It’s a topic at the regional district that every board director must be starting to get tired of.
The regional district’s curbside garbage and recycling collection service occupied an inordinate amount of director’s time during last Thursday’s board meeting when an amendment, requested by one board member to handle a wild animal issue specific to his area was somehow reinterpreted by staff into an amendment that applied to all participants of the RDOS curbside program.
The regional district’s curbside service has been under fire in several areas since last fall when budget talks and a service review outlined increasing costs and changing services that several rural area residents remain opposed to. The rural directors involved in these areas have attempted to seek out other solutions to the universal application of services, but have so far been stonewalled.
Is there no interest on the part of regional district staff to look for a solution - compromise or otherwise - in which the citizen’s concerns could be addressed?
To an observer of the proceedings surrounding the garbage collection issues, there appears to be a disconnect in the civil process between what the taxpayers want, what the regional director asks for, and what regional district staff is providing.
It certainly appears at this point that the needs of the taxpayer are not being recognized, at least at some level of the process. If consideration for the present climate of area voters over this issue were taken into account, it should have seemed obvious that issuing a bylaw that could result in a resident receiving a $100 fine for placing garbage at the curbside the night before pickup - on top of all the other changes - would not only result in taxpayer outrage, but potentially political suicide for at least a few area directors come November.