3. A By-law to Amend By-law 75-1999, Garbage, Refuse and Recycling Collection for
Chatham-Kent (attached).
MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: Leo Denys, P.Eng., General Manager Public Works
DATE: Monday, December 13, 1999
RE: A By-law to Amend By-law 75-1999, Garbage, Refuse and Recycling Collection for Chatham-Kent (attached)
PURPOSE:
To respond to questions raised at Council at their regular meeting held on November 29, 1999.
BACKGROUND:
At the regular meeting of Council held on November 29, 1999, several questions were asked regarding the proposed amendments to By-law 75-1999. This report addresses the issues raised.
COMMENTS:
Administration responded to the issues as follows:
1. What are the cost implications for individual taxpayers on the basis of a four-person household in the event the by-law is passed?
The average household in Chatham produces approximately 1,000 kg of refuse a year. This works out to 20 kg per week. Included in this 20 kg of refuse per week is collectable garbage (kitchen waste).
It is not the intention of Administration to force the resident of Ward 6 (Chatham) to put all refuse in sealed containers. There is a provision in the amended by-law to allow the use of clear plastic bags for the disposal of refuse other than collectable garbage (kitchen waste). The cost of a garbage can ranges from $12.99 for a 77-litre receptacle, to $32.99 for a 136-litre receptacle on wheels. Any of these containers has the capacity to hold 20 kg of kitchen waste.
2. What are the cost implications of prosecuting this potential by-law?
The cost of $100.00 is the amount Administration estimated it would cost to have a By-law Enforcement Officer issue a ticket for the offence. It is expected that more than one visit to the premise would be required, because in all likelihood a warning would be issued first.
3. What are the cost implications on the garbage contract to switch to the prescribed containers?
There will be no effect on the cost of our contract. The contractor bids the contract with the assumption that garbage cans are the primary container used.
4. What is the logic of the by-law when one side of the street (i.e. Indian Creek Road) is in the Ward of Chatham and the other side is in South Kent?
Administration has considered this and has asked Council to include the fringe area in the amended by-law. See Recommendation #4.
5. Does any other Municipality in Ontario have a by-law requiring covered receptacles of this nature?
Ten Municipalities were selected at random. Of those that responded, none have this provision in their existing by-laws.
6. Report on whether phasing-in is planned and a schedule of that phasing-in.
It is the intent of Administration to first advertise the amended by-law and its intent, give an effective date for the by-law to commence and from there, give residents a grace period in which to purchase their prescribed receptacle.
7. Does the Municipality intend on purchasing and supplying these receptacles?
There is no provision in the 2000 Budget for the purchase of garbage cans. If Chatham-Kent was to purchase and supply garbage cans the cost is estimated to be approximately $227,000.00, based on 17,000 households at $12.99 each. There are a sufficient number of suppliers in Chatham who stock a variety of receptacles at competitive prices. Therefore, it is the recommendation that the Municipality not purchase or supply these receptacles.
8. What will be the environmental impact on rural areas surrounding Chatham when the bags end up in the fields and ditches?
Administration believes that a majority of residents will comply with the proposed amended by-law. A survey of area stores indicated that the sale of garbage cans increases this time of year. This may be an indication that people are fed up with having to pick up garbage after it has been scavenged by crows. As stated earlier, Administration is not totally banning the use of garbage bags, but limiting the use to refuse other than kitchen waste.
9. What is to be done by way of prosecution and $100.00 fines when the lids are lost due to wind or other natural occurrences?
If the container is less than the requirement of the amended by-law, there is a process that could lead to a fine. In the beginning, if the garbage is not in a prescribed container, it will not be picked up by our garbage contractors. If the receptacle and/or uncollected garbage is not returned to the residence or commercial outlet as described in amended Section 18, then a warning or a fine may be issued.
10. Will the proposed by-law be considered as an indirect tax or discriminating on a geographical basis?
The by-law should be considered as a solution to a localized problem. If the problem occurred in all of Chatham-Kent, then the by-law would be amended to cover the entire Municipality.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt the Recommendations as stated in the report to Council "A By-law to Amend By-law 75-1999, Garbage, Refuse and Recycling collection for Chatham-Kent"dated November 18, 1999. (See attached.)
Roger Reaume,
Manager of Environmental Services
Leo Denys, P.Eng., J. G. Pavelka, P.Eng.,
General Manager Public Works Chief Administrative Officer
LD/RR/cr
Attachments
(REF: R:\WORKS\1820.doc)
Councillor McGuigan moved, Councillor Watson seconded:
"That Council adopt the Recommendations as stated in the report to Council "A By-law to Amend By-law 75-1999, Garbage, Refuse and Recycling collection for Chatham-Kent" dated November 18, 1999. (See attached.)"
Councillor Vercouteren referred to apartment buildings and clarified with the Director of Legal Services that the owner of the property, rather than the tenant, would normally be responsible to make sure that there are lids on the garbage cans. Councillor Vercouteren commented that they may need to hire more by-law enforcement officers to monitor this.
Councillor Sulman did not agree with the passing of this by-law because he felt that it will make people into criminals just because the lids on the cans may blow away, and it will be hard to enforce.
Councillor Watson commented that it is obvious that the crows are going after the garbage and the by-law offers a simple and logical solution.
Councillor Gordon commented that there will be problems if this by-law is passed, such as garbage being dropped off at other locations.
The Mayor clarified with the General Manager of Public Works that they have not used all resources that have been authorized by Council and suggested that they do so. He said that they will require a lot of staff to police this by-law and felt that it should not be implemented until the other avenues have been addressed.
Councillor Fluker moved, Councillor Sulman seconded:
"That this matter be deferred to September 1, 2000 for re-consideration."
The Mayor put the Motion.
Motion Carried