Why Madison wants to stop collecting furniture, large items from big apartment buildings

The new city policy would stop large item collection for residential properties with eight units or more and impose fines if large items are not removed from terraces — the grassy space between the sidewalk and the road — within 24 hours. 

The new policy would not affect the event known as “Hippie Christmas,” a stretch in August when discarded furniture and refuse line city streets near Downtown and the UW-Madison campus after many off-campus student leases turn over.

During that time, the city will continue to collect large items in the student-heavy areas between the Yahara River and Camp Randall. 

But about three dozen large apartment complexes and other properties in the city “almost act like it’s student move-in every month,” said City Streets Superintendent Charlie Romines. 

“They don’t put in orders. They don’t monitor their tenants’ use of their terrace,” Romines said. “There’s no reason for it to be that way.” 

Large roadside piles of garbage at one apartment complex on the Far East Side have been frustrating residents for years, said Ald. Derek Field, who represents District 3 on the City Council.

“These properties’ frequent large item pick-up, currently provided by the city for free, is also a significant drain on Streets Division staff time,” Field said. “I am taking a hard look at city services this year to determine what we can and can’t afford to provide for free anymore.” 

For four years, the city has used a work order system to collect large items. Under the new policy, residential buildings with eight units or less would still be able to have large items collected by the city by submitting a work order. 

Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway, Field and Ald. Sabrina Madison are sponsoring the policy change. If passed, the new policy will take effect Nov. 1. and ineligible properties will have to use a private hauling service.

Jim Stopple, the owner of Madison Property Management, worries that the policy will backfire, passing costs onto landlords and delaying the pickup of large items. 

Of the 4,500 properties that Stopple’s company manages, about 300 would lose their reliance on large-item pickup from the city. 

“I’m lost as to why that eight units or more should have to pay whereas somebody that has a two flat does not have to pay,” he said. “That doesn’t seem equitable in my opinion.” 

Budget impact uncertain

For Romines, the city’s growth has outpaced the ability for streets crews to keep up with more residents and more developments. 

It’s unclear and too early to tell how much money the new policy might save the city, Romines said. But if streets crews are no longer responding to large apartment complexes, they’ll be freed up to remove large items from eligible properties with better speed and efficiency.  

“It is not lost on us that someone will pay the cost, likely the landlord and whatever cost they decide to pass on to residents,” Romines said. “We would prefer not to pursue this path, but the budget realities are what they are and keeping every service the way it’s ‘always been’ is not going to be sustainable going forward.” 

Ald. Mike Verveer, who represents Downtown in District 4, views the policy as a sea change that would catch residents, landlords and private waste hauling companies off guard and potentially lead to more uncollected trash on terraces. 

“I think it will be an absolute headache for all involved if this change is made,” Verveer said. “I appreciate that it would provide greater efficiency, and the single-family homeowners would receive a higher level of service. But the trade off, I don’t think, is worth it at all.” 

If the city wants to crack down on apartment complexes that abuse the system, then a change to fines should be explored, Verveer said.

On Monday, the City Council’s finance committee postponed a vote on the new policy to July. 

Ald. Tag Evers, who represents the Near West Side in District 13, said property management companies have been relying on the city for too long. 

“We are allowing this to continue and it sounds like staff is saying we simply don’t have the resources to continue to provide at this level whether we’re going for a (property tax) referendum or not,” Evers said at the finance committee meeting. “I just wonder if there isn’t just resistance on the basis of ‘We’ve always done it this way and we don’t want it to change. Because guess what? We’re shifting the cost onto the city and it’s very convenient for us.”