THETIS ISLAND RESIDENTS’ AND RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION

RESULTS OF GARBAGE POLL: Final Report

Purposes of the poll:
1. obtain snapshot of support/non-support for the proposed system to help determine risk to TIRRA's capital investment
2. contribute to community information about the service proposal and lack of other viable options

Method:
The poll was authorized by TIRRA. Veronica Shelford and Ken Youds organized and obtained information from the TIRRA Garbage Committee. Telephone poll was conducted by 14 volunteer pollers: Ann Keir, Bob Bingham, Easton Vance, Veronica Shelford, Jan Therrien, Claire Hess, Myla Frankel, Rosemary Boehringer, Joan Bennett, Donna Stadt, Barbara Findlay, Nan Beals, Jeannine Caldbeck and Helen Bird. Telephone contact was used in order to get prompt responses to a consistent script and questions.

• Total households in survey: 260
• Actual contacted households: 202
• Unsuccessful contacts:    58
• "Yes"   responses 142 of 202 = 70.30 %, rounds to 70%
• "No" responses           37 of 202 = 18.32 %, rounds to 18%
• "Uncertain" responses 21 of 202 = 10.40 %, rounds to 10%
• "Refused" responses  2 of 202        = 0.99%, rounds to 1%<
• Combined "uncertain" and "no contact":          79

Statistical Assumptions:

• Unsuccessful contacts can be calculated into the response categories based on the percentages of the actual responses received.
  
• In the reality of an actual garbage service, households must decide "yes" or "no" (i.e. to contribute or not contribute); therefore it is reasonable to statistically calculate the "no contact" and "uncertain" into the "yes" and "no" responses
  
• "Refused" responses should be assumed to be unsupportive of the proposal
  

Application of Statistical Assumptions:

• Support for proposal:   142 actual + 55 calculated = 197 of 260 (75.8%)

• Opposed to proposal:    37 actual + 2 refused + 14 calculated = 53 of 260 (20.4%)

• Residual Uncertainty:   10 calculated of 260 (3.8%)

Residual uncertainty means that there remains an unallocated/unpredictable 3.8% that will, in reality, go to the "support" or "non support" sides of the proposal. So support is predicted to range roughly from 75 to 80%, or 195 to 208 households. And non support is predicted to range roughly from 20 to 25%, or 52 to 65 households.

However, based on the comments received, there are some caveats on the poll results and, ultimately the support or non support for the proposal. These represent constraints that could make or break the viability or success of proposal and this suggests two things: (1) the hours of service and pricing of the service should be set with maximum convenience/appropriateness for the maximum number of households, and (2) TIRRA should be conservative with respect to non-recoverable capital investment in the system.

Comments:

Convenience around the times of access per week:
A majority of all households contacted expressed concern regarding the usefulness of the proposal if the hours or times of opening are not useful or convenient. If they are useful, many of the "non support" group could be supporters. If they are not useful or convenient, many of the "support" group could be non supporters. The uncertainty around the hours in the proposal available for the poll leaves a fair amount of uncertainty regarding the actual support for the service. There is a widespread apprehension that, if not convenient, the system could fail -- both financially and through abuse (inappropriate dumping). The convenience factor needs to take into account both full time and part time (weekenders included) residents.

Inappropriate dumping/debris accumulation:
Many households (both support and non-support) indicated concerns about a closed bin system resulting in excessive dumping of garbage either outside the controlled bin area or at other unmanaged locations around the island.

Pricing:
Many households (but not a majority) -- mainly but not exclusively part time households -- expressed reservations about a fixed, single rate structure. Some suggested that a per bag charge might be an option for those who do not wish to pay for year round service. Some suggested that there be different rates for part time and full time households. Some expressed support for the proposed pricing, saying that it would be a bargain. Some people suggested that there be differential fees based on household size, level of development or existence of B&Bs.

Other Generalized Comments and Observations

-   Some people don't pay in the present system, saying they don't use it, and that they don't intend to use the proposed system -- because they haul their garbage off-island or have access to another on-island means of disposal.
-   A security camera was suggested.
-   Some people commented that they preferred the present volunteer-based system although no one volunteered to help run it.
-   Some said that more could be charged for "better" service.
-   Some suggested a need for further meetings and/or consultation when further details are worked out.

Concluding Comment

The pollers did an outstanding job, explaining a complicated issue to over two hundred households, and together making a substantial contribution to a major decision for the community and for TIRRA. Their efforts are appreciated very much.

Sincerely,
Ken Youds, Veronica Shelford

 

back to the top of the page