Options on table for Bigfork green box site

Despite comments its members made about still wanting to close the Bigfork Green Box site, that decision has been placed on hold for now.

After receiving a second six-month extension in June, Flathead County’s Solid Waste Board members said Tuesday they would like to revisit a study that was done in 2008 and conduct a public meeting in Bigfork.

A dozen or so residents from Bigfork and Lakeside attended the meeting north of Kalispell at the county landfill office and voiced opinions and complaints during public comment.

Paul Mutascio asked for another study, “one that is objective and something the commissioners can base a solid decision on.” The previous study didn’t take into account population served at the various green box sites, he said. “You have to look at the demographics or you can’t come up with a conclusion.” The Bigfork green box site was the second busiest in the county, according to the previous study.

He said the Bigfork Green Box Committee came up with two recommendations as alternatives to closing the Bigfork site. “But they were literally slashed and burned at the last meeting. I don’t know what else we can do.”

Board member Wayne Miller said both of the aforementioned recommendations are dead. These included expanding the current site and leasing another site five miles east. The owner of that site, Margaret Conley, told the county that she won’t sell, and the county commissioners are not interested in leasing the site, said Jim Chilton, the county’s solid waste operations manager.

Commissioner Gary Krueger — who also sits on the Solid Waste Board — said Bigfork has a number of options remaining. “They could create an actual district within our district,” he said. Another option would involve the Bigfork community leasing land on its own. “There are lots of options out there,” he said.

Board chairman Hank Olson said the Bigfork green box site is unsafe and that scares him. “I strongly suspect Lake County is using that site,” he added, noting that he has seen vehicles with “15” on their plates at the site. Mutascio said he has asked for accident reports and received none.

Board member Wayne Miller said the previous plan was apparently created without public input and things have changed dramatically since then in Bigfork. Olson disagreed with both of those conclusions but said the study deserves another look. He said the Bigfork green box site was installed when there were 2,000 residents in Bigfork. “But now there’s more,” he said.

“We’re not just picking on Bigfork. Bigfork’s so big we want to man it,” he said, citing the example of Columbia Falls, the only site in the county that is staffed. “To man it you’ve got to have the right size so you can manage it for years.”

Krueger said Bigfork deserves that opportunity. “They’re not saying, ‘Tax me more.’ They’re saying they’re willing to pay for additional services,” he said.

A number of Lakeside residents also spoke during public comment. The county plans to close the Bigfork green box site and then move on to Lakeside, forcing these residents to use the Somers or Creston sites or subscribe to a private waste pickup service.

Earlier in the meeting, Lakeside resident Dan Benesch said he was “flabbergasted to hear that the number of houses affected by this change is unknown. The cost to the public... is going to be substantially more,” he said, referring to travel expenses. “I’m way against this. It makes no sense.”

“Not everyone can afford private hauling,” Lakeside resident Susan Repa said. “You’re going to have trash all over the roads.”