Trending
PARKERSBURG - City of Parkersburg officials are reviewing a court ruling that could impact how recyclable materials are picked up.
Wood County Circuit Court Judge J.D. Beane issued a declaratory judgment on Thursday that the city’s new method of picking up recyclables does not follow established state law and the city remains obligated to establish and implement a curbside-collection program for recyclable materials that satisfies the minimum requirements of the statute.
Parkersburg resident and attorney Walt Auvil said, in motions in his original suit, the city violated state code requiring cities with a population of 10,000 or more to establish and implement a mandatory recycling program offering pickup of at least three materials at least once a month.
The court’s ruling says the city's subscription-based program with Rumpke of Ohio Inc., which charges those participating an additional $3 a month and went into effect in May year, is deficient.
On Friday, Auvil said the ruling was to determine if the contract was compliant with the law.
"What the court clearly established is the Rumpke contract does not fulfill the city's obligation to the citizens of the city by the law,” he said. "The only recycling offered is through that Rumpke contract. No other recycling is offered."
Auvil said he had made Parkersburg City Council aware of this in the past.
City officials said the contract was still in place and recyclables were still being picked up as of Friday.
Council's Public Works and Finance committees will hold a joint meeting to discuss the ruling at 7 p.m. Wednesday in the Executive Conference Room on the second floor of the Municipal Building. Items on the agenda to be discussed are options for complying with the recent court order to mandate all residents be charged the same for recycling regardless of participation or desire to recycle; what the penalty should be for not recycling three items each month; and what additional personnel are needed for enforcement and associated cost.
"The question is what do we do from here, what does the city do from here," Auvil said. "I am hopeful that we will be able to reach some agreement with the city that will get them to do what the law requires, which is to provide the recycling service that they are required to provide to all citizens of the city."
He has not ruled out further legal action if an agreement is not made.
"I am hopeful we can reach an agreement and get everyone the recycling the law says they are supposed to be offered," Auvil said. "I just wish we did not have to go down this road."
Parkersburg City Attorney Blaine Myers said they were pleased the court did not invalidate the contract with Rumpke and the city is able to keep providing that service.
Myers said the city has been looking at modifying the ordinance to conform to the language of the state statute and addressing the obligation of non-residential customers to recycle.
"The major issue that still needs to be resolved is … whether the city can charge a separate subscription fee of $3 a month, we provided in the ordinance, to those who voluntarily desire to recycle," Myers said. "The argument opposed to that is the cost of recycling should be born by everyone whether they recycle or not."
Parkersburg Mayor Tom Joyce said the original law that all of this falls under was passed in the 1990s and there are a number of cities across the state that are not being required to adhere to it. They mayor said he would find that "disappointing and impractical" if Parkersburg was required ro do so.
"The good thing is the contract was not voided," Joyce said. "We can continue with the contract with Rumpke for what has been fantastic service from a recycling standpoint for around 1,300 residents of Parkersburg who had a fantastic recycling program at a very reasonable price compared to what it could have been."
Council will have to determine how the city can comply, he said.
Joyce said he feels that if everyone is required to have the service then it will end up costing people more money to be in compliance.
"That is not going to come without a cost," he said. "The reality of it is, if this order stands then the cost of curbside recycling is going to go up, not just for the people who use it, but the people who don't use it or choose not to use it. That is unfortunate.
"At that point it is not a fee anymore; it is a tax, in my opinion."
As it is, everyone is paying $1.50 a month and those people who actually receive a service of curbside recycling are paying an additional $3 a month, Joyce said.
“It was fundamentally fair in its pricing structure, certainly more fair than anything I have seen anywhere in West Virginia and way better than what we had before,” he said. "Because of this suit, we are going to have to force everyone to pay more, whether they use the service or not. I find that impractical. It is another version of wealth extraction and charging people money for something they don't do or don't use and pass it on to a third-party contractor."
Brett Dunlap can be reached at bdunlap@newsandsentinel.com.