Green Box site closure attempt failed once before
By Matt Naber
Jan. 30, 2013
Efforts to close the green box sites across Flathead County were originally attempted and failed in the 1990s.
Much like the incident from 20 years ago, public outcry has been to keep the sites open.
But, some of those backing the proposal and citizens opposing it, didn’t know this scuffle has happened before.
This proposal would close the site on Montana 83 in Bigfork as well as the site in Lakeside.
County Public Works Director Dave Prunty and Solid Waste Board Chairman Hank Olson didn’t know it because it all happened before they began working with the county.
Bigfork’s unofficial spokesman for keeping the green box site, Paul Mutascio, was also unaware that history is repeating itself.
Back in 1994 and presently, county officials have said the sites needed to be closed to conform with state environmental law, but they confirmed last week that’s not the case.
However, it was originally revealed in October 1994 that these regulations were not required for the green box sites, just the county landfill near Whitefish and last week Prunty said the law remains the same.
“Absolutely it is true,” Prunty said. “The DEQ does not regulate the container sites to my knowledge. The 1993 legislature changed solid waste rules and said container sites are not regulated by the DEHS, that’s what DEQ was then.”
This holds true today, the green box sites are not required to have fencing or personnel on site; this is something the solid waste board wants.
Unlike the 1994 attempt to close the sites under the ruse of federal regulations, the board clouts safety and inappropriate dumping as the cause for wanting the sites closed this time around.
“They don’t have to, but we want to have those controls on them,” Prunty said. “The solid waste board and staff, we feel it is important to have that ability.”
Prunty had just recently graduated at the time this was occurring in Flathead County and Olson joined the board about 10-12 years ago. Neither was aware the 1994 county commissioners had decided to close the sites and backed away from it, and a closure is a decision that Mutascio believes should be made by elected officials today as it was in 1994.
“If we’re going to face a cut in services and have money taken out of the pockets of homeowners and renters…the commissioners should make that decision,” Mutascio said.
In May 1994 the Bigfork green box site was set for closure due to anticipated cost increases. At that time, Flathead County was the cheapest in the state at $30.50 per year while Lake County was at $85, higher than Flathead’s current fee of $80.73.
Gary Stempin, director of the Flathead County Solid Waste District in 1994, said it would cost $1.4 million per year to comply with federal and state regulations such as manning the sites and fencing them in, although this was never required by law.
However, money is still an issue today.
A survey taken in the early 1990s indicated that most residents of the county would haul their own garbage up to 12 miles to avoid higher tax levies to support landfill operations.
Currently, consolidating the sites and hiring three people to staff the Creston and Somers sites would save the county about $60,000 a year and have the desired fencing and supervision.
The 2011 Solid Waste Report showed nearly $4.5 million in operational cash reserves plus roughly $13 million in trust fund accounts. Expenditures for 2011 were $6.7 million which included transfers of $1 million to the liner expansion trust, $600,000 to the closure/post-closure trust, $200,000 to the landfill property acquisition trust, $30,000 to the FEC Improvement fund for the gas-to-energy project and $4,000 to the Flathead City County Health Department as a sharps disposal grant. The landfill cost per ton for the year were $30.30, up slightly from 2010.
Prunty said the sites are intended for household waste from kitchen garbage cans and not potential pollutants such as the five-gallon bucket of chromic acid at Lakeside’s site and more common items such as couches and mattresses.
According to Olson the sites are also being used commercially and commercial waste is supposed to go to the landfill.
WHAT’S NEXT
Last Tuesday the Flathead County Solid Waste Board voted to delay a decision on closing the Bigfork site for six months to allow local residents time to formulate an alternative plan for garbage collection.
In a separate action, the board voted to create a work group of four Bigfork area residents and two Solid Waste District staffers to work together and report back to the board in six months.
This six-month period could be extended if necessary, but closure of Lakeside’s site is continuing as planned.
The yet to be formed committee will address concerns such as the location’s traffic safety and size.
“I can’t tell you how good it is to have communications with Bigfork,” Olson said. “We didn’t realize it was an issue until we set the date to close it.”
