WORK SESSION TOPICS MARCH 9, 2020

1. Solid waste pick up discussion for non-single family residential buildings. (20 Minutes)

Goal: Discuss two requests that have been received regarding the ordinance requirement for three-unit and less buildings to utilize the City’s bag/tag trash pickup system. Each request is based on different reasons, but share some similarities in rationale for the request. Staff wants to have a discussion to ascertain where the City Commission is on potential alternatives for this ordinance requirement, if any.

Note: These two requests may be indicative of similar thoughts from other landlords

and/or property owners. The request from the Mt. Pleasant Housing Commission has some considerations outlined that are very unique to that location.

Attachments: Memo from Interim DPW Director Jason Moore outlining the issue Request for exception from Mr. Jeff Jakeway for duplex rental

units Request for exception from Mt. Pleasant Housing Commission for

Pheasant Run duplex community Outline of option offered by Republic Services (current contractor

for the City) for an optional cart system

Discussion Items: 1. Is the City Commission supportive of enforcement of the ordinance

requirement that residential buildings with three-units or less are required to use the City trash pick-up system?

2. Does the Commission want to consider an exception policy to allow two-unit or three-unit residential buildings to potentially opt out of the ordinance requirement?

a. If so, what type of rationale would be compelling to allow for an exception?

b. If so, an ordinance change would need to be drafted and considered and an exception policy drafted.

3. Does the Commission want to offer an optional cart system on a trial basis for two-unit or three-unit residential buildings?

a. If so, an ordinance change would need to be drafted and considered and the parameters of the program approved.

2. Conference Room E renovation review. (10 Minutes)

Goal: The 2020 Operating Budget includes an allocation of $8,000 to renovate Conference Room E (the conference room on the lower level of City Hall near the Commission Chambers). The purpose of the renovation is to expand the space so that it may be more comfortably used for work session discussions of the Planning Commission and City Commission by allowing additional space for chairs for the public to observe and MACTV to record. This will also eliminate the requirements of having an on-duty police officer stationed near the front door during the work session discussions to ensure overall security of the building. Before starting the renovation, staff wants to ensure the City Commission is supportive of the use of the allocation since it was not specifically discussed during the budget review process.

Attachments: Rendering of proposed renovation to expand space available

Note: Building Official Brian Kench will be in attendance to answer any questions on the proposed renovation as he obtained the quotes for the work.

Discussion Items:

1. Any questions on the proposed renovation/layout? 2. Is the Commission supportive of moving forward with having the

work completed?

TO: Nancy Ridley, City Manager FROM: Jason Moore, Interim DPW Director DATE: March 2, 2020 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Ordinance – Non-Compliant Properties In the past several weeks, the Division of Public Works has been made aware of an increase in the number of properties that do not comply with the solid waste ordinance, specifically section 50.06. This section requires all residential properties that are eligible for residential refuse collection to utilize the City’s bag tag program. Since January 1, 2020, DPW has sent 14 letters, and we continue to receive reports of other properties that are in violation of the ordinance. Several of the properties in violation are rentals that meet the definition of eligibility as described in the ordinance (residential buildings with no more than three dwelling units). However, some of the property owners contend they should be allowed to continue using their private contractors for various reasons. Before we continue sending non-compliance letters, we are seeking confirmation by the City Commission that they are in agreement with the solid waste ordinance as written and that we should continue with enforcement activities. Section 50.06 is vital to the stability of the City’s current solid waste management system. It is important to enforce this section of the ordinance because fewer users of the bag-tag system will result in increased fees for the remaining users. Approximately 70% of the cost of our contract for waste hauling is based on the street mileage the hauler must travel. This cost being fixed means that the fewer users we have to spread those costs amongst, the more each individual user will have to pay for service. If more properties are allowed to operate outside the system future fee increases may be needed and could create a snowball effect of even more users not participating. The primary advantages and reasons why the City has provided/required residential solid waste collection include the following:

• Increased safety and less noise in residential neighborhoods due to fewer large trucks

• Easier to coordinate pickup schedule in order to avoid waste bins being at the curb more than one day per week in a given neighborhood

• Less impact on City streets due to fewer trucks • Economies of scale (spreading of fixed costs among more users) • Ability to set pricing to encourage recycling (pay more to throw more)

Memorandum Mt. Pleara-""t [ meet here]

