County looks at how to save recycling program

The Flathead County Solid Waste District Board and Flathead County Commissioners took a hard look at the realities of recycling in June and are still looking for a way to save the countywide program.

The valley’s recycling program operates at a loss of about $50,000 a year and a new recycling contract could cost the county nearly three times that amount.

Valley Recycling maintains the blue recycling bins at the county’s green-box collection sites, including Columbia Falls, and at businesses and schools, but that contract ended in January. Recycling services have operated on a month-to-month basis since then.

County public works director Dave Prunty told the Solid Waste Board on June 25 and the commissioners on June 26 that Valley Recycling is seeking a longer term contract that could cost $188,000 a year at the current level of service. And when the county advertised for proposals from local recycling companies, Valley Recycling was the only company interested

The consensus among most Solid Waste Board members was that the recycling program is worth saving in some form — the public wants it.

Prunty acknowledged that recycling saves valuable space in the county landfill, but noted that the county has lost about $403,400 on recycling  since 1998. The only profitable year for the program was in 2000, when commodity prices for aluminum and newspaper were high enough to turn a profit.

The county made just over $1,000 in 2000. Last year, the program lost $41,515. The biggest annual loss came in 2010 during the economic downturn when the county lost $97,508 on the recycling program.

An economical option, Prunty suggested, is a seven-year contract with Valley Recycling. That option also reduces the number of blue-box sites to four — including Columbia Falls — at a cost $128,808 annually, or about a $50,000 loss per year.

Solid Waste Board members also discussed increasing the county’s solid waste tax of $80.73 annually per property owner. An increase of $1.50 to $2 could cover the recycling losses, Prunty said.

Instead of moving ahead with a recommendation, the board decided to get feedback from the commissioners. The commissioners also could not reach a consensus on how to move forward with the recycling program.