Adam Prudhomme
Editor
Despite opposition from members of the public, as well as one of its own councillors, Greater Napanee council passed a motion impose a $100 property levy to cover the cost of 25 garbage bag tags per property.
The motion was passed during their April 25 meeting.
The levy equates to a $4 increase per bag tag, which will be mailed to ratepayers, and will cover the remaining six months of 2023. Starting in 2024 the levy will be $200 to account for the full 12-month calendar.
Council passed the motion via a recorded vote of 6-1, councillor Bill Martin the lone ‘no’.
Previously residents were responsible for buying bag tags from various locations throughout town at a cost of $3 per tag.
Mayor Terry Richardson explained the reasoning behind the motion.
“What we’re suggesting is to put a $200 levy on each tax bill that is applicable or has the ability to get curbside pickup,” said Richardson. “It’s only to the residents that have the ability to get curbside pickup. Of that $200, approximately $133…is to provide the service (for garbage trucks) to drive-by each person’s house whether you put a bag of garbage out a week or whether you put a bag of recycling out a week. Very similar, and I know that I’ve used this example, very similar to paying for policing. We pay for policing to police our community. Most of us never ever call the police department to get anything done, but we still have to pay for that service.”
Richardson further explained the costs go beyond just covering the trucks.
“On top of that we have to pay a tonnage fee to get rid of both garbage and recycling, so that leaves about $67 per $200 to look after that tonnage fee,” noted the mayor. “What we are suggesting is to issue on a yearly basis, 50 bag tags, which boils down approximately a dollar for each bag tag, it’s a dollar and change, a dollar and 34 I think per bag tag. I have faith in our community. I think the people who are going to recycle will continue to recycle because we have a great community. We have a very, very thoughtful community that will continue to do this.”
Councillor Mike Schenk noted the bag tag increase would help cap the town’s overall budget increase at 2.89 per cent.
“Going through the budget this year it was extremely hard,” said Schenk. “You have to come out and you have to think outside the box of how can we have the taxpayer pay for all the bills. We have to figure out how can we do a $1.4 million (yearly cost for garbage pick up with Waste Management) and we’re in only year four of a 10 year contract, how we’re going to come up with this money.”
Right from the first suggestion of imposing a garbage bag tag levy there has been vocal public opposition. That continued right up until just a few minutes prior to the vote when three members of the public made a scheduled deputation in hopes of persuading council to re-think the notion.
Martin Barstow was among the residents opposed to the idea, which requires him to pay for 50 bag tags per year despite not putting out a bag of garbage every week.
“If you don’t produce very much garbarge, for example in our household we produce about 10 bags a year, if we have been paying $3 then we’re paying $30 a year,” said Barstow. “This is going to be an increase for us of $170 per year. When I look up and down my street on garbage day there are a lot of people who don’t put out a bag a week.”
Ron Murray, another resident, also spoke out on the matter.
“This new policy will hurt those who can least afford it,” said Murray.
“Based on numbers provided to me by Kristie Kelly (Greater Napanee’s director of environmental services), if you raise the bag tag to $4 a bag, but don’t force them on the tax payer, there would be an additional 2.29 per cent increase on their tax bills. For those that have lower property taxes because they can’t afford the fancy high-end homes, the annual $200 tax could amount to as much as 30 per cent on their town portion of their taxes.”
Councillor Martin sided with those opposed, going so far as to vote an ‘emphatic’ no.
“One of my great disappointments is that the Waste Diversion Committee was not consulted in any way on bag tags this year,” said Martin. “I don’t understand why they wouldn’t at least give them a chance to weigh in on this because I’m on the Waste Diversion Committee, council is represented on that and it’s extremely disappointing to me that we have not been able to weigh in on that.”
Martin added he felt the levy masks just how much of a tax increase residents will be saddled with this year.
“Everybody’s going to brag about only putting a 2.89 per cent tax hike on the general levy but they’re not adding that there’s going to be in some cases 10 per cent addition with the tax levy or seven per cent of five per cent depending on what your taxes were,” said Martin. “Somebody that pays $2,000 last year could be presented with a five per cent increase this year and 2.89 per cent on top of that, so 7.8 per cent.”
Schenk agreed the idea isn’t perfect, but still felt it was the best option.
“There’s flaws. I agree with councillor Martin that yes, there’s flaws on anything that you’re going to try,” said Schenk. “We’re going to see how it goes, but I feel strongly that this would have better impact on the ratepayer and the least impact than raising the taxes.”
-With the bag tag issue sorted, council was then able to jump right into the next agenda item, which was to approve an operating and capital tax levy for 2023 of $14,096,140, an increase of 2.89 per cent over last year. In a recorded vote, the motion was passed unanimously.
-A special meeting to hear public feedback on the declaration of the former CN rail line north of the 401 as surplus property has been scheduled for May 11 at the Strathcona Paper Centre, starting at 7 p.m.
Any person wishing to provide written comment for council’s consideration, or wishing to receive more information on this matter may contact Jessica Walters at jwalters@greaternapanee.com or 343-302-5238. For inclusion on the agenda, comments must be received by noon on May 8.
The purpose of the meeting will be for council to hear feedback from the public on this specific matter. Citing a lack of reliable internet at the SPC, the meeting will not be live streamed, though it will be recorded and uploaded to the town’s YouTube page following the meeting.
