On 07/12/2021 the Municipal Services Committee discussed and voted on the Department of Public Works’ modified operation plan which will go into effective April 1, 2022.
This item had already been before the committee as an information item, so Public Works Director Paula Vandehey did not need to present anything, rather, the committee and attending alderpersons not on the committee, went straight into discussion.
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) said that residents who gave feedback for the modified plan were generally receptive to it except for the two item per collection restriction and encouraged an amendment to remove that restriction because it posed a significant hardship for people. Particularly when dealing with a flooded basement or some kind of natural disaster, residents would typically have more than two items they needed to put on the curb.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) wondered if staff could give an estimate as to what the difference in cost would be if they continued allowing unlimited bulky overflow pickup versus limiting it to two items.
While a Deputy Director tried to work on some numbers, Director Vandehey explained that the proposal was not about saving money. With the modified plan they could not do unlimited bulky overflow pickup because they would just end up having to do the same amount of work in 6 months that they currently do in 12 months, and they would physically be unable to collect everyone’s overflow. The modified plan is what they could physically do with their existing staff and equipment. This was not being driven by a desire to save money, but instead by the physical reality of the labor and available equipment. If they offered to pick up 2 items per residence every two weeks for 6 months, that would be 24 items total which was still a good service in comparison to what other communities are doing.
Regarding Alderperson Metzler’s concerns, she said that a resident could look for other people to take that stuff or get a dumpster. There were options other than just putting everything out on the street for the city to take and bring to a landfill. They were trying to promote reuse rather than just throwing it away because once it’s on the curb and the city takes it, it’s going to the landfill and that reuse opportunity is lost.
She also stressed that they couldn’t change the two items every other week back to unlimited pickup because they wouldn’t have the staff to do all that in a 6 month period of time. [She had mentioned at a previous meeting that the amount of overflow they picked up was the same when they collected it once a month versus every other week. Limiting pickup times did not limit the amount of garbage put out, but the same amount of garbage across a more limited time frame was difficult or impossible for staff to manage.]
Alderperson Meltzer said that made sense but still hoped the item would be amended to allow a greater number of items than just two—maybe even for the first year of implementation so as to incentivize people who are in the middle of a basement cleaning project to wrap it up, so they wouldn’t be stuck with a hardship the following year.
The Deputy Director who had been trying to get some numbers for Alderperson Fenton weighed in. He said that they were projecting that the tonnage of bulky overflow would remain the same if they allowed unlimited bulky overflow. This was based on history and experience.
He noted that the reason they were able to put the modified plan together so quickly was because they had created a couple of plans. They thought they knew what the alderpersons and the public wanted with extra yard waste collection, but then realized that was not what people were asking for. Rather, residents wanted bulky overflow collection to keep happening at no cost. So, the Department of Public Works had this modified proposal in their back pocket ready to go.
They had been tracking what items they were picking from the curb and how many items people were putting out, and it was usually one or two items per residence. The piles that are currently put out are actually not allowed under current city code which prohibits lining a terrace with construction and remodeling debris. However, because they wanted to provide great customer service, the bulky overflow collection had evolved over time from what it was originally meant to be—i.e. picking up bulky items here or there if somebody couldn’t get rid of a dresser or a tv stand—into people cleaning their basements out and throwing it all on the terrace. He said that, several times a week, they catch people driving into Appleton and unloading a trailer full of debris on a friend of relative’s terrace.
He stressed that they cannot handle these large volumes anymore, particularly because the volume has increased over time. They are collecting more and more and filling the landfill up more and more. They can’t do 12 months of work in a 6 month timeframe because they know that the volume will be the same even in the smaller time frame. [Note: it wasn’t really mentioned here, but the reason they could not continue collecting bulky overflow year-round was because in the past the city contracted out sidewalk snow removal; however, the contractor they have used is retiring at the end of this upcoming winter. There aren’t a lot of companies that provide that service and the city decided to bring that sidewalk snow removal in-house, which meant they wouldn’t have enough staff to also do bulky overflow collection in the winter.]
Alderperson Joe Prohaska (District 14) agreed with Alderperson Metzler. He had gotten a lot of negative feedback from his constituents. Most of them were older folks who didn’t know how they were supposed to get their bulky items to the dump. When he told them they would still have two items every other week for six months, they wanted to know what to do if they had more than two items. He wondered if there was a way to, instead of picking up two items per collection, the city could give each household 20 overflow items per year. He understood that would be more difficult, but he wondered if they could do a sticker program like they do for bags and appliances. That way the volume wouldn’t increase, but it would give residents some flexibility.
The Deputy Director said he understood where he was coming from but, they would not be able to handle everybody putting 20 items out all in the same week or month. They needed to spread things out as best they could. That is what they had hoped the fee in the original proposal would accomplish. In the modified proposal, they hoped that limiting the number of items would do that and also be more in light with the services that neighboring communities are providing. They thought it was a good balance between providing unlimited collection as they have in the past and not taking anything as they had originally proposed. They felt it was a fair compromise that they would be able to handle. He was afraid that if they modified it in the way Alderperson Prohaska suggested, that they would not be able to collect all 20 items that people put out and end up getting behind in collection. On any given day, they can only hit so many stops and throw so many items in the truck with the two people they have. [I was unaware they only had two people collecting bulky overflow.]
