Waste reduction project recommended to CSRD

CSRD directors asked to buy into a new funding model for regional waste reduction projects.

On his last day as manager of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District’s Environment and Engineering Services, Gary Holt asked directors to buy into a new funding model for regional waste reduction projects.

Holte, who retired Dec. 6, suggested the municipalities of Salmon Arm, Sicamous, Revelstoke and Golden agree to contribute 10 per cent of the cost of waste reduction projects from their community works funds, while electoral areas pick up 90 per cent.

Holte explained that CSRD’s solid waste function is a regional program supported through a combination of tipping fees and taxation.

He pointed out that several waste reduction projects have been previously paid for through the “All Electoral Area Community Works Fund” and that waste reduction does not include contributions from the regional district’s four member municipalities.

“Every time we have a project, we have to check with member municipalities to kick in some of their gas tax funds,” said Holte.

The need for a different policy became evident at the Nov. 13 EAD (electoral area directors) meeting, when staff asked rural directors to approve $80,000 from the “All Electoral Areas Community Works Fund.”

Instead of coughing up the whole amount, rural directors asked staff to contact the member municipalities for support through their community works funds.

As a result, Holte said staff had drafted a policy that creates a consistent approach to fund regional projects and ensures that both the EAD and member municipalities have a fair mechanism in place to fund future region-wide waste reduction projects.

The 10 per cent contribution from the member municipalities will be shared based on the total assessed value of land and improvements in each municipality.

Holte provided directors with a table that showed the financial impacts of a project costing $100,000, with the 10 per cent from community works funds being cheaper.

For example, he said under the community works fund agreement, Salmon Arm’s share would be $4.916 as compared to $25,464 in the taxation option.

Likewise the difference for Sicamous would be $1,289 from community works funds or $6,661 through taxation.

Area D director René Talbot asked how staff had come up with a figure of 10 per cent.

Area E director Rhona Martin pointed out the formula is the same for noxious weed control.

Directors were 100 per cent in agreement that the mayors of the four municipalities in question would take the recommendation to their own councils for consideration.