.

Fee for Bulk Trash Pickup Introduced by Twp. Council

Four ordinances intended to raise money for the township - including one that will create a new annual fee for residential property owners to have bulk trash items hauled away - were introduced during the Lawrence Township Council meeting on Tuesday.

An ordinance that would create a new mandatory annual fee for residential property owners to have bulk trash items hauled away – whether or not they use the service – and three other ordinances intended to generate more money for the township were introduced by members of the Lawrence Township Council at their meeting Tuesday evening (Dec. 4).

The ordinances are the latest steps taken by the council and township administration in their ongoing struggle to reduce expenses and increase revenues in order to bring the 2013 municipal budget in compliance with the state’s 2 percent tax levy cap. The 2013 budget was most-recently pegged at being $502,000 over the tax cap, although Township Manager Richard Krawczun acknowledged after Tuesday’s meeting that that overage amount could increase as the budget process continues.

Members of the public will be allowed to offer comment on each of the four ordinances during the Dec. 18 council meeting, prior to council members voting whether or not to approve them.

Although no opportunity for public comment specific to the ordinances was allowed as each of the four was introduced Tuesday night, several township residents used the general public participation period at the start of the meeting to rail against the bulk trash pickup fee and urge caution about another of the ordinances which, if approved, will increase fees for participation in programs run by the township recreation department.

Copies of all four introduced ordinances can be found in the media box above, along with full audio from the meeting.

 

Zoning Fee Ordinance

If approved by council on Dec. 18, one of the four ordinances introduced Tuesday will create new fees for property owners to obtain zoning permits. The township currently does not charge for such permits, but several neighboring municipalities do.

Residential property owners, for example, will have to pay $25 to obtain a permit to install a fence and $50 to put in a pool, while commercial property owners will need to pay $100 for a permit to erect a new sign and $250 for a building expansion.

Discussion of charging fees for zoning permits was first discussed at the Sept. 4 council meeting, when Krawczun presented to council a memo in which Township Engineer James Parvesse estimated that as much as $20,000 in annual revenue could be generated through such fees.

 

Emergency Medical Fee Ordinance

Another of the introduced ordinances, if approved at the next council meeting, will increase existing fees and create new fees charged to individuals who are treated or transported by Lawrence Township Emergency Medical Service ambulance staff.

It will also require Lawrence Township residents to fully settle their bills. Currently, in a situation where a township resident uses the township ambulance service, the township accepts only whatever payment is offered by that resident’s insurance and does not seek to obtain the balance of the bill from the resident.

The basic fee for ambulance transport will increase from $675 to $785, with an added charge of $15 per mile (a $5 per mile increase). The fee for the use of oxygen will go to $70, an increase of $10, and a new fee of $25 will be charged for the use of a cervical collar when needed.

A new fee of $1,950 will be charged if a person is trapped in a wrecked vehicle and has to be extricated by rescuers using “mechanized tools,” while a new fee of $2,800 will be assessed in “technical rescue” situations such as a trench collapse or flood/swift water incident.

Earlier this year, there was talk of using competitive bidding to possibly privative ambulance service in the township. That option is on hold, at least for now, with more money expected to come in from the increased fees and billing changes, along with concessions made by the township’s unionized emergency medical technicians.

Krawczun on Tuesday announced that the EMTs had agreed to open their labor contract to pay more toward health insurance premiums and forgo their pay step increase in 2013.

 

Recreation Fee Ordinance  

The third introduced ordinance, if approved, will increase participation fees charged by the township recreation department. Most of the fees will go up only $5 or $10, but some will see more-significant increases. The fee for competitive basketball, for example, will jump $20 to $110, while boy’s lacrosse will go from $65 to $100.

At the Nov. 8 council meeting, Recreation Superintendent Steve Groeger outlined three possible ways the department could become more “self-sustaining” and less reliant on tax dollars. An “across-the-board” 13-percent increase – per year, for each of the next five years – in recreation participation fees was one of those proposals.

During public participation at the start of Tuesday’s meeting Pine Knoll Drive resident Amy Davis said she supported raising recreation fees, calling the current fees “very modest in these dire budget times,” but she cautioned the council against annual increases that will make the fees too high for anyone to pay. She urged council and the administration to find other ways to raise funds for the recreation department such as a community carnival or 5K run.

