MARQUETTE — More information is needed before questions about the future of recycling in Marquette County can be answered.

The Marquette County Solid Waste Management Authority is in the beginning stages of switching from a dual-stream recycling system to single stream. The authority oversees the Marquette County Landfill, which serves residents of the county’s municipalities. It does not currently recycle glass and uses a dual-stream recycling system that requires rigid and fiber materials to be separated and picked up on alternating weeks.

Funds to switch the recycling system come from a $3 million interest-free loan from the Closed Loop Fund and a $1 million grant from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. Revenue for the project will be generated by increasing the landfill tipping fee by $6 per ton beginning in November.

The Marquette County Township Association held a special meeting in June, per the request of some of the townships, to discuss single-stream recycling at the Marquette County Landfill.

At that meeting, the association asked the MCSWMA for more details about the transition. A document formulated by James Nankervis, the Marquette County Township Association President, posed questions such as what firm is in charge of the project and its experience.

Resource Recycling Systems, a firm that has implemented over 1,700 recycling projects worldwide, will complete the project, documents sent to the association from MCSWMA Director Brad Austin stated. The firm has completed three comparably-sized recycling centers in downstate Harbor Springs and Royal Oak, and Milwaukee, Austin said, but information on what profit the facilities make on recycling is not available.

The association also asked if due diligences had been completed regarding the project, as none of the constituent municipalities had been made aware of such processes.

Austin stated that due diligences have been executed throughout the last two years and will continue throughout the project.

“A reputable consultant was hired,” Austin wrote in his memo. “A feasibility study was conducted. A business plan has been evolving since December 2018 (after) the results of the feasibility study. A blended finance approach including grants, no-interest and conventional loans have been sought, which has added to the complexity of the project. As I have communicated, the authority did not receive any solid project financial data until April 8, 2019. It has made the communication piece to all municipalities difficult.”

In a phone interview Thursday, Austin said the authority is currently awaiting a request for proposals, or RFP, which will be completed toward the end of the month.

The RFP is for the construction and modifications that need to be done to the existing structure at the landfill to switch the recycling system. Once the RFP is complete, a project budget review will be done.

An answer to the township association’s question, “what is the expected cost per ton for recycling?” will not be known until a project budget review is complete, Austin said.

“We don’t have the equipment here,” he said. “We have general guidelines regarding power usage and just some general guidelines regarding the use of the machine, but until we get material here and we start to run it through the machine itself, that won’t be determined until then.”

The association also inquired about the cost per ton for recycling glass, which Austin said cannot be determined until the cost per ton is determined.

He did note that currently, the MCSWMA is receiving about $25 per ton for mixed fiber bale, cardboard and mixed paper, and $10-$15 per ton of mixed rigid bale. Ferrous metal goes for the current rate per ton at a local scrapyard, he said in his letter to the association.

In Nankervis’ email to Austin, he stated that the consensus of the township representatives present at the June meeting was that the landfill authority should pursue the $9 annual fee per household through the Urban Cooperation Act instead of raising the tipping fee per ton.

“Shouldn’t the landfill authority ask the constituent municipalities for approval on a $5.9 million project?” Nankervis questioned.

Austin stated that in order to receive the $3 million interest-free loan, the MCSWMA Board of Trustees needed a funding mechanism in place. A millage was not an option for the project and so the board discussed an increase in tipping fees and the Urban Cooperation Act at an April meeting. Both a millage and the urban act would have required approval from the county, he said.

“Based on the April 16 meeting with the county, differing legal opinions and an overall uncertainty that the county would assist the authority, the tipping fee was put in place,” Austin stated. “Again, the situation was timely. We needed to preserve the opportunity to receive the $3 million interest-free loan.”

During the phone interview, Austin noted that the tipping fee is a user-based system and that the cost per household can’t be determined as it depends on the materials received by the facility.

The association also asked if the Marquette County Road Commission would be purchasing the re-purposed glass and what dollar value that would have.

“The road commission uses quite a bit of sand material in the winter months for the roads,” Austin said. “Are we going to be producing enough material to accommodate the needs of the road commission? Those are things that are going to have to be determined as we move forward.”

Trinity Carey can be reached at 906-228-2500, ext. 243. Her email address is photos@miningjournal.net.