Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recycling Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheldon council debates requiring covered recycling cans as participation lags
Summary
Councilmembers and city staff debated whether to require covered curbside recycling containers after staff reported roughly 1,800 residential accounts with about 900 households not participating. The council tabled a final decision and asked staff and the contractor to return with cost and implementation options.
The Sheldon City Council spent the largest portion of its meeting debating how to boost recycling participation and stop recycling material from blowing around town, after staff presented a short program review showing roughly 1,797 residential accounts: about 400 with large curbside cans, about 500 who recycle without large cans and roughly 900 that do not participate.
City Manager Sam Quaker told the council the discussion starts with one core choice: whether to require a compliant curbside container for recycling. “The only way to stop it from blowing around is to say you can't put it out without a can with a lid on it,” Quaker said, arguing that a container requirement would also let the city and contractor use automated pickup and reduce manual labor.
The council and waste contractor Mark debated enforcement, cost and alternatives. Mark described operational limits and said moving to automated, containerized collection would reduce his labor costs; councilmembers estimated the city’s current rolloff service costs about $6,000 a year. Several councilmembers said mandating containerized curbside recycling would be the most direct way to increase curbside use and reduce rolloff reliance, while others worried that requiring every household to buy a second can would alienate residents and that many (an estimated 900) simply do not intend to recycle.
Council members also noted a state-level obligation to provide recycling under the state’s waste‑reduction rules and discussed whether removing the rolloff option would accelerate curbside compliance. Options discussed included: (a) requiring a lid-equipped automated cart of specified size, (b) subsidizing carts through grants or city support, (c) keeping the rolloff as a paid or contractor‑covered option for peak volumes and (d) stronger public incentives to boost participation.
Rather than adopt an ordinance, the council voted to table the item and asked staff to return with a clearer set of options, costs and potential grant or subsidy approaches at a future meeting. The council also asked the contractor to estimate savings from switching fully to automated collection and to clarify whether continuing a rolloff (if contractor-paid) would materially reduce the city’s costs.
Next steps: staff will prepare cost estimates and implementation scenarios, including the implications for collection labor and rolloff costs, and present them for a follow-up council discussion.
