The Kitimat Landfill won’t be getting its Tuesday opening after all.
Councillors were fairly split, but not enough to provide the majority to give direction for it to open.
A staff report from the District to councillors recommended not changing their hours of operation, following a motion from Phil Germuth on October 7 to re-open the landfill Tuesdays, as well as reviewing its hours of operation.
The report, including a nine-point list of thoughts, was compiled with input from the landfill operator.
That list included thoughts such as a $1,000 a day increase for being open on Tuesdays, overtime costs, and an impression that the demand is not great enough to warrant another day open.
Also, a $25 after-hours fee is available to people who need it, but the report says that since the introduction of that fee calls for after-hours service ceased, “suggesting it was a matter of planning more than necessity to deliver outside the usual hours.”
However the list of reasons not to open an extra day of the week didn’t sway Germuth, who felt they didn’t provide a compelling argument.
He said it looked to him more like a list of every excuse to say no.
For starters he took issue with point one which basically stated how the landfill has been closed on Tuesdays since 1993.
“This isn’t 1993 anymore, this is arguably Kitimat’s busiest time in history,” he said.
He also countered the claim it would cost $1,000 a day to open Tuesdays, saying any reasonable business owner would hire someone to work those days, rather than paying overtime.
Instead of a 30 per cent increase in cost, he said in reality it’d be more manageable, at around 5.7 per cent.
As for the after-hours $25 fee, Germuth said that from the contractors he had spoken to, few were aware such a service was even offered.
Joining his argument was Corinne Scott, who said that six of the nine points on administration’s report did not make much sense.
And while some believed that the current landfill contract, only now in its fourth month, shouldn’t be tampered with, Scott didn’t want to wait.
“Because it is a contract that is for five more years…to wait another five years would be wrong,” she said.
Mary Murphy meanwhile said that with a contract just recently entered into, as well as no actual complaints or concerns from the contractor, there’s no reason council should be worrying about this.
“I’m opposed to changing the contract as it stands now until the term is up,” she said.
When the vote was called Edwin Empinado, Corinne Scott and Phil Germuth were the three votes against maintaining the current schedule.