“There doesn’t have to be only two options – increase fees or raise taxes. Get creative. Put forth some more effort. Look at other municipal recreation departments. See how they’re funded. Look for their ideas,” Davis said. “Also, if you’re going to increase recreation fees, you should also start charging seniors for their programs. I’ll be honest – ballroom dancing and canasta sound pretty good. But taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill when the town has a budget deficit.”

Later in the meeting, Krawczun explained that Groeger planned to meet with the township’s Recreation Advisory Committee tonight (Dec. 6) to discuss fundraising ideas – such as getting businesses to sponsor events or sports teams – to make future fee increases either unnecessary or more modest.

 

Bulk Trash Pickup Fee Ordinance

The final introduced ordinance, if approved by council on Dec. 18, will create a new fee for the collection of bulk items that are too large to fit into township-issued trash carts, including so-called “white goods” like washers, dryers and refrigerators. The ordinance will allow township council, by resolution, to set the annual fee as low as $0 and as high as $55; it was not said during the meeting what that fee would be for 2013.

The owners of all properties that currently receive curbside trash pickup will be subject to the fee, which must be paid within 30 days of receiving the bill from the township. Failure to pay the bulk trash fee would be handled under the law in the same manner as a property owner not paying taxes – the owner would face late fees and interest and, eventually, have a lien placed against their property.

Charging all property owners an annual flat fee for bulk trash pickup or instituting a “sticker program” whereby only those who use such a service pay for it were two options discussed at the Sept. 18 township council meeting. During that meeting, Krawczun estimated that as much as $400,000 could be generated by charging a $55 annual fee “per residential location.”

“I vehemently object to council introducing a fee for bulk trash pickup despite whether a resident uses the service,” Davis said during public participation at Tuesday’s meeting. “In the past 10-plus years, I have never used this service, nor do I ever intend to. In my neighborhood, as is the case in many areas of Lawrence, we have two competing gentlemen who drive-by every week the night before trash pickup looking for items curbside to recycle. When my husband and I remodeled our kitchen this past year, we sold our [old] appliances online. We recycle our large trash items in a green-friendly manner.

“Like most in Lawrence, I don’t want nor do I need your bulk trash service. So why should I be forced to pay for it? So let’s call this new ordinance exactly what it is in plain English – it’s a backdoor tax increase disguised as a new fee, a fee for a service the majority of residents don’t need or want,” Davis continued. “In April residents of Lawrence Township voted down your request for a 17-percent property tax increase and you have been scrambling ever since to find a way around the referendum’s defeat and the state’s new 2 percent [tax levy] cap.

“It was bad enough when you showed us how disconnected you were from the majority of residents when you proposed the ridiculous tax increase and actually thought it would pass. But clearly you still don’t get it. The taxpayers told you loud and clear – two-to-one – we are sick of being taxed to death. Cut your spending. You have made some cuts and that was a step in the right direction. But now you are back to your old tricks – stick it to the taxpayer,” Davis added.

Davis has been a vocal critic of the way the township’s budget crisis has been handled and since July has been urging council to allow a second period of public comment to take place toward the end of meetings so residents can respond to information presented by Krawczun in his manager’s report to council. It’s a request that other residents have rallied around but upon which council has taken no formal action.

During Tuesday’s meeting, there was a brief but heated exchange between Davis and Councilman David Maffei, with Maffei questioning a statement made by Davis.  

“Honorable mayor, I’d like to say something. We have to resolve this issue. It’s been said that we tried to raise the taxes 17 percent on the public last year. That is not true. Now I don’t want it said any more, unless you can prove 17 percent,” he said.

It was unclear during the meeting if Maffei was objecting to the phrasing used by Davis or if he did not recall the specifics of the tax referendum that was defeated by voters in April. Had the referendum been approved by voters, the municipal tax rate would have gone from $0.84 per $100 of assessed property value to $0.98 – an increase of 16.67 percent. Even with the referendum’s defeat, the municipal tax rate went up 5 cents to $0.89 per $100 of assessed property value.

