Garbage collection continuing: county
While the Valley Waste board and other municipal partners appear to be fine with the way contracts have been handled, Annapolis County’s legal advice says it contravenes Valley Waste’s own rules and the Municipal Government Act (MGA) because contracts of more than $100,000 must be approved by municipalities and by the province.
Long-term dispute
The dispute goes back to January 2018, when Annapolis County council asked its solicitor for a legal opinion on the validity of a Valley Waste contract with the Municipality of the District of Chester around the disposal of solid waste in its Kaizer Meadow Road solid waste facility.
Solicitor Bruce Gillis said not only should a majority of the municipalities that make up the Valley Waste entity have approved the contract as per the authority’s enabling agreement, but because of the amount of money, ministerial approval was necessary under Section 88(4) of the MGA.
Both Annapolis and Kings counties would have had to approve the Kaiser Road contract, Gillis said.
“To my understanding, the Chester agreement has never been submitted to the parties (municipalities) for approval, and therefore has never been a valid agreement,” Gillis said in a written legal opinion dated Jan. 16, adding that to his understanding, no ministerial approval of the contract had been sought or given.
In an April 3 letter to Kings County Mayor Peter Muttart, Habinski re-iterated Gillis’ legal opinion.
“Municipalities are not permitted to make decisions to expend funds in-camera or away from public scrutiny,” Habinski wrote. “All such decisions are required to be made in open session with duly taken and approved minutes. This obligation cannot and should not be avoided. When a publically-funded corporation enters into a long-term contract in excess of $100,000 without seeking approval from municipalities, the public is deprived of a transparent process, and their duly elected representatives are deprived of the opportunity to execute their democratic responsibility in decision-making.”
Habinski also questioned the legality of a contract with Fundy Composting Limited in Colchester County that is now supposed to receive Valley Waste’s compostables.
“I respectfully suggest that no approval has been provided by the municipal parties for the authority to enter the Fundy Compost Limited contract,” Habinski said.
Muttart respectfully disagreed with Habinski in his reply on April 4 and worried about the possible demise of Valley Waste and resulting legal action.
Earlier in the year, Valley Waste board chairman John Kinsella also disagreed with Annapolis County’s stance in a March 9 reply to Habinski, who had written to Kinsella concerning a possible temporary Valley Waste budget.
“The legal advice provided to your municipality disputes the legal advice provided to our board as it relates to the approval of contractual commitments in excess of $100,000,” said Kinsella. “The authority does not believe we are in conflict with the MGA. After conversations with the Department of Municipal Affairs, we believe the best course of action is to go to mediation to resolve our difference of opinion.”
Collection halted
In an Aug. 1 notice, Valley Waste said residents of Annapolis County would no longer receive curbside collection of garbage, recyclables, and compost, citing non-payment for services since March 2018.
“Effective Aug. 18, Annapolis County will be responsible for delivering these services to its residents,” the notice said.
Valley Waste said Annapolis County owed the authority more than $700,000 for services provided between April and July.
Annapolis County’s response was that Valley Waste knew that a cheque dated July 23 was sent and received from Annapolis County to pay for garbage collection and disposal. The amount of the cheque was $526,954 but the cheque was sent in trust and is subject to Valley Waste having an approved and legal budget. Annapolis County contends that if it gave money to a contract that does not have an approved budget that, in itself, would put the county in legal jeopardy.
In an interview Aug. 9, the Annapolis County chief administrative officer said the county has signed confidentiality agreements as it relates to what the county is negotiating in regards to an alternative collection.
“We’re working through all the obstacles and we basically have solutions for all of them and garbage collection will continue as usual,” Ferguson said.