PARKERSBURG – The plaintiff in a lawsuit over Parkersburg’s suspension of curbside recycling is asking a judge to prohibit the city from entering into a contract for a subscription-based program with Rumpke and order the reinstatement of curbside recycling.

Parkersburg resident Walt Auvil filed the lawsuit in July after the city suspended its curbside recycling service in May, citing manpower issues. In an amended complaint filed 10 days later and a motion filed March 27, Auvil, an attorney, says the city has 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.

Responses from the city deny it has “ended” curbside recycling but suspended it due to a lack of employees to provide the service. When the answer to the suit was filed in August, the city had 17 of 27 budgeted positions in the Sanitation Department filled. Between July 1, 2024, and July 1, 2025, the city hired 32 new sanitation employees and saw 30 resignations, retirements or terminations from the department, the response says.

With contracts for trash pickup and recycling approved by council, just two employees remain in the department, with workers from other departments and temporary employees covering the rest of the work. The sanitation contract has not been signed by Waste Management as a citizen referendum petition effort continues.

Auvil’s March 27 motion asks the court to strike the city’s arguments that the stoppage of curbside recycling was the result of circumstances beyond its control.

“Mismanagement of its workforce by the Defendant is not grounds for ignoring its statutory duty to staff and operate its mandatory curbside recycling program,” the motion says.

A response filed this month by attorney Ryan K. Simonton, who is representing the city, said state code requires the establishment of a program to collect recyclables but leaves discretion of the details and operation of that program to the city.

“Certainly, staffing difficulties that do not allow for making all scheduled collections are an issue the City is left to manage, and which is not mandated by state statute,” it says. “Plaintiff’s theory of the case would appear to suggest the City violates the law if its staff or its contractor misses any once-a-month recyclable collection.”

Auvil’s motion seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the city to reinstate curbside recycling and submit to the West Virginia Solid Waste Management Board a proposal describing the establishment and implementation of the mandatory recycling program.

It also seeks a declaratory judgment stating Parkersburg must reinstate curbside recycling without charging a subscription fee.

“This statutory scheme does not authorize the Defendant to condition participation in the recycling program upon ‘subscription’ by the persons, partnerships, corporations, or other entities in … the City of Parkersburg,” the motion says.

Earlier this month, the city announced people could enroll in the subscription program with Rumpke, under which participants would pay $3 a month to have recyclable materials picked up every other week. A larger variety of materials will be accepted than under the city’s program, including plastic containers, glass bottles and jars, metal cans and cups, paper and cardboard. The $22-a-month sanitation fee includes a $1.50 recycling surcharge for all residents, whether they subscribe or not.

Simonton’s response says state code “is silent on the method of providing recycling” and the city has the ability “to both enter contracts and to establish reasonable fees for special or essential municipal services.”

The response argues nothing in state code requires the city to provide curbside recycling without cost or determines how it’s collected, outside of providing collection at least once a month.

“The statute does not mandate the specifics of the system or implementation of collection,” it says. “Those matters are left within the discretion of the municipal governing body and officials.

“The mechanics of that system are within the discretion of the City, and it may enter a contract to collect recyclables in connection with the system,” the response says.

The response seeks a denial of the demand for writs of prohibition and mandamus on procedural grounds, saying they cannot be sought in a motion and the contract, which was entered into earlier this year, is not subject to the complaint filed last year.

“Any allegations regarding conduct or transactions after Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filing on July 18, 2025, cannot be considered in addressing the demand for a writ of mandamus,” it says.

Evan Bevins can be reached at ebevins@newsandsentinel.com.