Also speaking against the bulk trash fee during Tuesday’s meeting were Adele Court resident Barbara Nester and Woodlane Road resident Max Ramos.

“That to me is just wrong,” Nester said. “It’s wrong if you don’t use a service to be charged for it. And that adds up over a period of time and I’m afraid that would even open the door for other fees that might be assessed for things we don’t use… I just want to go on the record to say I just don’t think it’s fair to charge people for something they don’t use.”

Ramos, meanwhile, called the bulk trash pickup fee and the increased recreation fees “hidden” taxes.

But Ed Wiznitzer of Darrah Lane said he supports the fee provided it be implemented for only one year while the township gathers data about how many residents actually use the bulk disposal service and researches other possible solutions to the problem.

“I clearly understand the position of residents who say I should only pay for what I’m getting. In think that’s a very valid, and I think at many times, a strong argument,” Krawczun said during Tuesday’s meeting. “Simultaneously, I also think there are probably equally strong positions to take that there are services that we all receive or are available, that we pay for through taxation, but we don’t necessarily receive individually.”

Speaking about the proposal whereby residents would only pay a fee if and when they needed to dispose of a bulk item, he said, “the sticker program would require a higher level of enforcement. It was said here this evening by a resident that the costs driving our budget are benefits and salaries. And enforcement is benefits and salaries.”

Councilwoman Cathleen Lewis also commented on a potential flaw with the “sticker program” idea, explaining how the family of a recently-deceased resident of her neighborhood likely would have spent thousands of dollars cleaning out their loved one’s home had they had to pay “per piece.”

Councilman Michael Powers, meanwhile, noted that “we all pay school taxes as part of our property taxes but not all of us have children in the school system. From a policy perspective, it makes sense to have an educated citizenry. And trash is a policy issue…”

 

Follow Lawrenceville Patch on Facebook, Twitter and sign up for the daily newsletter.

 

