Uncertainty over plan details and how costs would be paid led the Minot City Council Monday to postpone a decision on the future of curbside recycling.
Mayor Shaun Sipma asked the Public Works Department to prepare additional information in the event council members want to revisit the issue in several weeks.
The council’s lack of decision left some recycling proponents disappointed.
“I still feel like something could be done, and we need to get the ball rolling,” said Minot resident Elisha Gates, who suggested grants or funding sources might be found to address cost concerns. “I feel like having this recycling in place is going to benefit our landfill long term. It might cost money upfront, but long term, it’s going to be a better solution for the whole city.”
“I am really hoping that they will go forward with it because that introduces a program that can be used at the university,” said Christopher Scott, who serves on the Minot State University Student Senate.
The lack of sufficient outlets for recyclables has hampered the university and its students from being able to recycle and has led to the Senate considering a ban on plastic bottles on campus, he said.
“I feel like having a recycling program in Minot would be very beneficial not only to the citizens of Minot but also for the university, and I think we need to do something soon,” Scott said.
Heidi Super of Minot, a recycling proponent, called the concerns of the council nonstarters in the discussion about whether the city should go forward with curbside recycling. She cited the recycling success occurring in Sheridan, Wyo., a smaller community than Minot.
“If a town of 15,000 in Wyoming can make recycling work, Minot can make recycling work,” Super said.
At Monday’s meeting, council member Carrie Evan’s moved to approve the curbside recycling concept and revisit the issue in November to determine if financial circumstances support releasing the Community Facilities Fund dollars set aside for construction of a transfer facility. A transfer facility to hold recyclables before trucking them to a processing facility would be the first step in starting a recycling program.
Evans’ motion failed 2-3 as she was joined by only Stephan Podrygula and Lisa Olson.
Council member Mark Jantzer said the city must determine where a transfer station will be built, and if that location is the existing landfill, then the city must first determine whether the existing landfill entrance is to be relocated. The city is considering moving the entrance location on the north side to the south, off 37th Avenue Southwest, which is better equipped to handle the truck traffic. Location of the entrance would factor into where on the grounds to build the transfer station. However, it was noted a transfer station would not necessarily need to be built at the landfill.
“I’m all in favor of conceptually supporting curbside recycling,” Jantzer said. “But I think it’s naive to think that we don’t have to solve these other problems and come up with the other funds in order to make that a reality.”
Pitner agreed additional information is necessary, including the funding piece.
“The taxpayers need to know where the dollars are coming from,” he said.
According to information provided by Jason Sorenson, assistant public works director, the capital investment into startup costs of a transfer facility, compactor, two compactor trailers and 7,000 trash carts falls about $1 million short of what the city has available, and that doesn’t include any potential debt service costs.
Pitner moved to postpone the recycling discussion to coincide with discussion scheduled for July 2021 on a new landfill location.
“I think it further ties us and makes the discussion a year from now in July somewhat moot if we continue to invest at the site,” he said, referring to building a transfer facility there.
Ross suggested digging deeper into the options and the costs.
“Pushing it back gives us more time to do that,” he said.
Pitner’s motion failed with support from only Pitner and Ross.
“I think we do need to tell our residents, ‘Yes, we’re going to move forward with this,’ or ‘We’re done. We’re just not going to do it,'” Olson said. “Putting it off another year frustrates them. It frustrates me.”
The council has been toying with curbside recycling since it appointed an ad hoc committee to look into it in the spring of 2016. Curbside recycling was not a new concept at that time. The city had given some thought to it previously but never found a way to pursue a program. A private company, Recycle It, offered recycling pickups but closed in 2011 after three years of operation. It had about 35 customers at the time.
Information from the Public Works Department Monday showed a curbside recycling program would be fiscally sound operationally with participation by at least 7,081 of the city’s 12,875 customers and a monthly $2 participation fee. The issue has been the startup capital costs.