Garbage bylaw in Neepawa falls following strong opposition

Details

Published on Thursday, March 14, 2013

By: Kate Jackman-Atkinson

myWestman.ca

On March 6, residents and business owners filled the Town of Neepawa council chambers for a public hearing about the proposed new garbage bylaw.

The bylaw was proposed to cover a funding deficit for the collection and disposal of waste and recycling and would have meant a large fee increase for some businesses. Following just over two hours of presentations from the public, council defeated the bylaw, meaning that there will be no changes for the 2013 budget year.

According to the unaudited financial statements, the Town lost $167,337 on its garbage and recycling collection service last year and over the last 10 years, the Town has lost about $815,000. Each year, losses on garbage collection have been funded by general taxation.

The new bylaw would have limited single-family homes to two bags of garbage per week. Residents who need to dispose of additional garbage would have to purchase bag tags, likely to cost about $3 each for any additional bags.  While the bylaw would have meant changes for residential properties, the biggest changes would have been to commercial pick up.

The old bylaw included no provision for the tonnage of garbage collected from a particular business, nor did it allow for rates to be increased over the bylaw’s 10 year lifespan.  Under the new bylaw, businesses would have been split into different classes depending on the amount of waste produced in the past. 

Businesses that produce little in the way of waste would have seen their annual fee increase from $150 per year to $200 per year, however, those businesses producing a lot of waste, such as those in the restaurant class would have gone from paying $650 per year to about $6,000 per year.

In addition to the 14 people who spoke at the meeting, Town CAO Richard Beachey reported that they received between 50 and 60 letters of objection, some of whose authors spoke at the meeting.

The common theme at the meeting was that business owners supported an increase in fees but felt that the changes proposed represented too much of an increase in too short a time frame.  In order to meet the requirements for notice set out in the municipal act, the bylaw would have had to pass second reading that night if the changes were to come into effect in the 2013 tax year.

Murray Parrott spoke, representing both himself and his construction and property management company, Prairie Oasis Enterprises. Parrott read from a letter of objection he had filed with the Town and noted that a number of issues which were of concern had been clarified. Parrott raised a few concerns and said, “I’d prefer [the Town] look at efficiency in collection, possibly doing it in house.”

With HyLife excluded from the proposed bylaw, Parrott wondered whether other businesses would have the option of opting out in the future. Parrott also asked about the policing of people disposing of their garbage in front of other residences as well as in commercial dumpsters.

Neepawa Chamber of Commerce president Sheri Grant made a presentation on behalf of the organization opposing the bylaw. Grant began by saying “The committee believes the [Town’s] numbers and logic is flawed.” She questioned how the projected income and expenses were calculated saying they believe they include figures from business either no longer in existence or excluded by the bylaw; HyLife, R3 Innovations and Freezerco. They believe that this has led to an overstated deficit. She said that their committee wanted to see a full review of all numbers as well as the costs associated with pick up and tipping fees at the landfill, Evergreen Environmental Technologies.

Grant stressed the need to weigh garbage to ensure that each businesses is charged for the actual amount of garbage produced. They want to see a scale on the truck with a print out of each business’ waste weight.

Grant put forward their other options for resolution which included cost savings through the Town assuming the pick up of garbage as well as the Town assuming control over recycling in an effort to reduce the amount of recyclables treated as contaminated and sent to the landfill.

Overall, Grant said the membership understand the need for deficit reduction but want a solution that is “equitable to all”.  She urged council to consider the competitive disadvantage of Neepawa businesses competing with those in other municipalities and the potential for misuse of commercial bins or recycling bins by residents with excess garbage.

Perry Sneddon spoke on behalf of Sneddon Holdings, which owns a number of properties in the town.  Sneddon said that when he heard about the new bylaw, “I was taken aback,” but added, “I don’t object to paying for services I’m using or receiving.” Like others, he raised concern over the treatment of recyclables saying, “Everyone had heard the stories about recyclables, I’ve seen recycling and garbage put together at pick up and at Evergreen.  It’s irresponsible… Evergreen is a wonderful facility, it’s perfectly capable of sorting every piece of recycling.”

According to Sneddon, “Evergreen seems to be the stumbling block.” He questioned the amount of actual recycling and waste handled by the facility as well as the costs paid to Evergreen by the Town saying, “There’s no accountability… We need figures to be backed up.”