KBL December 06, 2012 at 01:17 PM
1. As for rec fees being increased IF the ordinance is passed - lacrosse rec fees have ALREADY been increased by $65 to $100. They didn't even wait for an ordinance; it's already a done deal. 2. Comparing a bulk trash pick up fee to paying school taxes but not having a child in school is silly. No matter where you live you know when you buy a house you have to pay school taxes. But not EVERYWHERE you live do you have to pay for a bulk trash fee even if you don't use it. Other towns have sticker programs and it works. Why does our town feel like they have to be so different and NOT do what other towns do. Why reinvent new ideas when you can just use the good ideas of other towns.
Max R December 06, 2012 at 02:22 PM
Councilwoman Lewis stated that her neighbor's loved ones would have had to pay a significant amount to have her bulk trash removed upon her death. I am sorry Ms. Lewis, but the answer is NOT to have the residents of Lawrenceville pick up the tab for cost of clearing up her neighbor's estate. That is a very poor analogy that has no relevance to this issue. And it is in poor taste to bring up a deceased lady to score political points for passing this tax. This council is very plainly ignoring the key issue (spending) and simply wants to tax the residents into submission. Here comes the "Garbage Tax," hidden as a fee. This is where it starts.
Max R December 06, 2012 at 02:54 PM
Dr. Maffei wants proof that HE tried to raise our taxes by 17% last year? 2011 Muni tax rate: $0.84 2012 Referendum Proposed Muni Tax rate: $0.98 Now, let's do the math: 98 - 84 = 14 (that's the "cent" increase Dr Maffei and council proposed unanimously 5-0) 14 cent increase divided by the 84 cent base = 16.67% which rounds to 17% So, the only conclusion can be that not only did Dr Maffei propose a 17% tax increase, but now he DENIES doing so. Isn't that just like a politician? They think if they deny something that's true (and on the record) that the people will believe them. No, sir. Dr Maffei, I hope you have the courage to acknowledge, on the record, that you indeed tried to raise our taxes 17% last year. Not sure why you asked for this argument, but you got it. You may have forgotten, but we have not.
grill master December 06, 2012 at 03:03 PM
"Councilman Michael Powers, meanwhile, noted that “we all pay school taxes as part of our property taxes but not all of us have children in the school system. From a policy perspective, it makes sense to have an educated citizenry. And trash is a policy issue…”" If this is the logic they are going to use, then get ready for more "fees". I have to give Dick credit, he is creative when it comes to creating new fees.
grill master December 06, 2012 at 03:06 PM
I think Ms. Lewis has never heard of a dumpster. Is this woman capable of making an intelligent statement, ever?
Chief Wahoo December 06, 2012 at 04:42 PM
So what are you all going to about it !!!! Let the TAKERS beat you again.... or finally say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!!
Ira L. Marks December 06, 2012 at 07:27 PM
Very sad situation. It is unfortunate that the LT council has decided not to explore many of the cost savings ideas that the citizens committee, including myself/Max Ramos and Marvin Van Hise suggested during our month long review. Also unfortunate situation that the media ( Trenton Times, Trentonian, Patch and Lawrence Ledger) didn't do a better job presenting our findings in their follow up stories when the LT Council was looking at ways to get the 2012 budget within cap.
Chief Wahoo December 06, 2012 at 08:35 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-06/visualizing-us-debt#comment-3040352
Let's Dance December 06, 2012 at 11:34 PM
I agree enough is enough...the cowards won't pass the trash fee if you tell them not to at the next council mttng on 12/18 at 6:30.
David Smith December 07, 2012 at 03:44 AM
I have no problem paying for services I use but trying to charge for services I don't use is stealing.
Raiders December 07, 2012 at 04:06 AM
This council had contracted with Capital Health to provide ambulance service. Capital Health was billing residents for services and sending ambulance bills to collections when the less fortunate could not pay the bill. This council used that billing policy as a reason to oust Capital Health from providing ambulance service at a cost savings to the taxpayers. NOW, council implements the very billing policy that they fired Capital Health for.This is a mistake that will make our elderly community and less fortunate hesitate in calling for medical help because they can't afford the bill. Don't believe me? Well I happen to have spent many years working as a paramedic in this county and have witnessed many times citizens refuse an ambulance because of the bill. Most times, these patients really needed medical assistance but the fear of high billing costs and relentless collections agencies prohibited reasonable decision making. This may seem as if it is no big deal until you family member or you personally require medical assistance and are left with hefty bill balances, collection calls and ruined credit. Greed and mismanagement at its finest. I thought the local government was in place to make decision for the betterment of the community. This really upsets me and it is wrong. I am very interested to see how Mr. Puliti (Mr. Public Safety Volunteer Fireman) votes on this issue knowing that some residents that need an ambulance will refuse because of his personal vote. I
Max R December 07, 2012 at 03:38 PM
Please come to town council on Dec 18 an tell them that in person. This is just the beginning. Last year they tried to extract 17% and we voted them down. This Garbage Tax gives them 4% without any ramifications. It's blatant disregard for the stated desires of the residents.
the trash collector December 07, 2012 at 08:52 PM
The reason why you did not get good media Mr. Marks was because they have better things to do then to hear your nonsense. And please stop patting yourselfs on the back. We don't care about your background or how great you are in finances or what you think is best for the township. You are not in charge. If you want to be in charge run for council. Otherwise let the representatives of the people do thier job. Did you really think the cuts were going to be enough? (Laughing). Being financial geniuses you all should realize that this problem and these decisions were inevitable. I have an idea to boost all of your egos alittle more why don't you have each other over for dinner and drinks and tell each other stories of how great you all are. The council meetings are long enough as it is then to hear your rants. the trash collector is here and the wallets open on Dec 18th. Stinks doesn't it?
Chief Wahoo December 07, 2012 at 09:18 PM
i agree with Trash, on one thing..... pay up (his words) or do something NOW i told you 2013 would be worse than 2012......same goes for 2014 and 2015.....ITS A STRUCTURAL PROBLEM AND NOTHING HAS BEEN FIXED...... and why do you all listen to the highest paid public leech who lives off of your hard work, sweat and dwindling savings account....perhaps, he is the problem !
grill master December 10, 2012 at 02:21 PM
You obviously either work for the township or you are a member of the council, trash collector.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something