Green-box site stirs discussion

Despite the efforts of Bigfork residents to offer options to retain their green-box refuse site, the Flathead County Solid Waste District Board still isn’t convinced it’s in the county’s best interest to keep the site.

“The big question is do we stay in Bigfork or do we shut down?” Public Works Director Dave Prunty said at the board’s monthly meeting on Tuesday.

While no vote was taken, the consensus seemed to be if Bigfork wants to keep the green-box site the community should be willing to pay for it.

“It’s skin in the game,” board member Alan Ruby said. “Put up [the money] or shut up.”

A 2009 strategic report for the county landfill recommends closing both the Bigfork and Lakeside green-box sites and consolidating services at staffed and fenced locations at Somers and Creston. The county has consolidated other outlying sites in recent years, largely to save money and provide safer facilities.

At the Bigfork site, illegal dumping of hazardous waste and commercial garbage have been chronic problems, Prunty has pointed out on several occasions.

Several board members feel a precedent already has been set for consolidation. Marion and Kila green-box sites were consolidated into a new facility near Ashley Lake. At the eastern end of the county the three smallest collection sites at Essex, Nyack and Glacier Haven Inn have been consolidated into a new East Corridor site near Essex.

“If this [keeping the Bigfork site] goes through, do we put Kila back?” asked board chairman Hank Olson. “Are we going to fold like a suitcase? We’ve lost sight of the word ‘consolidate.’”

Ruby concurred, asking “how do we explain it to the other sites if this goes forward?”

Earlier this year the board delayed a decision on closing the Bigfork green-box site to give Bigfork residents time to develop alternative plans. Last month a Bigfork study group presented two options.

The group’s first proposal is to expand and improve the existing site on Montana 83. The site could be expanded by 25 percent because the current layout doesn’t use all of the land leased from the Montana Department of Transportation, the group maintained. Trash bins could be angled at 30 degrees to give disposal trucks more room to maneuver. The group further suggested the county could negotiate with adjoining property owner Margaret Conley to lease a slice of her land for the expansion.

The other alternative suggested by the study group is to build a new site on acreage also owned by Conley, immediately east of the current site. The property is zoned suburban agricultural and would have to be subdivided into a five-acre parcel.

Prunty said Conley won’t sell any property but has agreed to lease five acres to the county for $8,000 a year for a term of 20 years. He estimated it would cost about $300,000 to build a new site and may even be “pushing the half-million-dollar range.”

The county commissioners will make the final decision about how to proceed with the Bigfork green boxes.

Commissioner Gary Krueger, the commissioners’ representative on the Solid Waste Board, said last month that having two landlords for the site could pose problems. He said he’d prefer to have the county purchase land for a new site and told the board he would “fully expect the Bigfork community to put in matching money.”

Several board members agree with Krueger’s expectation of Bigfork contributing financially to keeping its green boxes.

“If Bigfork wants to put in [a green-box facility] at their cost, then fine,” Olson said.

Board member Wayne Miller said “resistance is growing to keeping Bigfork and we need to hear their interest in financing it.”

No one from the Bigfork study group attended the board meeting, and spokesman Paul Mutascio said he wasn’t aware the Bigfork green-box issue would be discussed.

Mutascio continues to maintain that the strategic plan upon which the county is making decisions about green-box consolidation is short-sighted and flawed in its recommendations for consolidation.

The report only looked at ways to reduce the county’s direct solid waste operating costs, Mutascio said. It gave no consideration to the impacts these closures would have on the broader financial, economic and environmental issues on the Flathead community, he added.

“Eventually, if they follow the strategic report, [Bigfork] people will be forced to get curbside service at an extra $280 a year,” Mutascio said.

Forcing people to curbside collection — where there are no actual curbs and commercial haulers won’t go on private property — doesn’t work in rural areas like Bigfork, he said.

Prunty said he’s spoken with a representative of Republic Services, formerly Allied Waste, and was told “they’ll pick up anybody’s garbage.”

Board members wondered if curbside service ultimately would be cheaper than Bigfork paying for its own green-box site.

Bob Keenan, a member of the Bigfork study group, said the possibility of a special improvement district has been discussed. Property owners within the district would pay a small amount annually, and that money go toward operating a green-box site.

Keenan is also a trustee of the Bigfork Community Development Foundation Trust, a fund created in 1991 by a philanthropic Texas couple who financially supported many projects in Bigfork. The foundation has $2.5 million and the trustees are required to spend 5 percent of the principal annually, Keenan said.

While the foundation would have about $110,000 to $120,000 available for community projects, “we’re not going to be on the hook for $500,000” for a new green-box site, Keenan said.

He noted the Solid Waste District has ample reserves to keep the Bigfork site operational.

“Our thinking is the Bigfork community wants to keep the site,” Keenan said. “We’ve made great progress but there have been numerous roadblocks. Now we have to get into the details of it.”

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