(Graphic illustration created with the use of ChatGPT - Parkersburg City Government news)

PARKERSBURG — An ordinance authorizing a sanitation contract with a private hauler is not subject to the referendum process in Parkersburg’s charter, City Attorney Blaine Myers said Thursday in a written memorandum.

“This Charter provision clearly excludes from the referendum process ordinances regarding the budget or relating to the appropriation of money,” the memo says.

More than 3,000 signatures collected by people opposed to the move away from city-provided sanitation service are being reviewed by the Wood County Clerk’s Office, with Clerk Joe Gonzales saying Thursday he hoped to have the process completed by next week. Myers said he believes that the verification process should continue.

Parkersburg resident Eric Engle, a member of the petition committee, questioned Myers’ interpretation of the ordinance as appropriating money and said he expects the question to be decided in court.

“We’re prepared for that,” he said, later adding, “We are seeking legal counsel.”

Parkersburg City Council voted 6-3 to approve the contract with Waste Management on final reading on Jan. 13. Residents began collecting signatures for a referendum petition that, if successful, would force council to reconsider the ordinance and, if it was not repealed, put the question before voters in an upcoming election.

In order for the petition to be certified, organizers had to submit the signatures of at least 2,763 registered voters who live in the city, equal to 15% of the registered voters in Parkersburg in the 2024 election. Organizers have continued to collect signatures in the event that enough signatures were declared invalid to drop the total below the required threshold.

The petitioners went to Wood County Circuit Court to request an extension of the deadline for collecting signatures, citing the winter storm that blanketed the region in ice and snow at the end of January. The city agreed to a 15-day extension, but Myers, in the city’s filing, noted the question of whether the referendum applied to this particular ordinance still remained.

On Thursday, he said it did not, adding in the memo that he conferred with special counsel retained by the city in pending litigation matters “recognizing that this is a matter of importance and public interest.”

The memo recommends City Clerk Connie Shaffer determine the referendum petition as insufficient because “referendum is not permissible to prohibit expenditure of funds appropriated by the elected representatives of the voters, or to freeze, delay, or suspend such expenditures.”

“The ordinance approving the contract with Waste Management involves appropriation of $14,979,120 over a period of (five) years as payment to an independent contractor for the providing of collection of solid waste from residential customers, which is an essential service to be provided by the City for the public health, safety and welfare of its residents,” it says.

Engle said he’s not convinced the ordinance constitutes a direct appropriation of funds.

“It’s a fee,” he said. “It’s an account that sanitation fee payers pay into.”

The memo also notes that the charter says an ordinance to be reconsidered under a referendum shall be suspended from taking effect if the petitions are deemed sufficient. This “could possibly prevent the City from engaging with the independent contractor and paying for contractual services for solid waste disposal,” it says. “This would result in the inability to provide solid waste disposal services to the citizens of Parkersburg before the voters even had an opportunity to give their judgment at an election.”

That could impair implementation of the contract, the memo says, potentially opening the city up to liability for breach of contract and suspending sanitation services “for many months, since an election could not be held until November.”

The last day for issues to be submitted for the May primary ballot was Monday.

Myers’ memo cites an ordinance approved by council at its Feb. 24 meeting that amended city code to say that solid waste disposal services would be provided by contract with Waste Management upon approval of that contract by the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

Engle pointed out that he and other speakers at that meeting urged council not to pass the ordinance, citing the petition effort.

“We are telling you to wait until we see what the outcome of the petition was going to be, and you refused,” he said.

Engle said public comment on the ordinance and the petitions should show city officials that voters want solid waste and recycling services – the latter set to be provided under a separate contract by Rumpke – provided by a city department not a private company.

“The first thing the petition gives you the opportunity to do is vote to repeal,” he said.

Council should do that, Engle said, and then, in budget meetings set to begin Monday, look at restaffing the Sanitation Department.

He acknowledged Mayor Tom Joyce’s remarks that only four employees remain in the Sanitation Department and that workers from other departments have been used to keep trash routes running. Engle pointed to the proposed budget that would give all city employees, except elected officials, a 4.2% cost-of-living adjustment in pay and bring the 14 workers who make less than $15 an hour up to that minimum. That should be a starting point for restaffing sanitation, he said.

“Why isn’t that on the table? Why aren’t we talking about that?” Engle said.

Joyce has said the department has struggled with staffing and retention issues since 2023 and pay increases and incentives have been unsuccessful in addressing them.

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