FernleyNews.com Network: Taking the Community To A New Level

"Trash Talk" an Opinion Paper by Councilman Cal Eilrich, Fernley NV

FERNLEY NEWS PERMALINK - TRASH TALK

For more local government news and links including upcoming agendas...

Written by Councilman Cal Eilrich, Ward 5

Tuesday, 03 November 2009 17:04

“Trash Talk”

Myths & Truths Regarding Ordinance #130 – & Mandatory Residential Garbage Collection

November 3^rd, 2009

The following opinion is the result of my research...

It has become obvious by comments that I have received that there is considerable misinformation being spread around the community regarding the City Council’s decision on the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement. This position paper will attempt to explain my reasoning for supporting Ordinance 130 as it is written and amended in as few words as possible. I am choose to introduce the facts by addressing and exposing some of the myths that are being circulated throughout the community.

I would also like to acknowledge that I realize that times are financially tough for many citizens of Fernley, it was just bad timing that we had to deal with a new 10-Year Franchise Agreement at this point. All of us feel the pinch in these economic times, but this too will pass if we can just promote ourselves to major companies that have expressed an interest in bringing good jobs to Fernley.

Myth #1. Unconstitutional:

I firmly believe in the United States Constitution, it is the only piece of paper in the world that I would fight and die for, if necessary, to protect. No where in the Constitution does it prevent States from addressing sanitation laws, in fact Article X states: “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” It is obvious that Sanitation Laws are reserved to the States.

The State of Nevada provides sanitation laws and specifically delegates that authority to local governments such as counties and municipalities, as long as they uphold as a minimum the standards provided by the State of Nevada, mainly found in NAC 444.

Myth #2. Mandatory Residential Garbage Collection on smaller than 2-acre lots is unfair.

NAC 444 stipulates that disposal of solid waste is required in populated areas, in rural areas it is not required. The City Council conducted discussions properly placed on the agenda concerning the Solid Waste Ordinance and determined that Fernley has indeed become a populated area, the City Council also defined lots larger than 2 acres as rural. This was necessary since the City of Fernley is approximately 162 square miles and most of the land mass in the city is in rural areas.

Every City of any size in northern Nevada has mandatory residential garbage collection, except Elko, although the dump there is supported by tax dollars. Even the City of Fallon has Mandatory Trash Service, although not in the unincorporated areas of Churchill County, which is a large part of what we think of as Fallon.

Solid Waste Disposal, just like sewer and clean drinking water are all community health and sanitation issues and must be addressed by the community as a whole. Anything less would mean that your city government is not doing its job.

Myth #3. Mandatory Residential Garbage Collection will not affect illegal dumping within a community.

While mandatory residential garbage collection does in fact cut down on illegal dumping (this is supported in several national studies) outside the populated areas of the city, there are some “jerks” that will continue to do it. We do have a code enforcement officer who will prosecute upon evidence of illegal dumping. Keep in mind according to state law, that even if you weren’t the one who dumped the trash, if the trash can be traced to you, you can be found guilty of illegal dumping just the same as if you had dumped it yourself. You are responsible to make sure that your trash ends up in the proper place.

I’ve gotten some calls from some landlords who were upset that they had to make sure solid waste service was provided on their rental units, but it is the same for all landlords and all tenants now should have mandatory residential garbage collection.

Ordinance 130 is a 10-Year Franchise Agreement. What would our city look like several years from now, when the population starts to grow again, with out mandatory residential garbage collection?

Do your own research… There are a number of studies published on the internet, anyone that says that mandatory residential garbage collection does not help combat illegal dumping has their head firmly in the sand. The U.S. EPA website has a considerable research document here: http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/illegal_dumping/downloads/il-dmpng.pdf , get the facts for yourself! According to their research one of the main reasons for illegal dumping is lack of local ordinances to prevent it in the first place.

Myth #4. Waste Management Was Cheaper

The fact is that Waste Management’s 10-Year Franchise Agreement was up January 1^st, 2009 and the City of Fernley had to prepare a Request for Proposals for the next 10-Year Franchise Agreement, Waste Management’s rates had expired and were irrelevant. What is relevant are that the rates that Waste Management proposed to start off the next 10-Year Franchise Agreement, were much higher than Trashpros’ proposal, Castaway Trash Hauling also submitted a proposal.

