its own recycling collection or continue subsidizing use of city facilities; practical constraints (contracts, truck availability and timing) were cited as barriers to starting an independent program in time for the July 1 budget year.
The board also reviewed proposed fee schedules for special items (tires with rims, e-waste, batteries) and discussed operational impacts if sites move to compaction and attended staffing: compaction would allow broader acceptance and centralized handling of difficult items but would require staff oversight and likely new fee/calculation policies. No fee schedule was adopted at the meeting; members asked staff to return the fee proposals and the waste-policy worksheet with clearer site-by-site distinctions and a public outreach plan so the commission and public can comment during the budget process.
What's next: Staff will break out recycling costs for the board and provide a current reserve figure for the solid-waste fund at the next meeting; the board asked for public outreach and, if warranted, a commissioner study session before any program cuts or fee changes are adopted.
