Kent County committee prioritizes education and multi-family pilots in materials management plan

The Kent County Materials Management Planning Committee spent its May 21 meeting ranking goals and refining outreach and measurement strategies for the county's draft Materials Management Plan. Led by facilitator Sydney Smith of Byrum & Fisk, the panel placed public education and multi-family recycling pilots at the top of its priority list and set an end-of-July target for a draft plan.

Committee members ranked “Education” highest, emphasizing that residents should see what Kent County recycles, what the material becomes, and what preparation (including cleaning) is required before materials enter the recycling stream. Members noted existing outreach capacity: Emma Dillman and a colleague named Micah together teach about 900 people per month, primarily schoolchildren, and the committee discussed using mailers (laminated to place inside bin lids), township or county newsletters and social media videos to reach residents. Members also noted that MMP grant funds could be applied to purchase educational materials.

The group also prioritized multi-family recycling as a high-impact but difficult area. Members raised operational barriers — bin placement, potential contamination if recycling and trash are colocated, and the need for incentives and zoning access — and discussed piloting programs at retirement communities and offering stipends or ambassador programs to support collection. Some members cautioned that adding recycling services could raise rents in privately managed complexes.

Business-park recycling ranked lowest in the goal exercise; several members said county-funded programs should avoid competing with existing for-profit processors and instead focus on materials and locations not already served by private industry. On material gaps, members called out hard-to-recycle items such as mattresses and shingles and stressed a preference for keeping collection and processing within Michigan when feasible.

Members spent significant time on measurement. They debated the merits of tracking “waste diversion” versus the state-focused recycling-rate metric, noting diversion is broad and difficult to measure (donations are especially hard to count). Committee members also said reported recycling rates can appear artificially low because some entities are not required to report; participants discussed creating a material-specific database or tracking system to improve measurement.

Food-scraps programs were discussed as well: members reviewed local pilots involving Grand Rapids Compost, Wormies, Organicycle and county and city efforts, and they affirmed support for home composting. Attendees flagged contamination as an ongoing problem — a recent fundraiser at DeVos Place was cited where food ended up mixed with recycling — and suggested that turnover among collection staff can exacerbate the problem.

On next steps, Kent County staff will synthesize the committee's input, send a breakdown by email and circulate a new draft for review. The siting process for potential facilities is under legal review by Varnum, with an update planned for the June meeting. The committee projected an end-of-July target to have a draft Materials Management Plan ready for further review.

During routine business, the committee approved the April 16, 2026 minutes unanimously. In public comment, Jay representing the Michigan Sustainable Business Forum said MSBF has participated in similar planning efforts in Ottawa County and summarized the forum's goals for engagement.

The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.