Call it a trash tax or a refuse fee. Either way, one Toledo resident sees it as nothing more than a “regressive property tax” she’d like to throw in a Dumpster.

Karen Shanahan charges the City of Toledo’s nearly year-old $5.50-per-month refuse collection fee amounts to a property tax because of the penalties that could result from not paying it.

Rather than grumbling every three months near the due date of her water bill, which contains the refuse fee, Shanahan voiced her discontent in the form of a class-action lawsuit against the city.

She seeks a permanent injunction against the fee and the city to refund money collected from it since it took effect May 28. The fee expires April 30 unless renewed by Toledo City Council.

“It’s an obligation that I felt I had,” said Shanahan, who unsuccessfully ran for council last year. “When we win this lawsuit, this is going to impact [the city] budget again, and I’m saddened by that.”

The complaint she filed Feb. 28 against the city through her lawyers, Scott Ciolek and Kurt J. Wicklund, states Toledo’s charter and municipal code do not grant its public services director the authority to collect money from property owners for refuse collection. That is a problem, Ciolek and Wicklund said, because the city’s refuse fee and how it is to be collected are spelled out in sections of an appendix to the rules and regulations issued by the public services director that were not approved by council.

“This is not a fee; this is a tax on property owners,” Ciolek said.

The penalties for not paying the $5.50 fee ($3 for households that recycle) in full each month are similar to those for delinquent property taxes, Ciolek said. Residents must pay the refuse fee or face having their water service turned off, being sued by the city, being turned over to a collections agency, having the unpaid balance transferred to other properties they own or having a lien placed on their property.

The city must file a response to Shanahan’s lawsuit by March 27 or ask for an extension.

“We don’t feel that the lawsuit has merit,” Toledo Law Director John Madigan said in a statement issued through city spokeswoman Katerina Bekyarska. “We will be asking the court to dismiss it, but we will be obviously defending the city.”

Councilman George Sarantou said neither he nor other council members could comment on Shanahan’s lawsuit because it is pending litigation, and they are defendants in the case.

Council has not decided how or if it will renew the refuse fee. Mayor Carty Finkbeiner’s proposed 2008 budget includes $4.8 million to be collected from the fee this year. Finkbeiner asked council to renew the fee in its current form at least another two years.

Councilmen D. Michael Collins and Joe McNamara have proposed a revision to the current refuse fee that would charge $7 a month with a $5 discount for recyclers its first year; $8.50 per month with a $7.50 recycling discount the second year; and $10 per month with no charge for recyclers from May 1, 2010, moving forward.

Collins said details are being worked out on how the city could adjust the fee for residents who do not need garbage pickup. He said the city’s move toward an automated system would allow trucks to scan an identification number inside refuse and recycling containers that would link to the customer’s water bill.

Collins labeled his and McNamara’s proposal a “disposal fee” because it charges residents who don’t recycle for disposing of their recyclable materials in the city’s landfill. The proposal was in committee at press time.

With the current fee structure, Shanahan said, the city fails to take into account vacant properties.

Property owners who do not create refuse are still charged for garbage collection, she said, noting her neighbors spend half the year in Florida but still must pay the monthly fee.

The garbage fee’s recycling clause is “arbitrary,” Ciolek said, because property owners who do not create refuse are unlikely to have recyclables, thus making them ineligible for the $2.50 monthly discount.

Wicklund said his client’s lawsuit challenges the legality of the city’s refuse fee, not fairness.

“There are ways to create fees that are legal,” he said. “[The city] just chose not to do that this time around.”

Ciolek said his client’s intent is not to cripple the city financially.

“We don’t want to bankrupt the city,” he said. “We just want them to stop this regressive property tax.”

This entry was posted on Friday, March 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under TFP Version 1.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.