Green Box committee assembled
By Matt Naber
Feb. 13, 2013
The future of the Bigfork Green Box site could depend on the efforts of Bigfork residents Karin Henion, Bruce Solberg, Bob Keenan and Paul Mutascio.
The four will work with County Public Works Director Dave Prunty and County Solid Waste Operations Manager James Chilton on how to either keep the Bigfork Green Box site open or find an alternative solution to the current proposal to close the site entirely.
Last month, the Flathead County Solid Waste Board voted to delay a decision on closing the Bigfork Green Box site for six months to allow local residents time to formulate an alternative plan for garbage collection. In a separate action, the board voted to create a group of four Bigfork area residents and two Solid Waste District staffers to work together and report back to the board in six months.
This six-month period could be extended if necessary as the committee addresses concerns such as the location’s traffic safety and size.
Mutascio has spent the last few months working with Prunty and others to find a solution to the Green Box site, and he brings decades of experience with city management to the table.
Mutascio said the 2009 study only looked at ways to reduce the county’s direct solid waste operating costs without looking at the broader financial, economic, safety and environmental issues and recycling needs. According to Mutascio, the study focused on the urban sections of the county and not the rural sections, including unincorporated villages such as Bigfork, which make up the other 65 percent.
Mutascio said it could be possible to adjust the angles of the green boxes at the Bigfork site to make it more accommodating to larger vehicles.
“All the problems listed with the Bigfork site can be overcome,” Mutascio said.
Keenan is bringing 12 years of government experience to the table as a former legislator and president of the Montana State Senate. He has been working with current state Rep. Scott Reichner, R-Bigfork, to find out who has the authority to make the final decision regarding the site’s closure: the county commissioners or the solid waste board.
“That doesn’t make sense to me, and I mentioned that to Paul (Mutascio) and he asked me to serve and I said sure,” Keenan said.
Solberg will be on the committee to represent Bigfork’s businesses and residents as president of the local chamber of commerce.
“I would just like to assure out community that thorough research is done and all venues are explored prior to just arbitrarily having the county make the decision to close the boxes,” Solberg said.
Henion, a member of the Bigfork Rotary Club and senior vice-president of Flathead Bank, spoke with Mutascio about the site following his visit to the Rotary Club earlier this winter. She said volunteering and getting active with local projects is important for unincorporated villages like Bigfork to function.
“I just think if you care about your community that you should be involved,” Henion said. “Since we are not a city, there are only citizens to get involved, there is no council or elected officials. We have to do our own thing. If the citizens are not involved it’s not going to get done.”
Comments or suggestions can be discussed with Henion at 837-1600 or sent to Solberg at chamber@bigfork.org or discussed in person with Keenan at his restaurant, the Bigfork Inn.
The time and nature of the committee meetings is yet to be determined, but so far the goal is to have them be open to the public with equal input from each member.
Expansion of Bigfork’s green box site a possibility
By Matt Naber
March 13, 2013
Size restrictions, property lines, box arrangement, safety concerns and fencing are on the discussion table in determining the future of Bigfork’s green box site.
The Bigfork Green Box committee and Flathead County Solid Waste Operation Manager Jim Chilton scoped out the site’s footprint, layout and property lines on Thursday morning.
“We all recognize the green box site in the future needs to be fenced, gated, and have hours of operation,” committee member Bob Keenan said. “I think we have in general made great progress with the Solid Waste Board. They understand the community is set in wanting the green box site.”
But how this will be done is a work in progress.
Last week Robert Peccia and Associates surveyed the site. Chilton said they marked out the property that’s leased from the Montana Department of Transportation so the committee could see what’s being used and what’s currently available.
County requirements are for green box sites to be about three acres. Bigfork’s site is 383 feet long by 80 feet wide. Chilton said the ideal size is a minimum of 150 feet wide by 300-400 feet long.
Committee member Paul Mutascio said it’s possible to move the east side of the green box site closer to the property line.
“That would hypothetically gain another 16 to 17 feet to the south and about 25 feet of working pad to the east within the boundaries of MDT’s property,” Chilton said.
Mutascio said the group discussed the organizations and property owners they would need to work with to make the necessary size changes to the green box site. One of their ideas was to remove the utility pole near the center of the site.
