To the Editor:
I live on Waldron, and in spite of the low level of solid waste services available here, I strongly support the solid waste parcel fee.
Whether or not the County contracts for solid waste disposal services and thereby “privatizes” the solid waste functions is a side issue, but a vital one. The County could make a contract under either option. But if the County does contract its solid waste function (more likely under a “No” vote) things can happen that will seriously threaten local control.
(1) Today, the County can adjust rates and services. Under a contract, the power to regulate rates passes to the state utilities commission. Would you rather deal with the Council or make your case in Olympia?
(2) People who think they know what their future rates will be are kidding themselves. There is no contract yet. Once entered into, the County cannot change contract or performance bond terms.
(3) Keeping the County in control would permit it to deal with the “Friday Harbor” and other issues. Adjustments to make things more equitable may not be possible if the County grants control of its collection and transfer stations to the contractor.
(4) If a contractor goes bankrupt, its interest in the contract is protected. The County’s isn’t. A national corporation may take over, approved by a federal judge. Rates would change again. Trash may pile up while the matter is in the courts. Think “New York City. If the County steps in to remove the solid waste … we’re right where we started, with legal fees to pay.
Solutions that look simple often aren’t. This one isn’t. This has to be thought through, not reacted to.
Please vote “Yes” for the solid waste charge.
Thank you.
Bill Appel
Waldron
1) WUTC regulates curbside, not drop off. Nobody outside regulates County’s rates, and its monopoly is protected by flow control ordinance. Plan B would be competitive.
2) With County control, we know what rates have done and will do–they’ll go up. They’ll go up faster than cost inflation because the parcel fee is fixed (unless Council raises that too, which it can in fact do). And they’ll be higher in total than if County exits the business.
And the “contracts” under discussion in Plan B are simply site lease agreements for drop off service, not for someone to operate the transfer station(s) for County. It’s County as landlord.
3) Like cut the Town rate further to get it back? It will already pay no parcel fee but residents use the discounted services (and vote).
“equitable”? Current rates aren’t cost based, proposed rates aren’t cost based, and the “user fee” has nothing to do with actual trash disposed. County proposal is rife with subsidies, and is patently unfair.
4) Fear and doubt. “Trash may pile up”, “New York City”, “national corporation”. Far more likely we’ll have robust self haul services, more efficient, less expensive, and more fairly priced.
Nearly every line of Mr. Appel’s piece is upside down on its logic. Let me comment on his claims in seriatim:
Point #1 – We are in this fix in the first place because the County has been setting rates … ever higher, to the point where we are two to three times more expensive than anywhere else. And Olympia won’t be setting transfer station rates. The WUTC regulates mark-ups for the franchise hauler, San Juan Sanitation.
Point #2 – No contract is written yet, so how can Mr. Appel comment on its terms. Many options are available under Plan B, Mr. Appel, not just awful ones.
Point #3 – Many people feel that the root of our problems is the fact that the County has dealt with “Friday Harbor” and other issues. The County has badly blown it, and there’s no reason to believe it will improve.
Point #4 – We’re NYC? National corporation take over? Federal judge? What the? No, we are not NYC. We won’t be taken over. The solid waste system is bankrupt and we need a new direction.
Mr. Appel’s letter continues a campaign of fear and doubt—“New York City”!—and is confused about WUTC’s role (it regulates only “curbside”) and County involvement under Plan B (County would be a landlord, customer, and tax collector—that’s it).
Concern about rates and ability to “make things more equitable” is ironic given County history of service prices not based on cost, continued price increases (higher under Plan A because the parcel fee is fixed), and a proposed “user” fee unrelated to actual use.
Actually, it is simple. County runs the wrong system, badly. It’s time to change.