1

Subject: FW: FW: Trash removalAttachments: RE: Trash removal

From: Jeff Jakeway <jeffjakeway@gmail.com>  Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 1:18 PM To: Sanderson, Susan <ssanderson@mt‐pleasant.org>; Tolas, Pete <ptolas@mt‐pleasant.org>; Joseph, William <wjoseph@mt‐pleasant.org>; George Ronan <dr.gfpronan@gmail.com>; Bow, Tammy <tbow@mt‐pleasant.org> Subject: Re: FW: Trash removal 

EXTERNAL Message Warning

This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Susan and Tammy. I have reached out to my Republic Services agent and I am waiting to hear back from him. In the interim, I want to clarify that I am under contractual agreement to provide waste cans and the cost of same in my lease agreements. I have always done this as a means to keep my properties clean and free of improper disposal of trash. In a duplex situation, it is difficult to enforce the lease when the cost and responsibility for getting the trash in the container lies upon the tenants. When it happens, it is always the "neighbors" trash and I can not hold anyone responsible. Therefore, I have been well served by providing a can with a lid and I very rarely have code enforcement having to stop at my properties.

While I can better manage my true single family properties and therefore, do not provide carts, it is absolutely necessary to maintain them at my duplex properties, which are several.

As the ordinance may in fact be on the books, it doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense. Accordingly, I am going to ask that code enforcement refrain from writing my tenants tickets, as they are not responsible for the trash.

I would suggest that maybe this be referred to the city commission to be reconsidered for duplexes. The ultimate goal of the ordinance should be to have the trash properly contained and disposed of on a timely basis. I have found that the carts are the most practical and efficient means to satisfy these goals.

Thank you.

Jeff Jakeway

I W. Mosher Street Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858

1/28/2020

MT. PLEASANT HOUSING COMMISSION PHONE: 989-773-3784 TTY: 800-349-3777 FAX: 989-772-3987

Dear Mrs. Ridley and the Mt. Pleasant City Board of Commissioners,

The Mount Pleasant Housing Commission recently received a violation notice from the city's Public Works Code Enforcement regarding trash removal for our Pheasant Run community. We have provided a dumpster to our tenants for many years, and we were surprised to find out we were in violation. After researching the specifics of the city's waste removal ordinances, I understand why we were issued the violation . However, the intent of this letter is to request an exemption that we feel will mutually benefit everyone including tenants, our staff, and the city's enforcement staff as well.

Per the city's solid waste ordinance, private waste removal and dumpsters are prohibited for duplex style housing sites . Our property does have duplex structured units, but the entire site is one parcel under common public ownership, which is unique. Functionally, the site is a multiple family property even if it isn't technically one under the solid waste ordinance guidelines.

As you know, our tenants at Pheasant Run are low income families and as a federally subsidized housing provider it is our responsibility to advocate for the most efficient services to meet their needs, at the lowest price. We currently provide an 8 cubic yard dumpster for tenant use that gets picked up twice a week, on Tuesday and Friday by 7am. It is located behind our maintenance shop and main office and it is padlocked for tenant only access. Currently, our tenants pay $11 per month for this service. The following chart illustrates the cost differences.

City Required Collection Large Items- $15 per tag

Current Private Collection Large Items- No Additional

Cost

Weekly Cost

$3.20

$2.54

Annual Cost

$166

$132

Type of Service

1 Tag (Max 34 Gallon container) picked up once

per week

Unlimited garbage, removal twice a week

A 34 gallon container on average can hold three (13 gal.) kitchen garbage bags. For less than the price of the city's removal, we currently offer 16 cubic yards of trash removal weekly. At approximately 202 gallons per cubic yard, evenly divided among our 24 units, this would amount to over 134 gallons per tenant per week. This could equal approximately 10 kitchen garbage bags per household, per week.

Several years ago, as a capital fund project, we supplied each unit at Pheasant Run with a wheeled garbage container. This allows our tenants to place garbage bags in the container and roll it to the dumpster to be emptied. Switching from this system that has worked very well for our staff and tenants, has the potential to create problems and additional challenges for both MPHC staff and city code enforcement officers.

