Trash task force agrees on outline

While there remain a number of details to work out, the Pittsburg trash task force agreed Wednesday night to the basic outline of a trash system to present to the city commission later this month.

Framework
The task force largely agreed upon a “hybrid” system of trash pick-up. Residents would be allowed to keep their current trash haulers in this proposal.

Under this system, haulers would send a regular list of their (single- and double-family residence) customers to the city. That list would be compared to the active water meters in the city. Those that do not have trash service would be assigned a hauler based on a rotation basis.

In addition to the rotation for those without a hauler, the city would create some kind of penalty or fine for those who do not have trash service or do not pay for it.

The task force will meet once more, on Thursday, Jan. 17, at 6 p.m., to address the issue of bulk item pickup, the possibility of waivers for those who are poor/indigent or have trash service through their business, and more efficient pickup through coordination of regional activities, as well as any other remaining business.

Two members of the task force did not vote for this plan. The first was co-chairman Monica Murnan, who agreed with the rotation basis, but would rather see enforcement of the plan for delinquent/noncompliant residents through the water bill.

The second was Nathan Beaman, owner of Beaman’s Trash Service, who said after the meeting that he was “for nothing more than the status quo. I’m not for anything other than straight, free-market capitalism.”

A third task force member, Chuck Carr, representing large hauler WCA, was not at Wednesday’s meeting.

Background
The last meeting left the task force with five options. The first was trash as it is now, called the “free market” system. The second was to have the city take over trash entirely, a plan that city officials did not want. The third system was for the city to bid out trash hauling. Fourth was a “hybrid” system in which residents were allowed to keep their current hauler, and those who did not have a hauler were assigned a hauler on some basis, whether by rotation or bid or some other plan. The final system, called a franchise system, divided the city based upon the current market share of the trash haulers.

The meeting opened with Henry Menghini, city attorney and task force member, reviewing the legal hurdles facing the task force.

Essentially, a plan had to be presented to the city commission within 90 days of the original resolution of intent, which was passed on Nov. 13, 2012. Because the 90th day fell on Feb. 11, 2013, that meant that any proposal had to come before the commission no later than its Jan. 22 meeting, meaning a decision had to be made in the next few weeks.

Further, Menghini explained that every system except for the “free market” system would have to abide by the 90-day rule.

Soon after, Bill Beasley, Pittsburg director of public works and task force member, addressed a complaint he had heard about codes enforcement. He said that of the 2,100 letters sent out in 2012 related to trash or other land nuisances, that only 41 did not clean up the nuisance and were taken through the legal process.

“If we sent out more than 2,000 letters and only 41 had to have the city clean it up [and the cost placed on tax rolls], then that’s pretty good. We are doing our job. We are enforcing the codes. We are canvassing the neighborhoods,” Beasley said.

That lead to discussion of a number generated by the task force that 20 percent of single- and double-family residences (as determined by active water meters) did not have service through any of the licensed haulers. Beasley reminded the task force that although they may say 20 percent, there are those who own their own business and use the trash service at the business rather than at home or others that may make some kind of trash arrangement.

But Murnan pointed out that those people are still technically breaking the ordinance that currently exists, which lead to a review of the existing ordinance.

In essence, the ordinance states that every “dwelling unit” must have a contracted trash service. One provision, that had not been discussed before, gave an exception for those who haul their trash to a licensed facility at least once every seven days.

The only two operators of licensed facilities in the county said they did not have anyone who did so on a weekly basis.

“We have lots of people that are once a month,” noted Matt Sander, representing Oak Grove landfill.

Discussion

After some debate about the term “franchise” in regard to a direct agreement with haulers to meet certain requirements or provide a certain service, the group moved forward with the results of an informal survey ranking the five options, taken over the holiday break.

After examining those rankings, City Manager Daron Hall moved to remove the city-run trash service (Option 2 above) from the discussion. Single-source contract bid was also removed unanimously.

Talk turned to taking the free-market plan off the table, as it would be implicitly compared to whatever system was on the table, but it was not explicitly removed from discussion.

Shawn Naccarato brought up the hybrid plan and compared it to the franchise system, saying that assigning regions did not keep in place the residents’ free choice.

“The only way to do that is with substantial disruption to business. That’s why I introduced the hybrid plan. We have great haulers, and I see no reason to disrupt them. But we’ve got to find a way to get to 100 percent compliance,” Naccarato said. “We have to find a compliance mechanism. We need to figure out who doesn’t have it, then assign them through a rotation or they choose you. It preserves the free-market mechanism. You [the haulers] control the costs and the billing. You cooperate with the city to determine who has that or not.”

Discussion eventually turned to pointing out that the hybrid system did nothing to address the wear and tear on streets. Hall eventually said that is a trade-off being made.

“There is a vocal, very large group who want their hauler and think they’re great,” Hall said. “But they want better streets. We can’t have a franchise system, but also get someone who wants Mr. Norris. It’s the cost of doing business. It’s not a cost that is being passed on to anyone, but I would say that’s a cost we’ve chosen... There are 20,000 living here, and [that choice] is pretty important to them. People have a relationship with their haulers.”

Jim Triplett expanded on that idea, referring to wear and tear on streets v. choice.

“It’s mutually exclusive. There’s a relationship between haulers and their customers. Loyalty is very critical. You can look in the audience or read letters to the editor to see how passionate they are,” Triplett said. “I get input from those who are not passionate about their haulers. I proposed protecting the haulers, but removing choice. If that’s not a big deal to others, in terms of the community — if there’s a silent group of people willing to express their opinion — it seems those who have expressed their opinion are the ones we should listen to.”

Later, Triplett noted that in this community the cultural issues are far more important than the economic issues when making the trade-off, and that the community understands the cost and is willing to make it.

Merle Lloyd, of Lloyd’s Loads, suggested refining the existing route schedules and coordinating among the haulers further. That will be investigated at a future meeting.
Later on, it was Lloyd that made the motion to adopt the hybrid system after talk centered around that idea.

Further, talk turned to three options for billing: city-run on the water bill, hauler-run, and hauler-run unless the person is delinquent, in which case the city would place it on the water bill.

Lloyd said he’d prefer the hauler-run model, and the other haulers agreed with that perspective, with everyone agreeing that some sort of consequence, or “stick” was necessary. One hauler said that he’d rather have a fine as the stick.

“I’m sure somebody’d rather pay $17 for trash than pay a $100 fine,” said Charlie Maransani, representing Short’s Trash Service.

Further, some said the penalty method helps protect a person’s due process and allows the haulers to maintain control of their customers.

“Putting it on the water bill is the easy button,” Hall said. “But that depends on the haulers, if they’re willing to let us do it, and it sounds like they’re not. You either have it on the water bill or you’re not. And it sounds like we’re not.”

Ultimately, with these choices, the haulers would have to check off those with service through their company, and then provide monthly reports on those who sign up for service or drop off. The exact reporting method has yet to be explicitly hashed out and will be addressed Jan. 17.