Parkersburg City Councilwoman Wendy Tuck, left, talks with council President Andrew Borkowski prior to Tuesday’s council meeting. (Photo by Evan Bevins)

PARKERSBURG – Parkersburg City Council on Tuesday approved a sanitation contract with Waste Management over the objections of multiple residents in attendance and some council members.

The vote on the final reading of the contract ordinance was 6-3, with Councilwoman Wendy Tuck and Councilmen Zak Huffman and Chris Rexroad opposed.

That was the same margin by which the first reading was approved during a Jan. 6 special meeting following a public meeting that lasted more than 90 minutes and saw most people speak against contracting out both solid waste and recycling services.

On Tuesday, Tuck made a motion to send the contract to the Finance Committee and postpone the vote until council’s Feb. 10 meeting, after a proposed meeting of local leaders and the Wood County Solid Waste Authority, but only Huffman and Rexroad joined her in voting for it.

Mayor Tom Joyce said the meeting with the Solid Waste Authority was regarding the future of the city’s Municipal Recycling Facility, or MRF, and was separate from the trash contract.

Parkersburg residents, from left, Kathy Lipscomb, Caci Petrehn and Colt Morningstar gather in the lobby of the Municipal Building prior to Tuesday’s Parkersburg City Council meeting. Petrehn organized a “graveside service” for Parkersburg’s Sanitation Department prior to the meeting in opposition to a contract for Waste Management to provide trash service that was approved during the meeting. (Photo by Evan Bevins)

“You guys knew in January of last year that this was” becoming an issue, Joyce said. “You had lots of time to call committee meetings and do all kinds of stuff.”

“We were told not to have meetings about it until there was a bid,” Tuck said, noting they received the proposed contracts for solid waste and recycling – the latter of which has been tabled until Feb. 10 – shortly before New Year’s.

Council amended a resolution to have a public meeting on the situation in December to hold it on Jan. 6, after the proposed contracts were ready. And a discussion-only item on sanitation was pulled from an agenda in August after a council member withdrew sponsorship.

Fourteen people spoke during Tuesday’s public forum. One addressed recycling only, one was the attorney representing the Mid-Ohio Valley Transit Authority in reference to their upcoming levy renewal vote and one spoke about multiple topics, some not on the agenda, and said most Parkersburg residents were too busy to come to the meeting and trusted their council representatives to make the decision.

The other 11 opposed the contract.

Parkersburg resident Kim van Rijn speaks during the public forum of Tuesday’s Parkersburg City Council meeting as signs opposing a proposed contract for trash service with Waste Management rest on seats behind her. (Photo by Evan Bevins)

“You don’t have a big split in public opinion. It’s pretty unanimous,” Parkersburg resident Kim van Rijn said. “You privatize those services, you’re going to have more people like me showing up at every meeting … and you’re probably not going to get re-elected.”

City officials have said the change should not be characterized as privatizing since the pickup is being contracted out but the city will continue to collect payments and deal with delinquent accounts.

Parkersburg resident Greg Sanders said the city should keep the service because “some services are too important to lose local accountability.”

Later in the meeting, Joyce said the contract includes accountability in the form of a performance bond.

“If they don’t perform, they will be held accountable financially,” he said.

Parkersburg resident Greg Sanders speaks at the podium during the public forum at Tuesday’s Parkersburg City Council meeting. (Photo by Evan Bevins)

Two speakers called for the question to be put before city voters on the May primary ballot. Parkersburg resident Cari Talarico said she would prefer for the city to continue providing the service, but if not, she asked that it be opened to multiple providers.

“I believe in limited government involvement, and in choice and competition,” she said.

In response to people who questioned how soon rates will increase, Joyce said “that’s simply the nature of the economy that we’re in.”

Under the terms of the contract, Waste Management will charge the city $17.65 per residential unit for the first two years of the contract. After that, it would increase to $18.89 in the third year, $20.21 in the fourth and $21.62 in the fifth.

But the city will continue to charge and collect a sanitation fee, which Joyce has proposed reducing from $22 to $19.50. The reduction, as well as a proposed $44 credit to residents in recognition of the sanitation difficulties over the last year, would be part of a separate ordinance.

After Tuck’s motion to delay the vote failed, Rexroad said if council members were determined to outsource the service, they should take a deeper look at the contract.

“I don’t think it serves the people anywhere near what the current one is doing,” he said. “I’m willing to pay more, and most of the people I’ve talked to are willing to pay more, for better service.”

Prior to the meeting, Parkersburg resident Caci Petrehn organized a “graveside service for Parkersburg sanitation” as a Facebook event. She had tombstone-shaped signs criticizing officials’ handling of the situation that were set up in the front row of council chambers.

“I feel like it’s (the change) going to be harmful to families in our community, especially those that are already facing socio-economic disadvantages,” Petrehn said before the meeting.

The contract includes a $3 charge for additional bags outside the 96-gallon container Waste Management would provide. That amounts to a price increase for families with more trash, Petrehn said. It would be the second increase approved by the city in the last six months, she said, referring to a 5% monthly cable franchise fee, which companies pass along to consumers, that council approved in October and went into effect Dec. 1.

“How is that beneficial to the families that are just starting out?” Petrehn said.

Councilwoman Sharon Kuhl said she has spoken to constituents about the issue who don’t want to come to the council meetings and some had received incorrect information about the proposal. She said someone told her they thought the fee would be $35 a month, which Kuhl said was untrue.

Tuck said the combination of the proposed $19.50 sanitation fee and the $15.25 fee proposed in the tabled recycling contract would exceed $34 a month.

Council President Andrew Borkowski announced a special meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 20, to provide information about recycling. He said previously that the contract had been tabled to address concerns about the price and find a more equitable solution.

In other business, council unanimously approved the resolution to place a renewal of the transit authority levy on the May ballot.