Claims rules would put cost for businesses on taxpayers
CAPE MAY — Despite the city moving forward with limits on the amount of recycling homeowners and businesses can put out for collection, the Taxpayers Association of Cape May is opposed to the new regulations.
City Council introduced an ordinance March 18 that would amend the recycling code to establish limits on collection and require private collection for amounts exceeding those limits.
The intent is to ease the burden on the city at commercial properties that generate large amounts of recycling. Single-family and two-family properties are permitted 192 gallons total per week, with individual containers not exceeding two 96-gallon cans.
Taxpayers Association President Peter Cole spoke during the City Council meeting April 1 on behalf of the association.
“At the end of 2023, you were talking about the recyclables business and what the city should be doing with residential and commercial pickup,” Cole said. “At the beginning of 2024, I stood here and said I’d give you a heads-up that the Taxpayers will be discussing the subject more.”
Cole said the group held several meetings with Mayor Zack Mullock and City Manager Paul Dietrich, during which the association expressed its opinion that it would prefer the city to keep out of commercial pickup.
“Now the city is continuing to pursue this agenda of commercial pickup, and I’m going to give you a heads-up, because we are opposed to this idea,” Cole said.
He read a letter to council that expressed why the association believes that residents should not bear the cost of business operations, explicitly noting that the proposed ordinance allows for commercial properties to receive a greater amount of collection than residents.
“We strongly oppose this change and urge support for a uniform policy of one 96-gallon container per tax-paying address per week, whether residential or commercial,” Cole said. “Why this ordinance is unfair, both businesses and residents pay taxes, [and] businesses should not receive additional services at the expense of residents.”
Another key concern Cole expressed was that more trucks mean more workers, which could lead to increased city payrolls and costs.
Cole also said that injuries during trash collection is the number one cause of workers’ compensation claims and that expanding services increases injury risks and costs.
“City services should be equal for all taxpayers, regardless of the amount they pay in taxes,” Cole said.
He urged members of the Taxpayers Association to attend the City Council meeting April 15 to oppose the ordinance.
“I therefore urge that perhaps this gives you time, because it’s not until the 15th [of April] for your meeting, that maybe you would consider tabling the ordinance or making an amendment to it that’s in line with our recommendations,” Cole said.
Mullock said he appreciated that Cole had invited Dietrich and him to meetings.
“Whether we agree or not, I just want to say we appreciate your candor and you’re never trying to surprise us with something,” Mullock said. “I think that matters because it does give us time to discuss these things. I guess we’ll see what happens at the second reading. But no matter what, I appreciate you.”
Resident Jules Rauch said the number of 96-gallon containers is an issue, and he asked several questions about recycling cans.
“What we really need to know are as follows: Who will determine who requires the actual number of cans, and are they supplied by the city?” Rauch said. “Where will the cans be stored and located, and where will they be placed for collection, and how will the collection scheduling for one time pickup be arranged based on various amounts and types of collectible materials?”
Rauch asked several more questions, including whether there was a study to identify how many individual addresses would receive service and whether the city communicated with local private collection companies to discuss the issue.
“We must remember that the ordinance as proposed will create competition with private enterprise,” Rauch said. “The devil is always in the details, and they must be addressed as completely as possible.”
Rauch further added that, in his opinion, the city was not in a position to move forward on the recycling ordinance without financial performance. He said the council should pass a motion to table the ordinance.
The second reading and public hearing on the recycling limit ordinance is scheduled for Tuesday, April 15.
By RACHEL SHUBIN/Special to the Star and Wave
