Should Flathead County continue to subsidize its recycling program at a loss of about $50,000 a year or scrap the program all together?

That’s the decision facing county officials over the coming weeks, but discussions at the Solid Waste District board meeting on June 25 and with the county commissioners on June 26 didn’t yield an immediate solution.

The county’s contract with Valley Recycling ended in January for the blue recycling bins at green-box collection sites and other locations at businesses and schools.

Since then the county has been on a month-to-month basis for recycling services, but Valley Recycling is patiently waiting for an answer on a longer-term contract, county Public Works Director Dave Prunty said.

The problem is the new recycling contract will cost the county nearly three times as much, and there’s no one other than Valley Recycling who wants the job.

When the county advertised for proposals from local recycling companies, Valley Recycling was the only company interested, and its proposed rates are substantially higher.

It will cost around $188,000 a year if the county kept its current level of service.

That’s a lot of money for the roughly 1,200 tons of recyclables — just over 1 percent of the county’s garbage — dropped off at the blue boxes annually, the Solid Waste board acknowledged.

But the consensus among most board members was that the recycling program is worth saving in some form.

“People want to recycle,” board member Wayne Miller said. “We have an obligation to recycle.”

Board Chairman Hank Olson agreed.

“We as a board have worked hard to make recycling a priority,” Olson said. “I’d rather fight [to keep it] than give it up. I’d like to keep all of it.”

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead said the transportation costs of collecting and diverting from the landfill materials that can be recycled pose a challenge that needs to be understood in terms of the full costs of simply burying this material in the county landfill.

“Recycled materials for the most part have a resale value, and this value has created a private-sector recycling industry in the valley that employs some 58 individuals,” said Flowers, program director for the WasteNot collaborative consumer education program that promotes recycling. “Not burying recyclable materials in the landfill saves costly air space, a significant cost savings that is often overlooked.”

Flowers said tourism surveys indicate visitors value the opportunity to recycle and want expanded recycling services. It’s time to “stay the course” and retain the county recycling program, she stressed.

Recycling saves valuable space in the county landfill, Prunty acknowledged, but since 1998 the county has lost roughly $403,400 on recycling.

The year 2000 was the only profitable year for the county, when commodity prices for aluminum and newspaper were high enough to turn a profit of just over $1,000 for the year.

The losses fluctuate. Last year the program lost $41,515. The biggest annual loss was in 2010 during the economic downturn when the county lost $97,508 on recycling.

PRUNTY OUTLINED proposed cost scenarios negotiated with Valley Recycling for a new contract that would span three to seven years.

Keeping the current program intact would cost the county just over $188,000 a year. That includes retaining all the blue bins at the green-box sites in Lakeside, Somers, Creston, Coram, Columbia Falls, Bigfork and Ashley Lake, the landfill, Albertsons, Super 1 Foods in Kalispell, Army-Navy in Evergreen, Glacier and Flathead high schools and Kalispell Middle School.

One of the most economical options is a seven-year contract with Valley Recycling that offers a longevity discount. That option includes only four county sites — the landfill and green-box locations at Columbia Falls, Somers and Creston, plus Albertsons and Super 1 Foods, at a cost $128,808 annually.

The board discussed whittling down the program even further by removing the two grocery stores. In the seven-year discounted contract the county would pay $46,044 to keep the blue bins at Albertsons and $34,368 to keep them at Super 1.

Prunty said a good compromise may be for recyclers to go directly to either Pacific Recycling in Evergreen or Valley Recycling just a half-mile down the road from Albertson’s.

“The core recyclers will find their way to Valley or Pacific,” he said. “But you’ll lose a percentage [of recyclables] to trash.”

By keeping only the four county sites the county would continue to operate the program at about a $50,000 annual loss.

Some board members wondered about increasing the solid waste tax of $80.73 annually per property owner. It would take an increase of $1.50 to $2 to adequately cover the recycling losses, Prunty said.

Instead of forging ahead with a recommendation, the board opted to get feedback from the commissioners.

“It would be foolish for us to come up with a proposal and then be told by the commissioners” it isn’t feasible, Miller said. “If we get a resounding ‘no,’ then we’ll know where we stand.”

Prunty brought the idea of a solid waste tax increase to the commissioners, but there was no consensus either on the proposed increase or how to move forward with the recycling program.

Commissioner Gary Krueger said “maybe we need to re-invent the program” and wondered if a workshop would be helpful.

“Otherwise, I could tend toward negating the program,” Krueger said. “We’re not a big enough area to drive competition.”

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.