The Town of Ladysmith has released results from its Spring Clean-Up survey, revealing overwhelming support for continuing the curbside collection program, despite concerns about missed pickups, unclear communication and overall service quality.
A total of 162 residents responded to the online survey, which was open from Aug. 21 to Sept. 5 on the town’s public engagement platform, Let’s Talk Ladysmith. Of those respondents, 85 per cent said they used this year’s service.
The results were presented to council at a committee of the whole meeting on Sept. 9. Ladysmith’s communication and engagement specialist Nicholas Pescod shared key findings and answered questions about recurring issues, participation levels and next steps.
Pescod said he was encouraged by the high number of participants who had firsthand experience with the program.
“We received 162 total responses. And of those 162, 138 said they actually used the service, which is quite a high number,” he told council.
According to the town, 87 per cent of all respondents want the annual Spring Clean-Up to continue. Among users of the program, support was even stronger with 91 per cent saying they want the service to return.
“The town thanks all of those who took the time to complete the survey. The feedback we received was respectful, constructive and identified several areas for improvement,” said Pescod.
However, despite strong interest in keeping the program, most respondents reported dissatisfaction with how it was delivered.
Just 33 per cent gave the overall service a "good" or "excellent" rating. Only 34 per cent gave positive marks for timeliness, with the majority rating the collection as “fair” or “poor.”
Communication was another sore spot. Forty-one per cent of all respondents found it "ineffective" or "very ineffective." Nearly 60 per cent said their items were collected as expected, indicating that more than 40 per cent encountered pickup issues.
Those who used the program cited confusion over eligibility and inconsistent follow-up. Partially collected items, delays beyond the advertised week and piles of uncollected junk left behind were recurring themes in written feedback.
As one resident put it in the survey, “People are just throwing out anything, hoping it gets picked up.”
Nearly 78 per cent of respondents said the service guidelines were “easy” or “very easy” to understand. However, 22 per cent found them “somewhat hard” or “hard,” pointing to a need for clearer communication.
The town’s main outreach channels were social media and newsletters, followed by the website and utility bill inserts. Fewer residents learned about the service through newspapers, word of mouth or other sources.
Some suggested more proactive outreach and visual examples of what is and isn’t allowed.
“A lot of people just don’t know the rules,” one respondent noted. Another added, “Better education would prevent misuse.”
Even residents who didn’t use the service were invited to participate. Among the 24 non-users, most said they had no items to dispose of or weren’t aware of the program. Others cited confusion, missed collection days or using private disposal methods instead.
While only two of the non-participants said the guidelines were hard to understand, a third still found them “somewhat hard,” reinforcing the need for more accessible, consistent information.
Pescod told council that communication was a recurring concern and recommended improvements if the program continues. “If this is a service that council chooses to go forward with given the struggles we had with it, I would probably devise a more fulsome communications plan,” he said.
Council members noted they were pleased to see residents still value the service.
“I’m happy to see a definitive support for it,” said Councillor Marsh Stevens.
Council has not yet made a decision about whether the program will return in 2026 or in what form.
Full survey results are available on the town’s website.
