Posted on 05/06/2018 5:56:47 AM PDT by SandRat
SIERRA VISTA — With a change in global demand for recycled products, Sierra Vista leaders are grappling with rising costs and dwindling revenue, which could affect residential recycling services and fees.
Council met in a work session on Tuesday to discuss the state of the county and city recycling program, along with how to move forward in an increasingly tough global market.
Martin Haverty, Cochise County solid waste director, laid out recycling revenue trends and audit reports from ReCommunity Recycling, a recycling plant in Tucson.
Since the county does not have its own recycling plant, it hauls materials to ReCommunity, where it’s collected and sorted into recyclable material and garbage. ReCommunity then takes accepted recyclables, and the county makes a profit off of what the company can sell. But ReCommunity also charges Cochise County by the ton for how much garbage and unaccepted material is dropped off at the plant.
Haverty outlined a sharp decline in recycling revenue trends since June 2017, and in October 2017, the county lost money when ReCommunity wasn’t able to sell recycled material due to a shift in the global market.
Since China passed regulations banning imports of low-grade plastics and some paper products in January, the value of many common recyclable materials diminished.
Right now, the county isn’t making a profit on its program, Haverty said, and heavily relies on Sierra Vista’s program to keep the county operation running.
The city’s program is an enterprise fund, meaning it operates independently from Sierra Vista’s general fund and receives all its resources from resident user refuse fees. Because of rising recycling costs, among other factors, the council is considering a 15 percent refuse-fee increase to help balance the costs.
If approved, residents with a 65-gallon can paying $14.98 per month would pay $2.25 more per month effective July 1. Residents using a 95-gallon can would see a $2.57 increase, from $17.10 to $19.67.
“It kind of depends on where the city of Sierra Vista wants to go and, if they are willing to pay for recycling, how much are they willing to pay?” he said. “It’s really up to them. They are the leader in this game because they contribute 97 percent of the recycling in the stream going up to Tucson. … Right now, if weren’t covering our cost from the tipping fee from the city of Sierra Vista, we wouldn’t be able to recycle. powered by
“It wouldn’t make good business sense at all to incur costs of $53 per ton on our side.”
Sharon Flissar, Sierra Vista director of public works, told the city council there will be a list of challenges moving forward with the recycling program.
The city’s contamination rate — which represents the amount of garbage and other unacceptable material in recycling — is at 24 percent, Flissar said, and will need to be reduced in the future. Recycling collection will continue to be more expensive than year’s past, which is something the city plans to tackle head-on.
Flissar listed three options she and her department outlined as solutions to the city’s recycling expenses. The city could keep the current recycling schedule — which picks up material twice a week — reduce picks to once or twice a month on a regular schedule, or provide services twice per month during special pickup days.
Sierra Vista Mayor Rick Mueller said he and other council members are considering Flissar’s plan to reduce recycling picks to one or two days a month.
“As for Ms. Flissar’s recommendation, the participation rate on recycling is lower, and that tells us that there’s potential to limit the amount of recycling days,” he said. “The bottom line is that we need to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible.”
Mueller said the council will discuss recycling plans in further detail during its May 22 work session.
INFO BOX:
What goes in Sierra Vista’s blue bin:
Plastic products labeled 1 and 2
Cardboard
Aluminum cans
Tin
Scrap metal
They don’t bother stating it here, since it would terrify all of the smug ‘recyclers’ who think they’re somehow saving the planet, but the reason that China stopped accepting low-grade plastic is because they’re trying to clean up the pollution in their air, and burning that junk is horrible for the air.
And so if they’re no longer going to burn it, why accept it in the first place, since it’s useless for any other form of ‘recycling’.
If recycling were economically justifiable, companies would be paying us to haul away our refuse.
Recycling has always been a liberal feel-good scam. It is completely unnecessary, doing nothing to "save" the planet.
Forced recycling does turn citizens into unpaid, involuntary trash sorters. And it enables units of government to choose companies to enrich. Neither of which is a function of government, but a consequence of bad government.
The only acceptable reason for a unit of government to impose solid waste recycling on its citizens is to lower cost to those citizens for that essential service. And that doesn't happen.
>>”the county makes a profit off of what the company can sell”
Seems extraordinarily unlikely. They may make some revenue, but I highly doubt there’s any profit if a true cost accounting is done.
Composting appears to be a profit maker. There is a large demand for composted dirt/soil, and there is a limit of 3 large container and one medium size container, re the # of Brown garbage cans we can have for free as customers. It used to be 1 can per week. Professional Yard people can bring in as many trailers per week as they want to the compostable center.
We are allowed two large blue cans for the standard recycle products at no charge. The limit used to be one per week.
The non compostable and recycling garbage is expensive. A small can costs $25/month.
A nearby small town learned back in the 90s it wasn’t worth it. The recycling center closed down. The guy we took the coke cans to closed down. The closest recycling center is 2 hours away.
I always wonder if the stuff that I toss in the recycle bin actually makes it to the recycle plant or is just tossed in with the rest of the garbage and ends up in the landfill.
I don’t mind recycling as it is a significant portion of my trash that ends up in the recycle bin. Maybe 30%.
We have no recycling. Garbage is $37/mo. which is ridiculously expensive. We usually only have one kitchen bag of garbage and let the elderly neighbor use ours, too.
Until about 2-3 years ago, we had the same problem. One small recyclable blue container, one medium brown container
and one medium regular garbage container for about $40 per month. Any more cans was out outrageous.
So we started an email neighborhood garbage watch program for our cul de sac.
We took the garbage from two widows so they would not be charged and divided it up.
If our brown or blue containers were not full, we let the other neighbors know.
Those garbage company owners sold out. The current owners push the free recycle and compostable containers and do charge a lot for the regular container. It works for most of us.
Yes, but gub'mint subsidized, whether justified or not, could be the icing on the cake for a lot of the recyclers.
I think as far back as the late 1980s/early 1990s, the law of supply and demand was kicking in for munis expecting forced recycling to be a revenue generator.
A similar article was written about the recycling operation here in Southern Maine. I have been aware of the global market collapse of plastics etc. The problem with program here is moving to “single sort” or more specifically no sort recycling. Done to encourage recycling, I think it has been used by people who don’t understand what is recyclable and others who see it as free trash disposal.
I am generally a fan of recycling as long as it is done right. Here in Southern Maine it has reduced overall cost of solid waste management.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.