Council debates future of bulk item ordinance
By darlene diebold
Staff Writer

KEYPORT — Over the past couple of months, the borough’s household bulk item sticker ordinance has been put on the agenda and debated back and forth for hours on end. After another solid hour of discussion at the Oct. 3 meeting, the Borough Council decided to send the issue back to the recycling committee.

Months ago, Councilman John Merla started looking into the borough’s ordinance because he felt it was not been working properly. He said bulk items regularly sit at the curb for weeks on end because residents do not know that they need to call Borough Hall and purchase a permit to have the items removed.

The council and Mayor Kevin Graham agree that there is a problem enforcing the ordinance, but questions arose regarding how to fix the problem.

Bulk items include items such as sofas, washing machines, dryers, chairs and televisions. The borough charges from $2 to $15 for a bulk item sticker, depending on the item. A sticker for a lawnmower, for example, costs $2, while one for a refrigerator costs $15.

Merla originally proposed scrapping the ordinance and just raising the certificate of occupancy rates.

"My opinion is that this ordinance is not working," Merla said. "We should not let people move into a new apartment until the garbage is cleaned out of the homes. The Public Works Department is spending all their time cleaning up. Permit or not, the garbage is still going into the trucks. I shouldn’t have to pay for that through tipping fees. Absentee landlords are abusing this, and they should pay more."

Councilman Robert Bergen said rescinding the ordinance would cost taxpayers half of a penny on the tax rate, since the borough collects approximately $10,000 to $12,000 a year with the program.

Some council members said some residents who put bulk items curbside but failed to get permits, when questioned by garbage truck drivers, have paid the drivers to take the items away.

"A vast majority of people are complying with the ordinance," Bergen said. "If we get rid of it, everyone will have to pay for the service, instead of the few who actually need to use it."

Councilman Thomas Antonucci recommended that the ordinance be referred back to the recycling committee, where they could look at ways to fix the ordinance.

"I agree it is not entirely working and that it needs to be looked at. Let’s make an ordinance that is stronger," he said.

Antonucci said a combination of charging more for certificates of occupancy and enforcement would be the best way to proceed.

Mayor Kevin Graham and Borough Attorney Gordon Litwin said that if the ordinance were repealed, the trash haulers might become picky about what they would or would not pick up.

Their contract with the borough stipulates that they are required to pick up a maximum of three cans per residence on collection day. Graham said that although they have been good about picking up more, they are not legally required to do so.

"Before this ordinance was put into place," Graham explained, "people were bringing garbage into town to be disposed of. I have heard no complaints about this ordinance as the mayor. We should not rescind the law because it is not being complied with. A lot of issues have to be worked out."

Graham said borough officials were told four years ago by the trash hauler that outsiders were bringing an excessive amount of garbage into the borough. The trash hauler believed that people were allowing friends to bring garbage into the borough to dispose of it because it was a free service.

The ordinance helped the borough deal with the issue, Graham said.