Why do we pay for a transfer station that closed on the weekend?

Two weekends ago at the City of Helena Transfer Station on Saturday.

Helena and Helena Valley residents hauling yard waste, taking out their trash, or recycling at the City of Helena Transfer Station have faced a crowded scene these last three weekends. Folks are right to be courteous to the staff on the ground doing an amazing, essential job of moving folks through. They should wonder why their public collection facility is closing on Sunday when the weekends are the busiest time for residents to use the facility. 

The weekend closure highlights an underlining flaw in how our public "solid waste system" is run that leads to less service. The overarching priority is to maximize trash to the landfill while maximizing tax revenue from residents into the public "enterprise" funds. The funds, which include the City Transfer Station, City Commercial Collection Service, and Lewis & Clark County Landfill are run to make public visits to the facility "more efficiency" by reducing trips (residential use) and increasing "tonnage" per trip (commercial use). Additional sources of trash are sought for revenue.  

The recent Sunday closure is apparently to address risks posed to residents as they get closer to this trash climbing the tipping floor walls per COVID 19 (city budget discussion).  The *proximity to trash is a potential vector disease should, however, should be avoided in the best of times. Fortunately, this situation can be avoided: 

• The City Transfer Station can send trash to the private landfill on Sunday. The private company was open to this in the past as a trash exchange could help both parties operate more efficiently, save fuel, and reduce costs while avoiding the weekend service issues.

• Direct City Residential and Commercial Garbage trucks directly to the Lewis and Clark County Landfill, as least on Friday and Saturday so they don't fill up the pit ahead of residents. As the 2014 "Efficiency Study of [the] Solid Waste System" noted, this would have immense cost savings to the entire collection system (**nearly $2,700 per week!). **This could also allow the second bay to be open for social distancing on the weekend.  

However, both of these options go against business as is usual for our public collection system seeking to outcompete a private company for trash. Several years ago, the same contradiction came to light as the City and County sought to drastically limit the use of the Transfer Station by residents--less than a dozen trips per year. Residents rightly raised heck about this. That tonnage goal policy had to be abandoned by the city and county commissioners who'd supported it after residents realized they could no longer use the facility their taxes pay for. The current Sunday closure stems from the same rationale to pursue handling more trash rather than service to residents. This reduction in service should be abandoned.

The city and county commissions can and should immediately act to prioritize safety and convenience residents by opening the Transfer Station on Sunday. While they are at it, the should reprioritize the related "solid waste system" budgets to address the conflicts that caused this weekend mess in the first place. 

- ME

Three weekends ago on Saturday. 

Last Saturday.

p.s. Kudos to the new City Commissioners trying to address this very issue during the budget process, the only place to seriously address it, as the City is slated to spend $1,350,000 for an extra shop for Residential Garbage trucks (the "enterprise" fleet gets to keep the current digs). 

p.s.2. This conflicted goal of more trash while residents are paying for a generally fixed and often underutilized service has other peculiar effects.  Waste reduction, recycling, and compost options are at odds with tonnage over the transfer station and landfill scales. For example, green waste separated by residents at the transfer station brings in the full per ton rate for the Transfer Station. However, the separate "recycling fund" from the tax assessments pays to process the material, which is no longer composted. Green waste was historically composted with the City Waste Water sewage sludge to create soil. Now both items are buried with tipping fees paid to the enterprise funds.

p.s..3. As I summarize here, our community was promised a more responsive collection system that would focus on service to residents, including recycling and related diversion efforts. It is time to realize this promise and prioritize giving residents the services they are paying for on the days they'd use them.

     

*Since the Lewis & Clark County Landfill is closed Saturday afternoon and Sunday, the trash from residents thrown from the north bay (image left) and garbage trucks on the right, builds up. Either of the alternatives mentioned would alleviate or eliminate this situation during the weekend and allow for use of the second bay for social distancing and convenience. 

A recent image from the recently built $1,600,000 expansion
 on a day trash has not yet reached the platform used by residents.

**From the 2014 Solid Waste System Efficiency Study (August 22nd Version; de facto final draft)

Our community wants to recycle plastics: Our publicly funded institutions should support the effort

Friends,

March 27 Memo 1 of 2 Pages

Executive leadership at the City of Helena is looking at and seeking public comment regarding the plastics recycling program at the City of Helena Transfer Station. The public works director and other executive leadership from the city and county public works presented to the Helena Citizen Council at March 27 and to the Helena Citizens Conservation Board April 11 with the following memo. A presentation to the Scratch Gravel Landfill District Board, the board in charge of the solid waste assessment for the 14,000 residents of the Helena Valley, is tentatively scheduled for their next meeting. The memo provided at the first two meetings follows in these two images (click on images to view):

March 27 Memo - Other Page

This memo and the presentations thus far seek simple input: Whether to discontinue a costly uncertain program that is bad for the environment as is, option 1; or discontinue the bad, the carbon-intensive program but encourage curbside program for those who want to recycle, option 2. Before you get too discouraged, you should know that the program is not bad for the environment and it is more than paid for by the solid waste assessments we pay in this community. 