Waste Management was actually more expensive (See Bid Comparisons in #8)

Myth #5. The City is Trying to Profit From Franchise Fees

This is your city as much as it is anyone’s and yes the City of Fernley needs revenue for many purposes. It has already taken and will continue to take considerable staff time to administer the Solid Waste Ordinance. The city has pledged funds, which was matched by Trashpros, to aid those who couldn’t afford their trash bill. As you will see in the Bid Comparison Spreadsheet the difference was only 43 cents per month between a 6% and 8% Franchise Fee, on Trashpros winning bid (See #8). It is also standard for all cities to charge franchise fees to businesses that use city facilities like roads, etc. to provide ongoing service to citizens, this is true with almost all utility companies.

The City of Fernley is not a profit-making organization, it simply provides the most services to its citizens that it can, based on the budget with which the city must operate within. I’ve noticed that some of the very same folks who complain the loudest about taxes and fees, also are the first to complain that the city doesn’t have employees in a 3-point stance, ready to jump on whatever their demands for city services are from day to day.

Our city budget has been hit hard by the economy and a lot of good city employees have been laid off as a necessary cost-cutting move, some city services also must be reduced, that is just reality. Sometimes, I can’t help but think there are those that secretly want the city government to fail, because somehow it would mean anarchy and they would find power in some sort of mob-rule system, I sincerely hope that I’m wrong.

Myth #6. Repealing Ordinance 130 “will free citizens from compulsory subscription and threat of civil litigation arising from non-participation.” (From Actual Petition)

If Ordinance 130 is repealed it could result in the City of Fernley being named in a multi-million dollar lawsuit by the company awarded the franchise contract – Trashpros. They have invested millions of dollars in equipment and real estate to uphold their contract and would be severely damaged financially.

Repealing Ordinance 130 would not relieve the citizens of Fernley from the responsibility of following State of Nevada Sanitation Laws as set forth in NAC 444 (See attached NAC 444 Laws.) If the city fails to enforce state sanitation laws then the State of Nevada has the power to step in and enforce them, up and to including placing a lien your property.

The City of Fernley government would just have to pass another ordinance which enforces state law or face action by the State of Nevada.

Myth #7. Repealing Ordinance 130 “will eliminate the Exclusive Residential Franchise Agreement thereby stimulating competition among service providers.” (From Actual Petition)

The City of Fernley already promoted competition among service providers by issuing a Request for Proposals and getting bids from 3 competitors. It would be super-stupid for the city to allow ongoing open competition in residential areas. I can just imagine an endless cycle of several different colored waste carts on different or overlapping pickup days throughout the community on a continuous basis. No city should ever allow that.When trash is spilled on the street, which service provider would city officials call? Not only that, but financially it wouldn’t make sense for companies since they set their rates by how many customers they can service per hour. The current franchisee could set their rates at whatever price they wished for curbside solid waste pickup and the transfer station, just as Waste Management raised their fees at their transfer station when they lost the franchise.

Myth #8. The City failed to get competitive rates and why is Fallon cheaper?

First Fallon - Trashpros purchased the customer base from two existing companies Walker Lake, Inc & Walker Lake, LLC. The City of Fallon owns their own transfer station and city dump, which is also supported by tax revenues from their general fund and charge about 1/3 the cost that it cost to run a transfer station in Fernley. Trashpros has honored the rates of the existing companies that it bought out, but the rates will increase in the near future.

What other municipalities currently charge is not relevant, the only rates that the City Council could consider were rates in the proposals that were presented as a result of the Request for Proposals.

Here are the actual Bid Comparisons of the companies that submitted proposals.

First, we needed to determine which scenario we wanted to choose. It was decided by the City Council to choose Scenario 1, which was the only scenario that didn’t subsidize residential with business rates or visa versa, I supported this wholeheartedly. It did allow businesses to enter into open competition and get the best rate that they could. As a result, this has saved businesses many thousands of dollars. I can not support Open Franchise in residential areas for the reasons stated in Myth #7.

Here are the rates that were proposed:

Senior Discount Note:

Waste Management offered a 20% Senior Discount, but the customer had to be age 65 and own the property, so this discount was not available to renters. Trashpros offered a 25% Senior Discount, available to customers at age 62 whether they were a home owner or renter. Castaway offered a 5% Senior Discount.

Company	6% FF	{Senior Rate}	7% FF	{Senior Rate}	8% FF	{Senior Rate}
Trashpros	21.53	{16.15}	21.75	{16.31}	21.96	{16.47}

* (Amended 65 Gallon Can Option $2.00 off)

19.96

{14.47}

Waste Management	24.95	{19.96}	25.22	{20.17}	25.49	{20.39}
Castaway	45.79	{43.50}	46.23	{43.92}	46.66	{44.33}

* (FF = Franchise Fee)

Summary of the Proposals:

It was obvious that Castaway was not competitive so I will not comment further on their bid, except that they do currently serve the community and specialize in commercial waste.

2 out of 3 of the bidders personally told me that there bid would have been 15% higher if it was not based on mandatory service. The third party reportedly stated the same thing, except not to me personally.

The difference between the 6% and 8% Franchise Fee is 43 cents a month, 32 cents for Seniors. The city does count on these revenues for purposes of administration and assisting low income residents, as none of us EVER want to see a lien placed on a home, Trashpros has been working out payment arrangements for some of their customers.

Our Senior Citizens especially benefit from the choice of Trashpros since discounts kick in at age 62 and can be applied to renters, not just homeowners. Trashpros’ Senior Discount works out about 20% less than what Waste Management had proposed for the next 10-Year Solid Waste Franchise Agreement.

The difference between the Trashpros proposal and the Waste Management proposal adds up to a total savings to the City of Fernley residents of over $25,000 per month, which is about $300,000 per year, I feel that this represents a significant savings for our community.

Conclusion:

I have no doubt that this is the best deal for our community, and if you have taken the time to read the actual facts surrounding this issue, I hope that you agree. If the citizens vote to repeal the existing ordinance, it has the potential to cost the City of Fernley (which is YOU) millions of dollars in lawsuit damages and I believe it will cause an increase in rates to the citizens for trash service, not a decrease.

Did you sign the petition, but regret it now that you know the facts?

If you have signed a petition to repeal Ordinance 130 based on false information that you have received, please consider requesting that your name be removed from the petition, you can make such a request through the City of Fernley - Clerk’s Office.

Additional Information

For additional information the following is the actual sections from NAC 444, that the City of Fernley must follow as a minimum standard. If some folks feel that they are exempt from following the law, they are mistaken:

NAC 444.662 Storage of solid wastes before collection. (NRS 444.560)

1. The owner or occupant, or both, of any premises, business establishment or industry are responsible for the safe and sanitary storage of all solid waste accumulated at the premise until it is removed.

2. All garbage and similar putrescible waste:

(a) Must be stored in:

(1) Durable, nonabsorbent, watertight and easily cleanable containers that are resistant to corrosion and rodents. The covers of such containers must prevent the entry of flies.

(2) Other types of containers acceptable to the solid waste management authority which conform to the intent of NAC 444.660 to 444.666, inclusive.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, must not be stored for more than 1 week before collection.

3. The size and allowable weight of the container must be determined by the collection agency, subject to the approval of the solid waste management authority.

4. If garbage and similar putrescible wastes are stored in combination with nonputrescible wastes, containers for the storage of the mixture must meet the requirements for garbage storage.

5. The solid waste management authority may approve the storage of garbage and similar putrescible wastes for more than 1 week before collection in a remote community if the municipality in whose jurisdiction the storage occurs demonstrates that an alternative minimum collection frequency will not result in increased litter or odors, the harboring of vectors, the storage of excess waste outside of containers, or any other health hazard, public nuisance or impairment to the environment. The solid waste management authority may revoke its approval of an alternative minimum collection frequency.

Please keep Fernley a great place to live, work and play.

Warmest Regards,

Cal Eilrich, Councilman Ward 5

City of Fernley

P.S. I tend to write position papers on most of the major issues that I vote on, it helps me to clarify my research and make informed decisions on behalf of the citizens of Fernley. You are welcome to go to www.councilmancaleilrich.com and read position papers that I have written on a number of topics.

I also would like to urge concerned citizens that want to be involved with positive issues for a better future for Fernley to go to www.standupforfernley.org , which is a new registered political action committee that I personally support with contributions, I like their goals and what they stand for – The Future of Fernley.

Download / Print Document