A number of years ago, we required tenants to use the city's bag tag system. Tenants who forgot to purchase tags and or forgot to place their garbage out on the scheduled pick up day ended up with stockpiled garbage bags in their storage sheds. This can attract wildlife and infestation along with being a major imposition for my maintenance crew during inspections or move outs. In addition, having garbage pick-up twice a week is imperative if we are dealing with any infestation issues, especially bed bugs. Having bedbug infested furniture or items waiting for pick up poses a risk for spreading or re-infestation. We have previously been successful in eradicating infested units in part because of our swift ability to dispose of infested materials.

Another concern we have is garbage truck traffic in and out of the area. One of the complaints our tenants had in the past was regarding the speed at which the garbage trucks came through to do pick-ups, especially in an area where we have a playground and many children who play outdoors. Currently, the garbage can be picked up at the front of our cul de sac and the trucks do not actually have to enter the area between houses where there is the potential for children to be playing outside. Individual unit pickup will increase the risk for an accident to occur.

As the only federally subsidized Public Housing program in Isabella county, and operating under the umbrella of the city, we would respectfully like to ask for an exemption from the waste ordinance that prohibits us from supplying a private dumpster for our tenants. The reasons for this exemption include income limits, tenant demographics, past issues, safety risks, and our status as the only public housing provider in Isabella County, regardless of our building type classification.

I am unsure what circumstances surrounded the various switches in services over the years as it was before my time. However, following conversations with my senior staff, I can confidently agree that the dumpster system we are using now is by far the best fit for our property and the most beneficial for our tenants.

I have attached photos for your reference. Thank you for your time and consideration!

Respectfully,

Annessa Haist

Executive Director Mt. Pleasant Housing Commission

CC: Public Works Department

. i.ft_: Isabella County GIS

PHEASANT RUN 1101 SWEENEY, MT PLEASANT

Show Details

Trial Period 

Optional Cart System for Two‐unit and Three‐unit Residential Buildings 

 

Republic Services (City’s current trash hauler) has offered an option for a cart system on a trial 

basis to address some of the concerns expressed in the communication from Mr. Jakeway 

 

Parameters: 

 

Only available to two‐unit and three‐unit residential buildings 

Republic requires the City to extend the current 5‐year contract which expires in 

December, 2023 to add an additional year 

Property owner would need to commit to one year of the cart service and either 

o Prepay full year cost OR 

o Put utility bill in the property owner’s name and cart trash fee would be added 

to the utility bill on a monthly basis 

Monthly fee would be set at $28 (based on assumed equivalent of 2 tags per week plus 

an additional $1 per month which will be charged by Republic for the cart)  Republic 

would deliver a 64 gallon cart to each unit 

Note:  Curbside recycling fee of $2.50 per month would still be charged for curbside 

recycling pickup and recycling would be encouraged 

 

 

Note:    

Offering a cart program is likely to have interest from single family residential units 

wanting to have it available 

Cart programs often have a negative impact on recycling due to the excess capacity 

readily available in the cart 

Trash haulers prefer a cart system for safety and efficiency but don’t offer any pricing 

reductions for such a program until 50% to 70% of the stops are using a cart 

CONFERENCE ROOM E OPTION l b (New Door)

Denali Construction quoted removing the wall between the corridor and conference room E and install a New Door to close off the space to the kitchen at a cost of $7,019. The change would al low the proper swing of the door to the south wall. Floor area increases from 240 to 309 square feet under this plan and occupancy increases

from 16 to 22.

REMOVE EXISTING Y'(ALL AHO BULi-HEAD OFF LOY'lER CEILING AT CORRIDOR

sro,c,,,c;e ttOOH 8-T)(:1f-'I''

u!'o..\'11!: c.C110teneui:.e ,tO""1 , ,•4•x~--·

USE GROUP BI AQ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 58

NOTE:

EXISTING ROOM 15 240 SQUARE FEET OR ROUGHLY 1 ;}' BYl ~• (BOXED IN

& CORNERS EXCLUDE:D)

- 111---~ ~--21·--t~----~11 I ROOM INCREASED FROM 240.;}0'1 SQUARE FEET IIT __ _,,,

CotlPflFWUGE' KOOMF ,,

OCCUPAHCYIHCREA5ED FROM 16TO 22

DE NALI CONSTRUCTION ,. PROVIDED A QUOTE FOR

_,,11 ,, ... ~ I THIS OPTION, l"IITH NEY'l

l~~;~:;;:i;;~~~I •~~,f' ~~g;E1;f ci~1LiftA~~H5T THE SOUTH Y'(ALL AT A COST OF $1,01'1

Location where wal l to be removed