The Mower County board will explore more options in an effort to keep the cost of a potential switch to single-sort recycling more manageable.

The board unanimously voted Tuesday to add three bid alternates to the single-sort recycling bids to explore if the alternates would lower the annual cost for homeowners.

“To me, it behooves us to investigate all opportunities,” Mower County Public Works Director Mike Hanson said.

Last month, the county opened bidding for waste contractors to pick up all household single-sort recycling in the county to then transfer to a sorting site, but county staff voiced concerns about the cost of countywide residential pickup.

To potentially limit the increases, one alternate would only feature residential pickup in incorporated cities, and rural homeowners would have to take their recycling to drop boxes maintained by the contractor.

The other two alternates explore if a transfer station or staging area — either at the current Mower County Recycling Center or the Austin Transfer Station — would decrease the costs for contractors who’d have to haul the trash a greater distance to a sorting center.

A temporary storage site would allow for the product to be stored and then hauled to final destination on a larger vehicle like a semi trailer truck. The Hanson said the center would level the playing field for out-of-town bidders compared to local bidders.

By adding the alternates, the county isn’t committing to anything. The alternates are strictly exploratory.

“It’s not a given, it’s a what-if,” Hanson said.

Cost is key. Though much community feedback has favored switching to single-sort recycling, county officials voiced concerns about the cost — especially with countywide single-sort pickup at residential properties. Residences pay $16 to $18 a year for sorted recycling as part of county property taxes, whether they recycle or not. The single-sort fee would also come off property taxes, but county officials previously estimated it could cost $4.25 to $5 a month — $51 to $60 a year.

Hanson and others speculated the cost could be as high as $65 to $80 due to the labor needed to pickup countywide residential, but they just won’t know until the bids come in. The alternate would allow the county to gauge the cost difference between countywide residential pickup and residential pickup in the incorporated cities.

City-only residential pickup may also stem some fears for rural homeowners. Some residents voiced concern about recycling bins tipping and blowing away at the end of the road, but current drop boxes have their own issues: several cases of people dumping garbage in them. However, board members said that is an issue the contractor would need to address.

While cutting rural pickup may curb costs, commissioners feared a staging area may cost too much to be worthwhile. Each site would likely come with added costs.

“I would be totally against spending any more money,” Commissioner Jerry Reinartz said.

The city’s waste transfer station would come with some lease costs. It has been leased to Waste Management for 15 years; however, the city is exploring uses for the facility after its usage has decreased dramatically, causing Waste Management to only bid $6,000 to use the facility. The county discussed using all or just part of the facility.

If the county used the city transfer station, it would remain city property and lease costs would be paid through the tax fees.

Commissioner Tim Gabrielson also voiced hesitation, asking why the county-owned recycling center wasn’t the only option.

“We already have a location,” he said.

However, County Coordinator Craig Oscarson and Commissioner Mike Ankeny noted the recycling center would need roof work, as it’s too short for trucks to dump recyclables inside the building.

“We’re not making the commitment at all,” Ankeny said. “We’re just getting numbers. If these numbers come back that we feel they’re too high, I guess we’d just leave everything the way we have it now.”

According to Hanson, at least one of the contractors to bid thus far would likely not need a staging center.

With the alternates, the county is likely to take more time to weigh the pros and cons of switching to single-sort once final bids come in.

Initially, bids were due at 1 p.m. June 18 and then the board would have 30 days to award a bid, should it ultimately opt to switch to single-sort. However, the county will now likely give contractors more time to prepare bids and alternates. City Public Works Director Steven Lang, who talked briefly about the city transfer station, suggested giving the contractors more time to ready bids.

“The more time you give them, the more accurate number you’re going to get,” he said.

He also recommended the board extend its discussion period from 30 days to 60 or 90 days, if not more, to give more time for community discussion. He said that shouldn’t affect the contractors since Mower wouldn’t switch to single sort until March 31, 2016, if it moves ahead on single-sort.

“I wouldn’t think that would be a huge impact to them,” he said.

The board also rescheduled its next meeting, originally slated for June 23, to June 30.