HomeMy WebLinkAbout101225 email - Misleading_ inconsistent_ manipulative content in proposed Hearing NoticeALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Commissioners,
Item #1 on your consent agenda for October 13, 2025, should be pulled from consent, carefully examined, and corrected.
I have found numerous misleading or inconsistent statements in the agenda request and the accompanying presentation.
The proposed Hearing Notice has some manipulative content that you, as a public agency, should be ashamed to state as “fact”.
INCONSISTENT:
Agenda request, Page 1:
“Jefferson County Public Works' recommendation is to transition to private curbside-only
recycling with mixed-material cart service provided by a Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission( WUTC) "G-Cert" licensed hauler with direct payment to the hauler
by the customer.”
But the tariff that has been filed by Murrey’s, “revised page 23”(attached page from the tariff currently on-file with the UTC and included with the agenda request) states:
“Jefferson County:
Voluntary every other week service. Olympic Disposal will supply 3-18 gallon bins per resident 4-plex and below”
The hauler (Waste Connections aka Murrey’s aka Olympic Disposal) will contract with individual subscribers, not with the county, so it doesn’t matter what the “recommendation” is because,
by law, the hauler is required to deliver the services that are stated in the tariff.
If the county wants to recommend mixed-material, the hauler will have to file an amended tariff. In the course of doing that, they might want to decide if they mean “95 gallon” or “96
gallon”, each of which is used in the tariff.
INCONSISTENT:
Agenda request, Page 2:
“Hearing Notice setting a Public Hearing on Monday, November 3, 2025 at 2: 30 p.m.”
Presentation in agenda request, page 8 of 93:
“10/27/2025 PUBLIC HEARING”
Ok, which is it?
manipulative content:
The term “hidden fee” is used in numerous places in the 93-page agenda request. Why is the cost needed to support the recycling program any more “hidden” than any of the other costs
of operation? Is the cost of the Solid Waste Manager’s salary “hidden”? How about the cost of any of the other routine expenditures? Are those “hidden”? This is shameful behavior on
the part of staff!
INCONSISTENT:
Agenda request, Page 2:
“Beginning April 1, 2026, the Solid Waste Enterprise would gain an annual savings of an estimated $326,000”
But in the presentation in the agenda request, page 18 of 93, the amount of the subsidy for 2026 is stated as
$485,164
MISLEADING:
“WHEREAS, a 2022 audit of materials from drop- off locations found the contamination
rate as high as 30% in the plastic, tin and aluminum mix;”
In fact, the study identified only one class of material, in one of the locations, that had anything close to that level of contamination. To suggest that “30%” is a typical level of
contamination is grossly misleading. From the CROP accepted by the Department of Ecology:
Commissioners, if you accept such a statement as a “finding of fact”, you will be misleading the public.
INCONSISTENT:
Agenda request, Page 26:
WHEREAS, currently $13.89 of every per ton transaction at the transfer station is
allocated to subsidize the" free" recycling program; and
The transactions at the transfer station for loads that are less than 220 pounds are charged a flat rate ($20), not a per-ton rate. So, why is the proposal to add $8 to both the Low-Income
Discount and the non-discounted Minimum Fee? Only the Per-Ton Rate should be increased to offset the $13.89.
Agenda request, Page 3:
The calculations (not documented) are clearly inconsistent with the statements used to describe the current condition and the proposed alternatives.
GRAMMAR:
Agenda request, Page 26:
WHEREAS, the continued operation of the current recycling program would require either
an increase to the tipping fee and reduction in other services in order to improve the Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund cash reserve balance; and
“either”, but no “or”
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION:
Agenda request, Page 26:
WHEREAS, transitioning to privatization will allow more residents in unincorporated east
Jefferson County to subscribe for curbside collection of garbage and recycling through Waste
Connections as the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ( WUTC) "G-Cert"
collection company; and
County residents have had access to the same level of service from the same hauler for many years. If they had wanted that service, they would have signed up. Nothing of what the Solid
Waste Department is proposing will “allow” more residents to sign up – the proposed decreases in service levels provided by the county may drive up the number of Waste Connection subscribers,
but it will be out of necessity, not out of desire for better services.
FALSE:
Agenda request, Page 28:
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissions held a public hearing
on October 27, 2025, and having carefully considered all of the information and public testimony
before it, find it is in Jefferson County's best interest to adopt Public Works' recommendations
regarding the current recycling program;
Conclusion:
The Agenda Request in its current form is a mess. Please fix it, all of it, before putting it before the public again.
Thank you,
Tom Thiersch