Alderperson Fenton said she had also received similar feedback from her constituents. Alderperson Metzler’s comments made her think about people who are faced with a flood or disaster and that caused her to worry about equity issues for people who have been financially hit by a major hardship and then the city is telling them, on top of that, they need to get a dumpster. She was absolutely cognizant of the physical limitations the city faces in picking up these items, which was why she was fine with the two item limit. She was also very concerned about the amount of stuff the community is putting in the landfill that won’t disintegrate for millions and millions and millions of years. However, she wondered if it would be possible to implement some kind of one-time emergency-related pick-up program where people could have more than two items picked up.
The Deputy Director said that the city has had plenty of experience with flooding events, tornados, and windstorms and they have done a really good job as a city taking care of residents by collecting the branches and debris; however, they’ve never done an event where people lined up their terraces with flood damaged garbage so that the city could go through and do a special collection. During those events, residents still needed to meet the city’s parameters for collection. Everything still needed to be bundled and under a certain weight. He thought doing a storm cleanup would be something over and above what the city is currently doing, which they’re already trying to back off from a bit.
He noted that most folks should have insurance for that type of event which would cover the cost of the dumpster and cleanup. Whenever they deal with people who have experienced some sort of backup in their basement, the first thing they talk about is whether they have the proper insurance and the need to contact their insurance provider. They also educate folk annually through the DPW guide about having the proper insurance for sewer backups and having a back flow preventer on their sewer lateral.
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) thought they had to take into account the bigger picture; the bulky overflow was one piece of a larger puzzle. They’ve all heard feedback about the general proposal and people have been generally supportive. Most people have also had an issue with the bulky item collection, but that was only one piece of four different parts to this puzzle. He thought that they had to put trust in the city staff. They worked on the plan for roughly six months, brought it to the committee, heard feedback from alderpersons and residents, and came back with an alternative that in his opinion made the program better.
He thought that the community had become accustomed to having this service provided at a much higher level than any other community provides. He agreed it may be a little painful to adjust, but in the grand scheme of things, in order to help DPW accomplish the other things they needed to do with the program, these bulky overflow collection changes needed to be done. He thought they could argue when two, five, or ten items was appropriate, but if staff recommended that two was the number they felt they could handle then he felt they should trust them on that. He supported the plan without amendment.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) said that nobody wants to get rid of what we’ve always had for free. She thought it bothered people more in theory that it really would in practice. At the same time, she also wondered if some kind of sticker program that allowed people to put out more than two items would be feasible.
Director Vandehey said it was a good concept but there were a couple things DPW was trying to do. One, by limiting the number of items they were trying to control the total amount they had to pick up on any given day. Two, “I feel like unless we kind of make it hard, no one’s gonna change their behavior.” If people can throw use stickers to throw 12 things out, that didn’t prompt them to find another way to get rid of it such as giving it away to someone who might be able to use it. “So, again, it’s just like, trying to make it a little uncomfortable for all of us to drive change back to what Alderperson Fenton was saying, to hopefully make a difference.”
Alderperson Meltzer was still concerned about equity and thought the difference between 2 and 5 or even just 2 and 3 was going to be significant. It might be a whole paycheck for somebody to rent a vehicle to haul something to the dump. If the city started out at a limit of 3 or 5 and moved to 2 after a year, that seemed like something that would still significantly reduce the number of items and would also provide people an adjustment period. Alderperson Metzler noted that news doesn’t always travel very quickly and expected that within the first year there were going to be numerous people who didn’t know the policy had changed. “And, again, the financial hardship on people who basically have subsistence incomes where all of their money gets taken up by their rent and their groceries–this can have a devastating impact. You know, if they had like a leak in the roof and they have to get rid of a carpet and a dresser and a mattress, that’s more than two items. Now they have to try to borrow or rent a pickup truck or something, like, there’s just–the way that these details play out in people’s daily lives are pretty devastating and derailing, so whatever we can do to mitigate that hardship during the first year while we transition, I think would be a really great way to support our community and help us get to our end goal.”
Director Vandehey said they knew this was a lot of change and that it would take time to educate residents which was why they brought it forward so early. It wouldn’t be implemented until April 1, 2022, nine months from now. They hoped those nine months would give people time to get acquainted with the new rules, and they would be working with the city’s communications coordinator to help get the word out over that time.
At that point, Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) asked to call the question. The committee voted 4-0 to approve the modified plan without any changes.
[The discussion about the equity of the changes was interesting. While I can understand where those concerns come from, my general thought is that a one time disaster situation as described in the discussion is more easily absorbed by lower income individuals and families than a recurring situation. Family, friends, acquaintances, and the community are able and willing to come together and help each other out for short-term one-off situations, be that situation a bad storm resulting in lots of flooded basements, a move across town, or simply a person doing a big once every 20-year purging of possessions.
At the same time, what family, friends, acquaintances, and the community are not so good at helping with are general rising costs of cost of living, taxes, and fees. To me, concerns about equity would make more sense in the context of the library project, for example, because that has the potential to affect residents in the long term and add to their costs much more than changes to the city’s bulky overflow collection practices. Banning the construction of pole buildings in Appleton seems like another situation where I would expect equity to be a concern, since such a ban would result in property owners having to pay thousands more for a comparable building that met city code which in turn would disproportionately affect the ability of lower income property owners to make improvements to their property.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=859286&GUID=8DA03D7A-E563-45AC-8D66-AB7914870D2E&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply