Free Cardboard Recycling Ends in Litchfield as Council Weighs $2,000-Plus Monthly Cost

Litchfield City Council Meeting | July 16, 2026

Article Summary: Litchfield’s free cardboard recycling drop-off ended July 13 after D.C. Waste told the city it was losing money on the service, and the City Council discussed — without deciding — whether to pay an estimated $2,000 to $2,500 a month to continue it.

Cardboard Recycling Key Points:

• D.C. Waste discontinued the free cardboard drop-off effective July 13, 2026, after formally notifying the city July 9, per a staff memo.
• Continuing the service under contract is estimated at $2,000 to $2,500 per month, and would require a public RFP process.
• Residents can subscribe to a D.C. Waste residential recycling cart for about $17 a month, put cardboard in regular trash, or use a Hillsboro recycling site.
• The council took no action, opting to gather citizen feedback and cost information before deciding.

LITCHFIELD — The Litchfield City Council on Thursday, July 16, 2026, discussed the future of community cardboard recycling after D.C. Waste ended the free drop-off service it had long provided, leaving the city to decide whether to fund a replacement with public money.

The city administrator told the council she met with D.C. Waste several months ago, when the company noted recycling is no longer profitable and warned the day might come when it could not continue the free service. A couple of weeks ago, she said, the company told her it had reached the point of losing money on the Litchfield service and asked about entering an agreement — then, after that meeting, informed the city it would stop service the following Monday. According to a memo from City Administrator Breann Vazquez in the agenda packet, the city was formally notified July 9, and the service was discontinued effective July 13.

D.C. Waste had provided two 40-yard dumpsters for residents’ cardboard-only recycling at no charge. “We’re very grateful to D.C. Waste for providing this service for so long without a fee to residents,” the administrator told the council, adding the company had to make a business decision that made sense for it.

Continuing the service at city expense would require a formal Request for Proposals, she said, because it would move from a free service to one using public funds. Based on conversations with the provider, staff estimate a contract would cost approximately $2,000 to $2,500 per month. A council member noted that at $2,500 a month the city would be spending approximately $30,000 a year, money “a lot of people in the city” could use. City street department staff were already compacting the cardboard — approximately twice each day, per the memo — and cleaning up around the site, where boxes were frequently left outside the dumpsters or not broken down. The administrator said D.C. Waste averaged about 10 trips per month emptying the containers.

She also said the service was never intended for business use, but several businesses used it regularly, adding to loads and costs — and that restricting a future service to residents would be difficult to enforce. Asked whether an RFP might draw interest from companies serving larger communities, she said she doubted it: “Recycling is not a profitable industry currently, and a lot of communities are doing away with recycling services because they can’t even get a provider to offer them.”

Options for residents remain, officials said: a recycling site in Hillsboro is available “at least for now,” D.C. Waste offers a residential recycling cart for about $17 a month, and cardboard is allowed in regular trash. The administrator told the council residents cannot burn cardboard, saying the EPA does not allow it. (Her pre-meeting memo describes an ordinance-amendment option on burning — see Editorial Flags.)

Fleming said the city loved the program and suggested gathering data and citizen feedback before deciding whether to seek bids. “Recycling is an important thing for our environment,” he said, while noting taxpayers may now be subsidizing people who abuse the service. The item was discussion only; no action was taken.