The memo illustrates the well-advertised views of some executive staff at the city, generally those in charge of our local solid waste regime. It does not accurately reflect the situation with plastics recycling in Helena nor acknowledge the promise of what we pay for in Helena, which is supposed to include recycling and other beneficial diversion options as a priority. (A yet to be written, "Option 3" encouraged at the March 27 meeting would be to still eliminate the program but encourage education and policy against using plastics--nothing wrong with that but the decision here is about the role of public infrastructure we pay for already) 

Regarding the memo and this "dollar and cents" decision as defined by the cities public works director:

• Plastics recycling saves a substantial amount of energy and water relative to virgin plastics in manufacturing; local recyclers are not landfilling this material. This recent study outlined at PlasticNews.com shows the benefit:

Screenshots from this link April 23, 2019

• While the memo hints at the complexity of recycling, Helena's limited program for type 1 and 2 plastics goes to Helena Recycling. As owner John Hilton noted at both meetings, the cost increase to bale plastics reflects his need to cover costs as domestic mills are paying little to nothing for plastic supply due to high supply following changes in policies in China (addressing contamination from programs that do not have the quality control we have in Helena's programs). 

Helena and Lewis & Clark County promised an Integrated Solid Waste Management System (a focus on diversion over landfilling) including free curbside recycling in the city AND full recycling services at the landfill. 

• These articles from the Independent Record shows one example from when the community elected for the public landfill, transfer station and collection service option with a promise of recycling. More examples posted here.  

• The solid waste assessments in our community are more than $3,000,000!
• $1,761,000 + $1,232,000 + $110,000 = $2,993,000
• City Assessment: 176.10 x 10,000 = 1,761,000
• Scratch Gravel Solid Waste District: 14,000 x $88 = 1,232,000
• *City Landfill District:  ~$110,000 per year in 2013
  *City residents and commercial properties also pay into a landfill district. This assessment was around $110,000 but has increased substantially after storm water flooded the old landfill for a couple of years.  This district was previously paid for as part of the per ton rate at the scale.  
• The increased cost for plastics recycling is $6,000; just 16.5 cents per residence for the upcoming budget.
  
• The budgets of these operations are over-capitalized.
• Much of the recent $1,000,000 renovations currently and over the last few years at the transfer station were not recommended by the "2014 Efficiency Study." They do not prioritize diversion or other service but rather the opposite with a focus on the tonnage of trash. There are needs the city and country taxpayer-financed operation should be investing in like household hazardous waste to prevent dumping or abandoning of items not collected in town--e.g.the hex chromium that shutdown treatment at our wastewater plant.
• Even through funded primarily by assessments, these operations are managed and discussed as if an enterprise as shown in the most recent meeting minutes of the Scratch Gravel Solid Waste District. (site; minutes)
  
  
• This is part of a disturbing trend to limit services to residents while focusing on trash tonnage through the transfer station and the landfill as advanced by executive staff at the city and county. Just focusing on recommendations since the "2014 Efficiency Study," these include:
• Minimum tipping fees, originally brought to the city commission to include NO free visits to the transfer station for taxpaying residents and at a level that would allow less than one visit a month for county residents before they'd be cash customers.
• Elimination of the compost program for yard waste. Compost was presented as being a substantial cost but had substantial savings for tax-payer though it was a "loss" to the landfill. 
• Proposed weekend closure of the transfer station. 
• Note: I am only listing more recent items following the 2014 Efficiency Study which was controlled by those it was supposed to review. Getting rid of alleyway collection and other considerations risk increasing cost while reducing service.
• Also missing: An option to improve the current plastics program



Baler at Lake Co., MT Transfer Station

• There are other collection models for plastic in Montana, such as this program in Kalispell using collection trucks or at the Lake County Transfer Station where separated type 1 and 2 plastics are baled and sold to a local recycling company.
  


• Larger hopper, maybe using the recycling area like a Z-wall to allow more storage might help with staff time and service for example.
  
• Other exciting options for include taking the hard to recycle plastics and breaking it down into diesel fuel and natural gas being explored by Boise as told in this story.

•  

• Options like this will only be possible if our community is investing in recycling and like efforts with our public institutions. The current focus with priority to get more tonnage to the landfill excludes such opportunities and makes alternatives less economically viable. 

Our local solid waste regime should be looking to expand services that serve our community not limit them with a clear goal of more trash to the landfill. This should include programs for household hazardous waste to protect our water (the terrible example of chromium), allow and encourage beneficial diversion of other items (like concrete and brick for soft fill or the less intensive construction and demolition landfill), and additional recycling options at and outside the transfer station such as additional drop-off sites for the Helena Valley. Many, probably most, residents do not use all of the tons of trash they have. That revenue to be accounted for in a way that allows these other services.

There are other beneficial policies and actions to consider about plastic pollution locally and globally--another theme used in the pitch for option 2 to cancel the program. The public works director cited a bottle deposit as his solution; plastic bags bans and education have also been part of the discussion as alternatives to plastics recycling at the transfer station.  None of these other initiatives require the city to first cancel plastic recycling at the transfer station. All of them would only be helped by a genuine focus on beneficial diversion of waste at our public transfer station and in the related operations.  None of them start with a pennywise ton foolish elimination of service and access for recycling this community pays for and deserves in our public infrastructure and services. 

While this issue is not formally up for public comment yet, public comment has been sought by the above memo to two city advisory groups already and will go to the city commission at some point. County residents are impacted too, especially those who self-haul and would like to recycle. One way to join the discussion is on Facebook with "End Plastics Pollution Helena."  You should also let your elected officials, including our Helena Citizen Council representatives, know you support the tax dollars you already pay for these services increasing not decreasing. Our community has a great opportunity to have more recycling but only if our public infrastructure is part of the effort. 

- Matt E

Helena Resident. Former City Commissioner. Recycling since freshman year at Carroll College. Owner of 406 Recycling. 

p.s. I will add more resources to this page as time allows.