Dean Tremaine, who owns the Chicken Corral Restaurant, said that he currently pays $400 a year for garbage pick up and under the new bylaw, would be paying $6,000.  He explained that when the old bylaw first came into effect and he found out he would only be paying $400 a year, “I laughed and I figured it would be adjusted [up] every year.” His rate has never been adjusted. He put forward a suggestion saying, “I don’t understand why you don’t take the current bylaw and triple it [the amount paid by all users]… If you tripled it, it would cover the deficit and provide operating capital.”

Denis Vielfaure of HyLife Foods said that the changes have caught his business off guard. He explained that between 2008, when they bought the plant, and January 2013, they have had no discussions with the Town regarding solid waste. He questioned why their four businesses, which have different names and different tax rolls, were lumped together and excluded from garbage collection service under the proposed bylaw.

He explained, “We support fairness and we’re not opposed to an increase,” but objected to the lack of fairness in their exclusion and the lack of lead time. HyLife currently pays $650 per year for garbage service, the most allowed under the current bylaw, and Vielfaure acknowledged it was too low saying, “It’s not a fair number.”

Vielfaure said that HyLife would support a study examining the cost of the service saying, “We’re having difficulty assessing our impact.” He noted that in January, they were told that they accounted for 40 per cent of the Town’s waste, while in February, after the figured had been revisited, that number changed to 25 per cent. He added that they are in the process of understanding the volume, weight and composition of their waste.

Vielfaure also questioned the Town’s figures in calculating the projected income and expenses under the proposed bylaw saying, “A fundamental shift in policy creates the appearance of a greater deficit. There are two separate issues; policy and accountability.”

Resident John Plett urged council to shelve the proposed bylaw for the time being.  He explained, “I have no issue with pick up, but I have issues with what’s being proposed… But I would humbly propose that passing [the bylaw] be shelved and [subject to] further thought.”

George Phillips, who owns and operates the Garden Path Bed and Breakfast, questioned the accountability of the service at all levels. Phillips said, “When you contract out services, there is usually deliverables… What [does the contractor] have to provide as part of deliverables, such as the number of loads transported?” At the Town level, he asked whether there was a designated councilor or staff member people could contact if there are problems with the service.

Darrell LeBoutillier, of machinery dealer T.I.C. Parts and Service, said that according to the notice he received, his rates would go from $150 per year to $6,000 per year, a number that was later revised to $3,000. LeBoutillier said that this figure greatly increases his costs compared to his competitors and called the increased costs “very devastating”.

He raised a concern over abuse of business dumpsters saying that every Monday, he comes to work to find his dumpster overflowing with household garbage such as TVs. He noted that his waste consists mostly of cardboard and AbsorbAll and said, “I don’t think there’s a way to calculate [a price] that is fair to us and we already pay for a lot of stuff we don’t get.”

Blake Roe, who owns and operates Shop Easy Foods, raised questions about both his dumpster and the proposed garbage collection fee for his business. He uses a Town of Neepawa dumpster, which is also used by five other businesses as well as the residents who live in the surrounding apartments. 

Roe expressed concern that his business would be paying the “grocery store” rate of $6,000 while his business doesn’t have a dedicated dumpster and is much smaller than the other grocery stores. He added, “Unless there is a proper audit at Evergreen, you’re not going to fix the problem.  We can’t afford that mistake.”

Michelle Gerrard, who owns and operates Tru Hardware, said she hadn’t planned to speak, but urged council to step back and think about the bylaw. She said, “What we’re trying to get across is the need to be heard… It’s too much, too fast… You can’t force it down someone’s throat.”

Following the public hearing, council had the option of voting on second reading, voting on an amended version of the bylaw or tabling the bylaw. Following the public hearing, council quickly came to the decision to vote down the second reading of the bylaw.  Mayor Ken Waddell explains, “There wasn’t the will of council in face of the business opposition to try and amend the bylaw, especially on such short notice.” Complying with the province’s guidelines would have required that the amendments be made and approved that night in order to be in effect for the 2013 tax year.

If the second reading had been passed, there would have been 30 days for objections to be filed with the Municipal Board. If the municipal board receives 25 notices of objection, they must host a public hearing and if they receive less than 25 objections, holding a hearing is at their discretion. If a public meeting were called, the bylaw could not meet the timelines to be in effect for 2013. Grant noted that the Chamber was willing to take their objections to the municipal board if the bylaw passed second reading.

While there won’t be a new bylaw for the 2013 year, Waddell said that there will be something new for 2014, saying that the losses incurred by the Town providing the service are too significant to keep subsidizing from general revenue.

In photo: A crowd packed the Neepawa council chambers for a public hearing regarding the proposed garbage bylaw last Wednesday.

Photo by Kate Jackman-Atkinson