City response discredits writers
By Letter to the Editor on May 28, 2021.
Editor:
An open letter to the council and senior administration of the City of Lethbridge:
The City recently issued a communiqué, as an extra-long letter to the editor, apparently in reply to letters penned by Mr. Vogt and Mr. Ikle concerning the green bin and related programs. Too bad the response largely evaded the serious issues raised, and came across as a shabby attempt to discredit those gentlemen.
Let us first acknowledge the individuals did confuse aspects of project E-7 of the existing CIP with those of E-7 in the draft CIP now before council. Confusion is unsurprising considering the $5.9 million figure for construction of the ICI compost facility is mentioned nowhere in these documents. While this changes some of the math, it does not negate the issues, as you imply.
Seven projects are described in E-7 of the current CIP, none of which is a compost facility, or uses words that suggest a compost facility. The same department-project (#215) appears in the draft CIP under E-8. For the first time, it uses the words “compost facility upgrades,” though the cost is not separated from the other ongoing projects.
The site of the “compost facility upgrades” is noted on a map, and does not correspond to any of the sites identified in E-7 of the current CIP. The site shown does correspond, however, to that in a picture shown for the residential organics facility in the draft CIP.
To say that the ICI compost facility was approved by council in 2018 appears entirely incorrect. Will you correct your communiqué, or point out exactly where the ICI compost facility is to be found in the current CIP?
A picky point, but the CIP is a capital budget, not a fund against which the City may borrow. The most significant funding sources are provincial/federal grants and municipal borrowing, which borrowing has been made through the former Alberta Capital Finance Authority. When you issue communiqués, does accuracy matter?
City council authorized borrowing $8.3 million (bylaw 6074 in January 2018) to fund the 7 projects referred to as E-7. The City’s unaudited financials for 2020 reveal most of this money has yet to be used. As you know, it may only be used for the projects identified as “Waste & Recycling Centre Disposal Cell Development and Closure Project” (the fancy title for the current E-7). I can only assume that the $5.9 million to be borrowed “from the Capital Improvement Program” to fund the ICI organics facility is coming from this borrowing.
Given council has not previously approved this project, and considering the requirements of the Municipal Government Act, is it not incumbent on the council either to amend both the existing E-7 project and the borrowing bylaw, or amend the borrowing bylaw to cover the things to be authorized under the new E-8? What authority has the City to expend this money and indebt itself in pursuit of an as-yet unapproved project?
This is a serious rule-of-law issue. As you know the entire scheme of the MGA respecting borrowing bylaws is premised on giving citizens the opportunity to petition for a referendum if they object to a borrowing. You cannot evade that right by pretending that a borrowing covers something not previously authorized. This issue alone deserves a direct and forthright response, rather than the sleight-of-hand dismissal offered by the communiqué.
You impliedly criticize Mr. Ikle’s math skills by noting that 50 per cent diversion of 22,000 tonnes waste is “11,000 tonnes of organic material.”
As you well know, the 50 per cent diversion target includes diversion of all recyclables and organics, combined. By leaving out any consideration of the volume of recyclables, your statement is patently false. The writers use data from your own documents – 11,000 tonnes to be diverted, of which some 4,500 tonnes is estimated recyclables, leaving 6,500 tonnes best estimate of volume of organics. If the City is in possession of data other than that, it is incumbent on you to produce it. Is there a word for the use of falsehood to discredit?
Two points you evaded relate to the comparative share of the costs of the waste reduction program. The first is that Council decided the residential sector must reduce by 50 per cent by 2021 and 65 per cent by 2030, while the non-residential sectors are held to 30 per cent and 50 per cent targets respectively.
It is common ground the non-residential sectors produce a hefty majority of the waste, so why these targets? There may be good reasons for that, but it is the sort of policy decision a councilor ought to explain and, so far as I am aware, not one ever has. Will you?
The second is that, in a shared building (as you now admit) to deal with organic waste, what is the fair share of costs between residential and non-residential? You say the cost to the non-residential sector is $5.9 million, while the cost to the residential sector will be $10.6 million less the cost of bins and 4 trucks.
What is that? Given estimated organic waste volumes are 6,500 tonnes from residential and between 11,000 and 21,000 tonnes from non-residential, this sure looks like residential rate-payers will subsidize the non-residential.
To be fair, the recent proposal to fund the $10.6 million from grant money rather than borrowing throws a wrinkle into this equation. But one must ask, from whom are grant funds ultimately derived?
And how, if at all, are operating costs to be divided? A cogent explanation of cost apportionment is still necessary. Will you provide one?
Will a future communiqué answer these questions, absent evasion, misdirection and falsehood?
Brett Babki
Lethbridge
-1
This program is more about City Hall administrators justifying their jobs than anything else. At any cost to the taxpayer.
Please run for mayor!
Brett :we thank you for your letter which is write on and the citizens should appreciate it. I would like to tell you how this issue began, we, our group, monitor the City’s monthly procurement document the December 20,2020 presented to Council in January 2021 meeting what we noticed was the item Food de-Packaging equipment organic process ICI $608,000.00. The Council does not question the purchase items just approve the document. the specific questions were asked ” when did the council approve the de-packaging equipment cost and what is the ICI Organic process? Later, prior to our telephone meeting with The City Manager we receive an e-mail response to our question at the June10,2019″ Council meeting the de-packaging ICI machine was not approved by Council but was included in the “Compost Cell/ICI Solution Budget” of $5.9 million apparently The ICI have been dumping their Organics in their private Landfill Cell for over 5 years. To date, request to Council is,
When did council approve;
We did question not speak to the issue the Mayor and local eviro group who base their arguments for the residential curbside organics program and the picture of a black cart with 57% organic and yard trash audit taken two years ago at the time of the start of the Residential curbside recycle project We have requested up to date black cart audits between April to October and November to March. There are other important issues on all items stated that Citizens must know, there is a $22.5 million bill in the background. It would be great if the local transparency group could send a Message before June 1st to Council apply the Council Carlson motion approved by Council to have the E-7 Residential Organic project be moved to the 2022 CIP budget