|
Results of
Questionnaire for Municipalities
In March of 2009, the
Office of the Official Opposition distributed a questionnaire to municipal
leaders in every region of the
province
of
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
.
The questionnaire focused
on the status of announced capital works projects and the provincial waste
management strategy. We also allowed municipalities the opportunity to
bring any other municipal affairs concerns they had to the attention of
the Official Opposition.
Results:
53 municipal leaders
participated in the survey, which closed
March 20th, 2009
12 municipalities
identified projects that have been approved and announced but remain
outstanding
7 communities identified
projects which they applied for up to two years ago for which they have
not received formal approval or rejection
1 community identified an
infrastructure project that was originally committed to by PC party in
2003, but was formally rejected with reference to capital works program
53 communities responded
to a question on the provincial waste management strategy
41 communities responded
to a question on the costs of garbage collection and disposal
16 communities provided
us with their garbage statistics
Question 1
The status of
announced infrastructure projects
Opposition asked
municipal leaders for information on announced/ approved infrastructure
projects which have yet to be completed and why. We asked this with a view
to understanding the tendering process and keeping government accountable
on their promise to inject infrastructure money into our economy to
minimize the impact of the current recession.
Results:
12 municipalities
identified projects that were previously approved and announced but remain
outstanding (23%)
Such projects range from
regional airports, to roads, hospitals, schools, water and sewer upgrades,
dams,
Reasons for stalling
include: bids coming in over budget, tenders not being called; site
preparation problems, late funding announcement, criteria shifts,
community not participating in waste management strategy
-A the time of our survey
(March 2009), five communities identified 8 infrastructure projects that
were approved and announced but have yet to go to tender
-Three communities
identified three projects that did not go ahead because bids came in over
budget. These tenders will be re-announced sometime in near future
-One community identified
a project which has been stalled due to problems with site, and its
proximity to mining operation
-One community identified
a project that is still being pre-designed by engineers
-One community identified
a project that is being stalled because municipality is waiting on a bank
letter and the completion of 2008 audit
-One municipality
identified two projects that were originally approved, one of which was
commenced, but later rejected in so far as it was found that community
didn’t meet government gas tax criteria
-One municipality
identified an approved project that has been put on hold until the
community signs on to the waste management strategy. Town is currently
being taken to court by Department of Environment
In addition to responding
to question on approved projects, seven municipalities made Opposition
aware of projects they applied for up to two years ago but have yet to
receive formal notice of approval or rejection. (13%)
One municipal leader also
expressed discontent about an infrastructure project that the PC party
committed to in 2003, but formally rejected with reference to capital
works application.
One common comment
municipal leaders addressed involved the issues of timelines, resources
and communication with municipal affairs. Municipal leaders commented on
their frustration with their inability to get timely answers on the
approval or rejection of capital works funding, late announcements for
approved projects, difficulties meeting requirements for gas tax fund and
other federal/provincial infrastructure programs, the lack of increase in
municipal operating grants, and lack of access to crown lands within
municipal boundaries.
Question 2
Satisfaction with
Provincial Waste Management Strategy
Government’s waste
management plan is being implemented at different speeds across the
province, with the overall goal of amalgamating the province’s 240
disposal sites, which serve an estimated 654 communities, into three
‘engineered landfills’. At the present time, no engineered landfill is
being planned for the
Labrador
region. It is hoped that more than 50% of waste will be diverted through
recycling and composting at the engineered landfills. While the majority
of people want to contribute to waste reduction, the ongoing problem we
have often heard from communities is ‘how can we afford to pay’ for
the use of these engineered landfills.” Opposition wanted to know
whether the $200 million government is using to implement the plan had
eased these concerns.
Results
Out of 53 respondents
55% of municipalities are
dissatisfied, 28% are satisfied and 17% are unsure and neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied.
29 reported that they are
not satisfied with the current direction of the provincial waste
management strategy
15 reported that they
were satisfied with this program
9 said they were unsure
about the strategy and were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied at this
time
Municipal leaders are
extremely concerned about the financial feasibility of the provincial
waste management strategy for communities that will be required to truck
their garbage outside town boundaries. They feel they need more time, more
money and more information/local control over direction of strategy. They
also know they have no choice but to sign on, or face lawsuit from
Department of Environment as per case of one
municipality.
The common concern was
not about the validity of the outcome of this strategy, namely the
elimination of open burning and the reduction of waste, but the lack of
information and support for the costs associated with the strategy.
