Skip to content

Regional waste service could increase taxes

District board debates inclusion of Lasqueti Island in garbage service plan
lasqueti garbage
CHANGE AFOOT: Powell River Regional District’s Lasqueti Island board representative Merrick Anderson is expecting big changes to the way the island handles its garbage and recycling as its local landfill is almost full. Contributed photo

Powell River Regional District taxpayers can expect to see a 2018 tax increase if a plan to include Lasqueti Island in the region’s solid waste service is adopted.

Regional district administration is proposing the board updates and converts its solid-waste management service bylaw to form a single regional service.

Currently, electoral areas A through D and City of Powell River pay into one service that costs $460,000 per year to operate, while Electoral Area E, Lasqueti Island taxpayers, pay into another service specifically for the island at a cost of $140,000 per year.

City of Powell River regional board director Russell Brewer said that while it may be staff’s preference to have one regional service that everyone pays into, it is not a requirement of the provincial government to organize it that way.

“There's no reason in my mind why it couldn't be two separate services,” said Brewer.

The provincial government mandates regional districts to have solid-waste management plans and the Lasqueti plan is currently being completed subordinate to a larger plan for Powell River and Texada Island.

Brewer said a June 22 staff report asks the regional district’s committee of the whole to provide direction on whether it prefers to bring forward two separate services or a single regional one. Brewer said he estimates that having a single service will cost City of Powell River about $62,000.

According to regional district chief administrative officer Al Radke, when Lasqueti Island broke away from Electoral Area D in 1975 to form Electoral Area E, it should not have had to create its own garbage service.

“It's righting a historical wrong,” said Radke. “At the same time, we're creating the service under a modern establishment bylaw.”

Radke said, after the split, the garbage service became local and it is unclear why that occurred.

“Lasqueti’s garbage ended up being a local service instead of being in the original regional service like it should have been,” said Radke.

Brewer said the historical wrong can still be righted and not have to create a single service where every regional district taxpayer sees an increase in their taxes, except Lasqueti.

“They can right that historical wrong by creating two separate services, so the argument that they need to create only one is not reasonable,” said Brewer.

Brewer said another reason why Lasqueti should have a separate solid-waste service is its landfill will be full in three years and he doubts the island’s garbage will be barged to Powell River to join the rest of the region’s waste.

Electoral Area E director Merrick Anderson said Lasqueti’s solid-waste management advisory committee is reluctant to make recommendations to the regional board until the board decides on which service it wants to implement.

“Brewer has been delaying for months because he thinks it’s too much of a tax increase to sock to city taxpayers,” said Anderson.

If the board allows for two systems, Lasqueti taxpayers can expect to see an increase of between $13 and $78 per $100,000 of assessed property value in their 2018 taxes in order to pay for the various options the solid-waste advisory committee is weighing.

If one regional service is put in place, Lasqueti taxpayers can expect to see their waste service taxes drop from about $90 per $100,000 to $19 per $100,000 of assessed property value.

"It would be a big savings for Lasqueti to have a single regional service and the proper thing to do,” said Anderson.

Brewer, who has voted in support of regional services in the past, said the proposed tax increase for a single regional service will cost too much.

“To suggest that it's not a significant amount and it's not a big deal is not fair in my mind,” said Brewer. “The increase has been dismissed offhand as not costing too much, but in the context of all the other financial pressures the city has, $62,000 is a lot of money, especially if you think back to our last budget cycle.”