AUBURN — The city’s curbside recycling program isn’t working, and it might be time for something new, says City Manager Glenn Aho.

“There has to be a better mousetrap we can find here,” Aho said. “If we just do what we’ve done all along, it’s just not acceptable. It’s going to end up costing us more and more money if we do nothing.”

He’ll recommend that the city pay a single-stream recycler to take over the program, in hopes it will reduce costs and boost recycling rates.

“We’re looking at everything in the city, hoping we can do what we do better and more efficiently,” Aho said. “We’re just trying to find better solutions.”

The city offers free curbside recycling to every residence where one to seven families live. Auburn began its curbside recycling program in 1992. By 1998, the recycling rate was about 45 percent, but it’s declined since then. It currently ranges between 5 and 20 percent, depending on the neighborhood.

The recycling program does not have a specific line item in the municipal budget but is part of the overall $4.6 million Public Works budget. Aho said it was difficult to point to per-unit recycling costs. The city is working with an accountant to determine those costs, and he plans to make that analysis part of his report.

“It’s something that municipalities rarely do, looking at the actual costs to determine what we’re paying,” Aho said. The department will have to either add employees, increase overtime allowances by about $10,000 or reduce services next year to make ends meet, he said.

The city has been testing reducing recycling collections over the past few months in New Auburn, where they have collected every other week. It hasn’t worked, Aho said. “But at least we tried, and now we know that’s not the solution.” 

Single-stream recycling may be a better solution. That would let residents dump all of their recyclable materials into a single bin. The city would pay a company to collect it. The recycler would process the recyclables and resell them, keeping the profits.

“The city would be able to sell off its equipment, which is just not efficient any more,” Aho said. “We’d also be able to reduce staff by attrition, just absorb those people into other jobs in Public Works. That’s how this would end up saving us money.”

[email protected]