During its Dec. 7 regular meeting via Zoom, the Marshall City Council held a public hearing to consider adopting an ordinance that would provide a single hauler for the collection of residential trash and recycling.
Last year, the Council proposed a similar ordinance and at the public hearing received mostly negative comments from the community; now, the Council had asked city staff to address many concerns previously noted by residents, and to update the ordinance and structure of the proposed services.
Whereas the 2019 proposal pertained to yard waste and bulk items, the updated proposal only focuses on the collection of trash and recycling.
Following last Monday’s public hearing, the Council voted to adopt the ordinance with a 4-3 vote. Mayor Joe Caron, Ward 1 Councilmember Scott Wolfersberger, Ward 3 Councilmember Jacob Gates, and Councilmember At-Large
Ryan Traver voted yes, while Ward 4 Councilmember Michael McNeil, Ward 5 Councilmember Ryan Underhill, and Ward 2 Councilmember Nick Metzger voted no.
The city received bids from two of the three current providers: Granger and Republic provided bids, while Waste Management chose not to bid. The Council voted to accept the bid from Granger to provide solid waste services for a period of five years and to approve the proposed rules and regulations for the provision of solid waste services. All but Underhill voted yes in choosing the provider.
Leading up to the Dec. 7 meeting, a request for proposal to regional waste providers included the following: trash service is not required, and citizens would have the ability to opt out if they have alternative methods of disposal; recycling would be available at an additional charge but is also not required (even if trash service is desired); properties that receive service from a homeowners association or condo association, residential properties of four units or more, and properties that have both commercial/residential uses (e.g. downtown buildings) will be exempt from the ordinance; billing and all customer service will be provided by the city.
The recommended rate for trash is $13 per month with an additional $5.50 for recycling services, and there is a 3% price increase for each year of the contract. Sixty-four- and 96-gallon containers will be available for trash, while 96-gallon containers will be available for recycling.
Though the city will continue its bulk cleanup in the spring, residents will be able to schedule individual bulk item collection for $25 per item.
The Council and staff have explored the solid waste issue for many reasons. According to the city, Marshall is one of the few communities in the region that does not provide solid waste through a contract for its residents. In fact, as reported by the city, other communities have added this service for the following three reasons:
Cost
Several residents have stated that the cost of the proposed trash service under the city's contract would save them money. Additionally, there is a known cost for the next five years, and fuel surcharges and other fees can be added, amending the contract.
Increased service
Transitioning to a city contract creates the possibility of recycling for all residents. At this time, only one company provides recycling for residents.
Combining the entire city under one contract provides a company a broader base of customers to justify adding recycling services, which have been requested by many residents who use one of the companies that don't provide the services.
The city also plans to provide front-line customer service to residents. In other words, if residents have a problem with their service, they can call the city to file a complaint, and staff will work to resolve the issue with the service provider.
Streets
Consolidation to a one service provider will eliminate a lot of heavy trucks from residential streets. Presently, most neighborhoods see four garbage trucks—three trash and one recycling—each week on multiple days. Moving to a single provider will result in only one truck per week and a second truck every other week. What’s more, a garbage truck is usually about 33,000 pounds when empty, and up to 51,000 pounds when loaded. Consolidating service could be the equivalent of eliminating 1,279 car trips per truck from neighborhood streets that are not designed to handle heavy truck traffic, therefore extending the investment that was approved with the street millage this fall.
"City Council and staff are exploring this issue for the benefit of the community and for no other reason," the city posted on its Facebook page. "If we can save people money, protect our streets, and provide a higher level of service, then it was worth the time spent.”
During the public comments and during the public hearing, a number of residents expressed both concern and support for the proposed ordinance.
“It’s disappointing to see that [the Council has] decided to resurrect something that should have been buried and put away,” said Barry Adams, conveying concerns that the city is overstepping its boundaries of authority. “It really shows me that the agenda of the city is not consonant with the interest of the citizens of the city and appears to operate in antagonism to the individual interests of Americans. It’s very disappointing to see this kind of thing happening. You’re trying to monopolize this competitive business, inhibiting commerce. The whole thing smells as bad as the garbage you’re trying to remove.”
Vicki DeGraw agreed with Adams, voicing additional worry over the cost of the contract.
“Like the speaker ahead of me, I don’t believe you should be going into a contract for all of us, not unless you have put this to a vote and allowed us to vote on this,” she said. “This notification, by sending it out on Facebook and giving us snippets of information without giving us the whole picture, is truly patronizing. You’ve given us the cost of the [request for approval]. You have not given us the cost of what it’s going to cost us in our tax dollars to support this contract, should you go into it.”
DeGraw also stated disapproval regarding the public hearing taking place via Zoom.
“Doing this on a Zoom meeting in the middle of a pandemic—it’s just wrong,” she said. “There are a lot of people who don’t know how to get onto Zoom. There are a lot of people who don’t know how to call in. You’ve given them a week’s notice that this was still occurring after all the meetings that occurred a year ago, and you got public feedback that said we don’t want this, and yet here you are still pursuing this and spending time on this. I’m very disappointed. I would hope that you would vote this down and not pursue it any further.”
On the other hand, Sarah and Brian Huggett declared their support for the ordinance in an email.
“I write in support of this change and want you to know that a few loud voices in opposition do not speak for us all,” said Sarah Huggett. “The reasons we support using a single provider for Marshall are to reduce Marshall’s carbon footprint by eliminating redundant garbage runs; to decrease the impact on city streets; to promote a culture of recycling with a curbside pickup—we routinely see piles of cardboard boxes next to garbage bins; to improve the city’s aesthetic with as needed removal of large garbage items—there have been many instances on our short street where couches and mattresses have been left by the curb for weeks and months; and the better rate—we would save about $40 per year to offer the same services.”
Several residents inquired as to why this issue wasn’t present on the November ballot and urged the city to place the issue on the next ballot.
“We did look at that and had multiple discussions with City Attorney (David) Revore,” said Special Projects Director Eric Zuzga. “That was our inclination—we really would have preferred to go that route. There is no mechanism for the city to put an ordinance on a ballot. So even if we wanted to say, ‘Hey, we want a vote of the people on this issue,’ we have no mechanism for that.”
Zuzga explained that though the city cannot add such issues to a ballot, they can instead be added through a petition or referendum initiated by voters.