City recycling should be reinstated

To the editor:

I have been reflecting upon the decision by the Portland City Council to officially end curbside recycling and the events that led up to that point.

I have come to the conclusion that the decision-making process was out of sequence and the final vote based upon false assumptions about the authority of the board of works to end the curbside recycling program.

Instead of repealing the recycling ordinance, the city council should have reminded the Portland Board of Works that ending the curbside recycling program was not their decision to make. Chapter 53 of the Portland Code of Ordinances stated that the city “shall” provide curbside recycling. This ordinance was passed by the city council in 1993.

The board of works does not have veto power over city ordinances. Their job is to request, review, and enter into contracts, not to make policy.

I appreciate all of their hard work on this issue and their concern about its costs. Their input is invaluable and the members of the board are all fine public servants, but this decision was simply not theirs to make.

If one holds that the board of works can unilaterally vote to end curbside recycling, then one must also believe it can, on its own, end Portland’s trash pick-up, its police patrols and its fire protection. The city council would be nothing but a rubber stamp.

It is now clear to me that we on the city council should have objected to the board’s vote to end curbside recycling and not received it as settled fact.

On Dec. 3, the city council was left in the position to either continue to collect fees for a service the board of works had voted to end or to concur with their decision to end curbside recycling and stop collecting the fee. It was assumed that the board of works had the authority to make that decision.

The council voted to stop collecting the curbside recycling fee, along with the entire program it funded, leaving in limbo $107,000 in recycling funds earmarked solely for that purpose. This has created a lot of confusion.

In an attempt to resolve these issues, at the next city council meeting I will re-introduce the curbside recycling ordinance exactly as it was written when we repealed it. My hope is that my colleagues on the council will vote in favor of it. Adopting the ordinance will direct the board of works to reinstate curbside recycling as soon as possible. The $107,000 in the recycling fund will be used, as stated in the original ordinance, to make up the difference between the $4.25 fee and actual costs until those extra funds are depleted.

If and when that happens, the Portland City Council can decide either to raise the fee or make changes to the curbside recycling program. In light of the last written three-year contract Rumpke proposed, it should take a while for that to happen.

Reinstating the original recycling ordinance will solve the dilemma of the excess $107,000, reassert the primacy of the city council as the policy-making body of the city and fulfill the spirit and promise of the original 1993 ordinance, which stated funds collected under it were to be used “solely for the costs associated with the collection and disposal of recyclable materials.”

I am sorry that I did not comprehend the entirety of the situation sooner. I hope it can be remedied at the next city council meeting.

Sincerely,

Kent McClung

Portland City Council