LAWRENCE: Council plans user fee for bulk pickup

By Lea Kahn, Staff Writer
   An ordinance that would impose a user fee on each property owner for the curbside collection of bulk items — regardless of whether the property owner uses the service — has been introduced by Township Council.
   A public hearing on the proposed ordinance, which allows the fee to be set up to $55, will be held at Township Council’s Dec. 18 meeting at 6:30 p.m. The council meets in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Building.
   Although the public hearing has not been held, the proposal has already drawn fire from several residents, who spoke at Township Council’s meeting Tuesday night and who claimed that the bulk collection fee is another tax. They spoke during the public participation segment of the council meeting.
   The proposed ordinance defines “bulk waste” as items that are too large to fit inside the Lawrence Township-issued trash cart. This includes clothes washers and dryers, refrigerators, and other metal products, as well as furniture and carpets.
   The fee, which would be established every year by Township Council, would be billed to property owners annually, Municipal Manager Richard Krawczun said. The fee must be paid within 30 days of its receipt by the property owner.
   The Lawrence Township Department of Public Works picks up “white goods” — appliances — on an appointment basis, Mr. Krawczun said. And while the township collects money when it disposes of those items, there is also a cost to remove freon from a refrigerator, for example, he said.
   Mr. Krawczun floated the idea of charging a fee to each household at Township Council’s Sept. 18 meeting during a discussion of the 2013 municipal budget. If the fee is set at $55, it would generate about $400,000 in revenue. The township is facing an approximate budget gap of $500,000 for 2013.
   Councilwoman Cathleen Lewis and Councilman Michael Powers supported the proposed ordinance Tuesday night, noting that property owners routinely pay for services they do not use.
   Mr. Powers pointed to the school district property tax, which is assessed against property owners who do not have children or who send their children to private school. He compared school property taxes to the proposed bulk collection fee, and said they are both “policy” issues.
   Ms. Lewis said that an elderly neighbor died recently, and the heirs had to clean out the house. Instead of paying thousands of dollars to clean out the house and haul the items away, they could put the items on the curb for pickup.
   But that line of reasoning did not diminish objections from the residents.
   Township resident Barbara Nester said that charging a fee is “just wrong.” She said she was afraid that it would open the door for other fees for other services that many residents or property owners do not use, adding that she did not think it was fair to charge people for something they may not use.
   Amy Davis, who lives in the township, said she “vehemently” objected to the proposed ordinance. She said that in the past 10 years she has not used the Department of Public Works service, nor does she intend to use it in the future.
   Ms. Davis said that when her family remodeled the kitchen, they sold their appliances online. They also recycle items in a “green friendly way,” she said, adding that “like most (people) in Lawrence, I don’t want nor do I need your bulk trash service. So why should you force me to pay for it.”
   ”So, let’s call this new ordinance exactly what it is in plain English — it’s a back-door tax increase disguised as a new fee,” Ms. Davis said, reminding Township Council that voters rejected a proposed 17 percent property tax increase in April.
   ”You have been scrambling ever since to find a way around the referendum’s defeat and the state’s new 2 percent cap (on property tax rate increases). Clearly, you still don’t get it. The taxpayers told you loud and clear, we are sick of being taxed to death. Cut the spending,” she said.
   Ms. Davis acknowledged that Township Council has made some cuts, which is a “step in the right direction,” but she said now it is back to its old tricks of raising taxes or fees. She also said the $55 fee is less than paying outright for trash collection, which would have cost about $336 per household annually and which had been proposed earlier in the year. She said she objected to eliminating trash pickup.
   ”It’s not the mere $55 new fee for a service that I will never use. It’s the fact that you will create the new fee and then continue to increase our taxes well over the 2 percent cap like you did (before). When will it ever end,” Ms. Davis said.
   Township resident Max Ramos agreed with Ms. Davis and Ms. Nester that the bulk collection fee is another tax, adding that if it is approved, it should be counted as an “accumulation” of taxes for services residents are receiving.