The Mower County board faces a tough decision to make Tuesday when it’s slated to vote whether to switch to single-sort recycling or keep its current sorted program. However, commissioners will have plenty of public opinion to help guide their decision. While a proposed single-sort plan is expected to make recycling easier and therefore increase recycling to keep items out of landfills, it would increase recycling costs from $16-$18 a year under the county-run sorted recycling program to as much as $55.36 a year. Cost is only part of the story, as a switch to single-sort would cost the jobs of 14-17 people who are placed through Cedar Valley Services Inc. The board is slated to vote around 9:45 a.m. Tuesday in the board room in the basement of the Mower County Government Center.

Many wish to keep local program

While single-sort recycling is said to increase recycling volumes by 30 percent or more, many Mower County residents want to keep the current sorted system, especially because it’s a locally-operated program and more affordable.

Many Mower County residents have balked at a switch to single-sort, which would increase yearly costs from $16-$18 to as much as $55.36, and it would put recycling in the hands of a nationwide contractor, Waste Management Inc.

“Waste Management is good, but they’re the biggest garbage hauler in the world,” former county commissioner Mary Keenan said. “And if we can keep something local and do it right, why shouldn’t we?”

Currently, Mower County picks up and sells recycling with help through a contract with Cedar Valley Services Inc., which finds jobs for people with physical and mental disabilities. A switch to single-sort would mean 14-17 Cedar Valley clients and two to three supervisors would need to find new jobs, which could be hard to replace based on a push for integrated employment.

Those jobs are a major concern to people like Garry Ellingson, a former sheriff’s deputy and Mower County commissioner.

“You’re going to lose 17 jobs at least of those people from Cedar Valley,” Ellingson said. “That’s the biggest thing. Where are those folks going to go to work?”

Ellingson said when he was a commissioner several years ago, he and other commissioners voted against changing the recycling program because of the loss of jobs that would occur.

Ellingson isn’t the only one with this concern. Keenan said the workers from Cedar Valley Services have done a good job over the years, and she questioned why they should push them out now.

Kirk Kuchera created a petition against single-sort recycling on change.org, and he wrote in an email to the Herald the jobs are a big reason for the county to hesitate when making this decision.

“We should be proud to have a community that supports a local organization like Cedar Valley and helps provide jobs for those that do good work taking care of our recycling,” he wrote. “Although it shouldn’t be the only reason we stick with our current system, it should definitely be a part of the conversation.”

Still difficult to use

But it’s not just about the jobs. Many like Ellingson fear the new recycling bins could be heavy and difficult for elderly people to get to the end of the driveway.

“If you look at the demographics from our area, we have one of the largest numbers of elderly people,” he said. “And if you take those big containers they want to use for single-sort — I’ve been told they have weights in the bottom of them to keep them from tipping over — … that would make it difficult for elderly people to handle.”

Though some people do have trouble with the current containers, Ellingson said there are likely alternative ways to deal with that without switching to single-sort.

Keenan suggested bins that are connected together somehow or that have lids on them.

“I think the system works well,” Keenan said. “It’s just that people don’t bother to do it or some people are unable.”

“What we have is not hard,” she added. “It’s just not as neat and clean; it doesn’t look as nice in our garages.”

Kevin Kiser, manager of the Freeborn County Co-op, didn’t think a switch would make a big difference. He suspected people that currently recycle will likely continue to recycle, while those who don’t recycle now likely won’t decide to because of the switch.

Kuchera agreed the system currently used in Mower County isn’t difficult to use, people just choose not to recycle. He said he personally loves the convenience of single-sort and that fact makes a huge selling point. Yet there are consequences with that convenience.

“From various articles and studies that I’ve read, the net output of high quality recycling will no doubt diminish (percentage wise),” he wrote.

The big question he posed was whether the increased amount of input would be large enough to increase the current output after contamination. He hoped those who really care about the environment would also care about the net output of recycling materials and the quality of the product.

“If a processor of post-consumer material has to down-cycle material because it is inferior due to ‘single stream,’ then we need to reconsider how valuable this particular system truly is,” Kuchera wrote.

Cost

Another concern for many is the cost. Along with concerns of a possible increase of about $40 a year, another issue is the money the county will lose. Currently, the recyclables are sold to outside companies and the money goes back into the county. If the recycling is contracted out to another company, in this case Waste Management, they will keep the revenue.

“All the money they collect will go out of the county,” Keenan said. “And the things that they’re asking people to put in their bin, the single sort, many of the things they put in there are not recyclable or resalable.”

Kiser said from a business stance, switching to single-sort isn’t the best option for the county.

“I’m not negative about it,” he said. “I just think you have to run it like every other business and if it’s not cost effective to do it, [don’t].”

He said the move would be fairly expensive for taxpayers, without a large return. Kiser noted articles he’d read about Waste Management closing some single-sort sites down because a loss of money, due to people throwing garbage into the recycling containers.

“It’s just not working like they thought it would,” he said.

Ellingson also noted single-sort would be a seven-year contract, which would cost residents up to $55.36 a year now, but could be increased in subsequent years.

Ellingson said other counties have had issues with the single-sort system since people will also throw garbage into the recycling, or throw unclean items in the recycling, which can lead to contamination and those items ending up in a landfill anyway.

��Why do we want to get involved with a situation that is having difficulty when ours is still operating fine and dandy the way it is,” he said.

Promoting recycling

If the county switches to single-sort, it could do countywide residential pickup or it could do pickup in incorporated cities with rural drop boxes.

Keenan and Ellingson noted the dropoff site in Austin is used regularly, especially during the weekends, and they worried without that people would opt to throw items away instead of recycling.

“The commissioners say only 57 percent [of people] recycle,” Keenan said. “But they could boost that with more public advertising and promotion; they could boost that without going to single-sort.”

Many people think whatever recycling system there is, businesses, restaurants and other larger buildings need to be included. Keenan worried the new system could exclude those types of places that still want to recycle, and she said that would be a problem. She didn’t think many businesses would sign a separate contract to recycle.

“I just don’t think it’s responsible to go to that system,” she said.

Kiser also questioned how single-sort could allow more people to recycle if businesses couldn’t participate.

“There’s just a lot of questions that haven’t been answered,” he said.