CAPE MAY – On Dec. 3 the City Council again tabled a proposed ordinance dealing with curbside pickup of recycling material. The city, at the request of its Department of Public Works and the city manager, has been trying to find an acceptable compromise for pickup of recycling at commercial establishments.
Mayor Zach Mullock has repeatedly stated that the city, which does do commercial recycling pickup, is in violation of its own administrative code, which states that commercial recycling is the sole responsibility of the business establishment.
In September, city Public Works Director Eric Prusinski and his boss, City Manager Paul Dietrich, appealed to the council for a defined limit on commercial recycling pickup. They recounted stories of multiple pickups at certain establishments each week to keep up with the sheer volume of recycling material.
The council was told that the amount of recycling lining the curb in some areas poses a safety risk for pedestrians and an injury risk for city employees. The council responded with an ordinance that set limits and made anything above those limits the responsibility of the business, which would need to arrange for its own pickup. For Dietrich the goal was to find the “line where the city’s obligation ends.” For Mullock it also was to better align the city’s code with the reality of commercial pickup.
There was a time when the Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority gave rebates to county municipalities in recognition of their recycling efforts; recycling paid. It paid in terms of less trash moving to the landfill and it paid in better environmental stewardship. Most importantly, it also paid in terms of cash from countries, mostly in Asia, that bought what Americans threw away.
In 2010 over half a million dollars was distributed from the MUA to county towns as recycling rebates. Tons of cans, bottles, paper and cardboard, along with rigid plastic, moved through the MUA’s intermediate processing facility in Woodbine and ended up in a foreign market, where the MUA said in a 2010 press release “prices for recycled secondary raw materials remained robust.”
That all changed in 2018 when China, by far the largest buyer in the market for recycled material, implemented a new policy called “National Sword” that effectively banned the import of most recycling material, including plastic.
The impact of that decision sent municipalities across the country, including those in Cape May County, in search of a destination for their recycling. For many, including towns in New Jersey, state statutes still required recycling programs.
Overnight, recycling moved from being a revenue-generator to being a new, unexpected expense. Cape May City responded by ending contracts for external vendors who did curbside pickup and made the task a new city service paid for with taxpayer dollars.
Recycling pickup for commercial entities became a sticking point in an evolving debate.
In Cape May City, Jules Rauch, speaking on behalf of the city’s Taxpayers Association, claims that the proposed tabled ordinance goes too far in the direction of taxpayer-supported services for commercial businesses. He says the city is in a “recycling collection business” it should not be in.
Rauch argues that commercial establishments should get no greater recycling pickup service than residents receive despite their great volume of material. Beyond that limited city service the Taxpayers Association is arguing that dealing with the large volume of recycling materials should be a “cost of doing business.”
Now the proposed ordinance would limit property owners of all types to established volume limits, with excess beyond those limits the responsibility of the property owner. That ordinance was successfully introduced, but twice now it has failed to gain adoption. It failed adoption on Nov. 18 and again on Dec. 3.
The ordinance is still undergoing review and amendment. Any substantial change to the process outlined in the proposed ordinance could require that the ordinance process begin anew with another introduction.
When the ordinance did not come off the table at the Dec. 17 council meeting, it was clear that a final resolution of the issue has been pushed to the newly reorganized council in 2025.
Contact the reporter, Vince Conti, at vconti@cmcherald.com.
