Parkersburg seeking separate bids for ‘subscription’ recycling – News and Sentinel

Report on Municipal Waste Management and Sustainable Development in Parkersburg

1.0 Introduction: Strategic Review of Waste Management Aligned with SDG 11

The City of Parkersburg is undertaking a strategic review of its municipal sanitation and recycling services, a critical step in advancing Sustainable Development Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), specifically Target 11.6 concerning the reduction of the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities through improved waste management. The administration is currently negotiating a contract for privatized sanitation services while simultaneously seeking proposals for a separate, subscription-based recycling program. This approach aims to create long-term, sustainable solutions for the city’s solid waste challenges.

2.0 Proposed Recycling Framework and SDG 12

In a direct effort to address Sustainable Development Goal 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), the city is exploring a new model for its recycling program. The previous municipal curbside recycling service, which was suspended in May 2025 due to staffing issues, is being reconsidered in favor of a user-funded system.

• Model: A subscription-based curbside recycling service, separate from general solid waste collection.
• Rationale: This “user-pays” model ensures that the service is financially sustained by the residents who participate, directly linking consumption choices to waste management costs.
• Historical Context: Prior to its suspension, an estimated 25% of residential customers participated in the city’s curbside recycling program.

3.0 Analysis of Privatization Proposals

The city has received proposals from private sector entities to manage residential sanitation services, a move that explores public-private partnerships under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The bids include provisions for both waste collection and recycling, though the city is now considering unbundling these services.

3.1 Bidder Proposals

• Rumpke: Proposed a monthly charge of $19.76 for bi-weekly recycling or $22.50 for weekly recycling. The bid is a lump sum and does not itemize the cost of recycling. Rumpke also offered $967,500 to purchase city sanitation equipment.
• Waste Management: Proposed a monthly charge of $22, which includes a designated $4.35 for recycling services. The city retains the right to reject any portion of the proposal.

3.2 Service Level Implications

A shift to a privatized model would introduce service parameters that differ from the current municipal system. These changes directly impact the city’s waste management capacity and convenience for residents.

• Container Limits: Bids are based on one 95-96 gallon trash container and one recycling container.
• Additional Fees: Waste Management’s proposal includes a $3 fee for each additional bag of solid waste.
• Bulky Items: Collection of bulky items would be limited, a significant change from the current service.

4.0 Labor, Economic Viability, and SDG 8

The operational challenges facing the city’s sanitation department, primarily staffing shortages, are central to the privatization discussion and relate to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). Public debate has focused on whether increasing wages for municipal workers could resolve these issues and maintain sanitation as a public service.

• Staffing Issues: The city cited vacancies and increased call-offs as the reason for suspending recycling services, a situation that has not improved.
• Public Argument for Wage Increases: Residents at a community meeting argued that offering competitive wages, such as $22/hour for equipment operators and $15/hour for slingers, could solve the manpower problem.
• City Financial Position: The Finance Director noted that funds from the sanitation enterprise fund are segregated and cannot be moved without council authorization. A $2-an-hour raise was previously approved for sanitation MEOs, funded from this enterprise fund.

5.0 Public Consultation and Key Community Concerns

A community meeting organized by residents highlighted several key concerns regarding the proposed changes to waste management. A petition is being circulated to request a formal public hearing before Parkersburg City Council to ensure transparent and participatory decision-making.

1. Future of Municipal Assets: The disposition of the city-owned recycling facility on 24th Street remains undetermined.
2. Service Quality and Regulation: Residents expressed concerns about the responsiveness of private haulers, which are regulated by the West Virginia Public Service Commission, and shared preferences based on experiences in other service areas.
3. Financial Transparency: Questions were raised regarding the allocation of revenue from sanitation fee increases.
4. Demand for Public Hearing: There is a strong community desire for a formal public hearing to allow for direct questions and engagement with city officials on the sanitation issue.

Analysis of SDGs in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article discusses the working conditions and pay for sanitation workers. Residents suggest that offering better wages could solve the city’s staffing issues, which directly relates to providing decent work.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The core topic is municipal solid waste management, a critical service for sustainable cities. The debate over privatizing sanitation and recycling services and ensuring their effectiveness and affordability for residents is central to Target 11.6.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The article focuses heavily on the city’s efforts to manage waste, particularly through recycling. The suspension and potential reintroduction of a curbside recycling program are directly linked to reducing waste generation and promoting sustainable practices.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article highlights the role of civic engagement and institutional accountability. Residents are organizing meetings, questioning city officials, and circulating petitions to ensure a transparent and participatory decision-making process regarding a vital public service.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 8.5: Full and productive employment and decent work for all

  This target is relevant to the discussion about addressing manpower shortages in the sanitation department by improving pay. Residents argue that the city should “pay the staff the right amount of money,” with one former councilman calculating that wages could be raised to “$22 and $15 an hour respectively” to retain and attract workers.

• Target 11.6: Reduce the adverse environmental impact of cities

  This target is directly addressed through the article’s focus on “municipal and other waste management.” The entire debate over whether to continue a municipal sanitation service or privatize it, and how to handle trash and recycling pickup for the city of Parkersburg, falls under this target.

• Target 12.5: Substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse

  The city’s plan to seek proposals for a “subscription-based recycling service” is a direct attempt to address this target. The article notes that recycling was paused and that previously, “Approximately 25% of City residential customers were estimated to participate,” indicating a focus on waste reduction through recycling.

• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making

  This target is demonstrated by the actions of the citizens. The article mentions a “community meeting Thursday at St. Joseph Landing to discuss potential sanitation options” organized by residents and a councilwoman. Furthermore, residents are “circulating a petition to get council to host a public hearing” to “demand that we have an open, real hearing, where we get to ask real questions.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for Target 8.5

  The article implies indicators such as the wage rates for sanitation workers (proposed raises to $22 and $15 per hour) and the employee vacancy/turnover rate, which is described as “staffing issues caused by vacancies and increased call-offs.”

• Indicators for Target 11.6

  The cost of waste management services per household is a clear indicator, with specific figures mentioned in the bids from Rumpke ($19.76 or $22.50 per month) and Waste Management ($22 a month). The amount of solid waste collected is another indicator, with the article contrasting the current “few limits” with proposed limits of one 96-gallon can and extra charges for additional bags.

• Indicators for Target 12.5

  The recycling rate is a direct indicator mentioned in the article: “Approximately 25% of City residential customers were estimated to participate in municipal curbside recycling prior to the pause in service.” The future number of subscribers to the new recycling program would also serve as an indicator.

• Indicators for Target 16.7

  Indicators for public participation are mentioned, including the number of attendees at the community meeting (“About 30 people”) and the existence of a citizen-led petition for a public hearing. These measure the level of citizen engagement in the local government’s decision-making process.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: newsandsentinel.com