HomeMy WebLinkAbout110225 email - TESTIMONY for Nov_ 3 _ Problematic assertions in proposed ordinanceALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Commissioners,
The proposed ordinance contains several problematic statements and at least one false representation of law.
Problematic:
The numerous “WHEREAS” statements, some which are simply false, some which are irrelevant to the professed need for an ordinance, and others which illustrate the degree to which the
solid waste program has been mismanaged.
In the false category, for example: “WHEREAS, transitioning to privatization will allow more residents in unincorporated east Jefferson County to subscribe for curbside collection of
garbage and recycling”. Nothing has been preventing those residents from subscribing up to now. The UTC tariff sets the rates and terms of service, and the proposed ordinance does not
alter that fact. “More residents” is a hope, not a fact.
In the irrelevant category, for example: “WHEREAS, recycling customers separate materials into bins according to material type and this is known in the industry as a "source separated"
recycling program”. Olympic Disposal (Murrey’s), whose UTC tariff currently provides for single-stream service in the county, provides individual small bins for customer-separated materials
in Port Townsend under the city’s contract with that hauler. What’s the point of this when it’s duplicated in the Definitions in the body of the ordinance?
In the mismanagement category: “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;” If the Solid Waste enterprise fund had been properly managed, fees would have charged as were necessary to
operate with adequate reserves and set-asides for maintenance and preservation of facilities. Note that there is no “or” to the “either” part of that assertion.
Unfortunately, the opposite has been the case, as shown by the fact that Solid Waste’s budget for the last several years has relied on drawing down reserves and as shown by the incredibly
run-down condition of the program’s capital assets . The recently instituted “capital surcharge” fee is a much-too-late band-aid.
The proposed ordinance’s false representation is in the reference to WAC 480-70-366.
The proposed ordinance demands that “Collection companies shall offer alternatives that suit their collection system or the particular customer's limitation … Any other solution mutually
agreed to by the customer and the solid waste collection company per WAC 480-70-366.”
No part of that WAC, shown below in its entirety for your reference, requires a hauler to negotiate an agreement with a potential or actual customer.
WAC 480-70-366 Refusal of service.
(1) A company must not refuse service to an applicant or cancel service to a customer when there are unpaid bills from a prior customer at the same premises unless the company has objective
evidence that the applicant is acting on behalf of the prior customer with the intent to avoid payment.
(2) A company may refuse service to an applicant or cancel service to a customer when:
(a) The customer has not complied with state, county, or municipal regulations concerning the service.
(b) In the company's judgment, providing the service would be hazardous, unsafe, or dangerous to persons or property.
(c) In the company's judgment, driveways or roads are improperly constructed or maintained, do not have adequate turn arounds, or have other unsafe conditions.
(d) The customer has an overdue bill from the company for the same class of service at the same or a different location, and satisfactory arrangements for payment of the overdue unpaid
bill have not been made. For purposes of this rule, class of service means residential service or commercial service.
(e) The customer requests service at a location where there currently resides a former customer who has an overdue bill from the company for the same class of service at the same location,
and satisfactory arrangements for payment of the overdue bill have not been made.
(f) The customer has obtained or retained service from the company by dishonest or fraudulent means, for the purpose of avoiding debts, including, but not limited to:
(i) False statement of credit references or employment;
(ii) False statement of present or prior premises address;
(iii) Use of an alias or false name; or
(iv) Rotation of service among roommates or persons living together.
Remember that the customer will have a contract with the hauler, not with the county, and so the customer will be, as in all other respects, at the mercy of the hauler, with appeals
available only through the complaint process of the UTC <https://www.utc.wa.gov/consumers/consumer-complaints> .
The proposed ordinance should not be adopted without major revisions.
Thank you,
Tom Thiersch
Jefferson County, WA