Battling over bugs
Environment and sustainability committee to re-examine Charlottetown’s pesticide bylaw
The battle over a $50 pesticide application fee is not showing any signs of slowing down.
Charlottetown council voted during this month’s regular meeting to send the city’s pesticide bylaw back to the environment and sustainability committee for review following several months of disagreement on the program during its pilot year.
Coun. Bob Doiron attempted to put a motion on the floor asking council to vote on axing the $50 fee residents must pay for a city hall inspector to confirm an infestation before professional applicators can spray.
However, deputy mayor and committee chairman Mike Duffy then put forward a motion asking council to put the bylaw back to the committee for further review.
“Put it back to the committee, which has the expertise in their staff to come forward with some suggestions,” said Duffy.
Duffy’s motion passed 4-3 with Doiron, Coun. Jason Coady and Coun. Mitch Tweel voting against it.
Doiron said he didn’t get what he wanted.
“Let’s just drop this fee and
move on,” said Doiron, who added that he was not against the bylaw itself but rather the associated fee. “It will just come back… all I’m asking is stick up for your residents and don’t charge a $50 fee for a service they need to have done.”
Prior to the meeting, Duffy circulated a note to council that included a section disputing councillors’ statements of receiving many complaints about the fee.
“Some councillors believe there are hordes of residents affected adversely by this $50 fee. A closer look at the actual numbers ‘paints a different picture’,” stated Duffy’s note.
Duffy said 295 of the 305 residents who applied for the exemption were approved for spraying. The 305 would equal about 3.4 per cent of the city’s 9,000 single detached residences.
Duffy estimated 30 residents had complained to councillors, or about 0.33 per cent of the primary target.
The note also included a breakdown of what the $15,250 collected from the inspection fees was put towards, including printing education material, demonstration beds and research. There are also future plans for resident surveys, a research project with the agriculture department and hiring a university student to help with inspections.
“If the motion ‘to remove the $50 inspection fee’ is passed these planned initiatives will have to be abandoned or drastically cut back,” stated Duffy, adding that eliminating the fee would also lead to a “ballooning of requests” that could result in longer inspection wait times.
However, Doiron said those initiatives should be funded through the committee’s normal operating budget.
“It’s a tax grab, it’s a money grab,” said Doiron. “Do it within your budget. Why do you want another $16 thousand dollars off the backs of the residents that are struggling.
“There are some residents who need it sprayed every year. What are they going to do, every year give $50 back to the city? It’s ludicrous really.”