Government wants dumps closed down but there are no engineered landfills
that are actually functioning as of yet, which basically suggests that
government is disciplining municipalities to get used to paying more
without actually reducing waste at this time.
Many communities do not
understand why the gas tax program cannot be used to help communities pay
for cost of closing down their local landfills. They also do not
understand why local recycling is not being encouraged within their
communities, as opposed to the government plan to ship all garbage to
engineered landfills where it will be separated for recycling. Many
communities were prepared to embark on full recycling prior to the opening
of such landfills but their requests have not been responded to by
government.
Government had imposed
the deadline of Dec 30th for the elimination of open burning
and the use of tee pee incinerators. Yet the 25 communities using tee-pees
felt that they had no way to actually deal with their garbage without some
type of financial assistance from government. Yet government is only
prepared to facilitate such assistance through a waste management regional
‘authority’ and not singular municipalities. But not every region has
a functioning authority and not every community is represented at the
table where there are functioning authorities.
The government had
extended the tee-pee deadline to June 30th but many communities
do not feel they can make that deadline as nothing has changed with
reference to money and representation.
Communities in
Labrador
showed concern about fact that there is no strategy in place in the
region, and that there is not sufficient transportation networks in place
to allow for closure of local landfills.
Labrador
leaders also noted that they are finding it difficult to maintain local
landfills due to lack of infrastructure and this is a major issue for
tourists.
Question 3
Have your garbage
costs risen in last three years? Can you provide us with your garbage
collection stats?
41 municipalities
responded to this question
24 respondents said that
their costs have significantly increased in last three years (59%)
17 communities said costs
have not significantly risen (41%) yet 6 of these communities note that
their costs are set to significantly increase in near future (35%)
Average total increase
for cost of garbage collection and disposal in 16 communities that
provided us with their garbage collection statistics was 152%. Factoring
in anticipated increases in next year, average rises to 180%. The range of
increases were as low as 11% and as high as 500%.
Statistics obtained by
opposition were not uniform, some provided statistics over seven year
range, some in one year range.
Average increases based
on these stats were 125% a year. The range of increases were as low as 2%
per year and as high as 396% by year. We cannot assess anticipated
increase by year upon full implementation of strategy as we have no firm
date as to when strategy will be fully implemented.
Feedback from
municipalities on this issue range from “town feels this is not
unreasonable”, “town feels that strategy is warranted” and “we
will simply need to increase municipal taxes” to statements such as
“right now the garbage collector for the community is probably going to
lose their job as well as the clerk because the community is broke due to
cost”, “a lot of the residents are going to start dumping their
garbage wherever and whenever it is convenient for them rather than pay
$200 a year” and “the cost of garbage will soon become a crippling
burden to our seniors as there is no one else to tax in our community.”
Municipal Key
1.
Terra Nova
2.
South Brook
3.
New
Perlican
4.
Leading Tickles
5.
Terrenceville
6.
Hampden
7.
Little Burnt Bay
8.
Conception
Harbour
9.
Joe Batts Arm Barr’d Islands and
Shoal
Bay
10.
Meadows
11.
Normans
Cove Long Cove
12.
Gambo
13.
Belburns
14.
Town of
Trinity
15.
St. Joseph
’s
16.
Bishops
Falls
17.
Upper
Island
Cove
18.
Springdale
19.
Town of
Cupids
20.
Labrador
City
21.
Deer
Lake
22.
Anchor Point
23.
Carmanville
24.
Forteau
25.
Town of Point Leamington
26.
Grand Bank
27.
Reidville
28.
Lushes Bight
Beaumont
,
Long Island
29.
Town of
Brighton
30.
Dover
31.
Port Saunders
32.
Baine
Harbour
33.
St Vincent
’s – St Stephen’s – Peter’s River
34.
Baytona
35.
Gander
36.
Victoria
37.
Port aux Basques
38.
Burgeo
39.
Grand Falls-Windsor
40.
St Brides
41.
Winterton
42.
Cottlesville
43.
Port Hope Simpson
44.
Northern Arm
45.
King’s Point
46.
Noggin Cove
47.
Renews- Cappahayden
48.
Glenburnie-Birchy
Head-Shoal Brook
49.
Fermeuse
50.
Twillingate
51.
Cartwright
52.
Tilting
53.
Goose Cove East
|