Chilton said the pole can’t be moved because it’s a major transition line for Flathead Electric Co-op.
Part of the issue with the Bigfork site stems from its shape. Ideally, green box sites need to be square to accommodate traffic, according to Keenan.
“There are opportunities to redesign where the boxes are kept,” Mutascio said. “I saw flexibility on the county’s part on ways to change the site to make it acceptable.”
One option is to position the boxes at an angle so the dump trucks have more room when approaching them for unloading.
“‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way’ applies in this case,” Mutascio said.
Committee member Bob Keenan said the group is also addressing safety concerns by taking a look at Montana 83 traffic, speed limit and accesses. There are 15 accesses between Swan River School and Montana 35 and the speed limit is currently 70 mph.
“It is an issue and it’s a sensitive one for the department of transportation, but if we pointed out the number of accesses we might have a better case,” Keenan said. “It’s a real complex process to change speed limits.”
Committee member Karin Henion said fencing would provide two functions, preventing inappropriate dumping and as a visual barrier. Examples of inappropriate dumping include things like toxic waste, industrial materials, and even certain household items such as couches and mattresses.
“Trees will make a green barrier (in addition to fencing) and be more pleasing and aesthetic to the surrounding property owners,” Henion said.
According to Mutascio, the committee and the county have not considered moving the green box site to a different location because the county was unable to find another suitable spot.
Mutascio said during last week’s tour of the site, a resident said if he had to take his garbage to Somers or Creston he would continue on to Kalispell to do his shopping.
“The impact is much larger than imagined,” Mutascio said. “It could have a dampening effect on the community.”
The committee’s next meeting will be at Flathead Bank on Friday, March 15 at 2 p.m.
Green Box committee meets with county to discuss options
By Matt Naber
March 20, 2013
The Bigfork Green Box site has been discussed, analyzed, sized, and hypothesized by locals and county officials since the early 1990s and the struggle to keep it open and operational continues.
Size restrictions, property lines, box arrangements, safety concerns and fencing were on the discussion table in determining the future of Bigfork’s green box site.
The Bigfork Green Box committee, Flathead County Public Works Director Dave Prunty and Flathead County Solid Waste Operation Manager Jim Chilton met at Flathead Bank on Friday afternoon to discuss what’s been determined about the site so far and what needs to happen next.
The Bigfork green box site is located on a state highway and the state sets the speed limit for highways. But, the state wants local county commissioners to request a speed zone change before beginning the process for changing it. This hasn’t “gotten much traction with the commissioners before,” according to Prunty.
Prunty also said the speed on state highways is set at the 85th percentile for what people drive on that road.
“People will drive what the road allows,” Prunty said. “That’s not just Montana’s way of doing it, it is the national way of how it is done.”
Bigfork Green Box committee member Karin Henion pointed out that the green box site is on the only highway, Montana 83, extending from Bigfork with a 70 mph speed limit. The rest are 60 mph and lower.
Bigfork Green Box committee member Bob Keenan said he’s taking another approach in dealing with the speed and safety concerns near the site through the state transportation commission.
Size was another issue discussed during the meeting.
“We had a topographic survey, and the width is terrible on this site,” Prunty said.
He also said the Montana Department of Transportation might be able to lease an additional 18 feet at the site. The tentative plan is to work with nearby landowners so the site can be extended about 100 feet back from the road.
According to Prunty, the site has also been using private property for years where appliances are dumped near the entrance. He said the site had 86 appliances picked up from it, which is a good thing because the returns for scrap metal are high. But, he said others pick up a lot of it once it is dropped off.
According to Chilton, the county gets $171 per ton for recycled metal.
“Don’t give us ammunition to close the site,” Prunty said in reference to those who pick up scrap metal from the site. “This is a revenue stream to keep county costs as low as possible.”
Part of their discussion was over residents’ confusion regarding the county’s plan. Prunty and Chilton emphasized that the Somers and Creston sites are not closing. However, the Lakeside site will be closed.
The committee and county representatives agreed that their meetings would be open to public input as a round table discussion. Their next meeting will be held at Flathead Bank on April 3 at 2 p.m.
Matt Naber 