Residential users on the hook for too much of recycling costs
By Lethbridge Herald on November 4, 2022.
Editor:
We believe the Waste and Recycle management along with an environment-happy city council have done enough financial damage to residential citizens.
The “Lets Talk” is a repeat document with a waste management plan for curbside recycling with $16 million debt, payments of $1.5 million, tipping fees of $1.5 million for under 5,000 tonnes, and figure the cost of tipping fees to residential customers.
A look at the residential curbside organic program is $17 million reduced by a government grant for facility cost – $5.75 million- again debt cost, tipping fees of $1.5 million, total operating cost of $5.1 million. The $10 million organic facility is in question residential pay but the ICI/Business sector will deposit over 20,000 tonnes of organic present and for the past eight years deposited in a special landfill cell No. 7 funded by a no-nexus fund.
The new residential organic facility has a capacity of 20,000 tonnes, the residential will accumulate from curbside collection 3,900 tonnes. What will the ICI/ business sector tipping fees be for over 29,000 tonnes of organics? In the best interest of the residential group, the “Talk Trash” should be directed at the ICI/business sector which generates over 70,000 tonnes of waste and over 20,000 tonnes of organics to landfill. The residentials develop yearly 21,000 tonnes of waste. In our opinion, your “Trash Talk” should be directed to the ICI/Business sector. The non-professional City environment committee did a serious injustice by choosing the residential group and not the ICI strategy in spite of all hired consultants stating the ICI group must be the priority target. Council failed. Go get the ICI group.
Ken Ikle
Lethbridge
Committee for Residential Utilities
9-8
To be against curbside organics is to be against ghg emission reduction. To be against emission reduction is to foreclose on a livable future for my generation.
Surely the Transparency Council can think of something better to sink their dentures into? (Something that improves life in our city, perhaps?)
You seem to have forgotten those that already compost, in our own backyards. I do not wish to pay more, for nothing. I will not be putting my compost in any bin but my own composter.
Sophie; your reference to the Transparency Council is incorrect the reference is to Lethbridge Committee for Residential Utilities. Our concerns and in presentations to the City Council the Enviro groups that chose the residential group for a $17million useless project with 21000 tonnes of Residential waste include which consultants state less than 3900 tonnes of organic will be collected in green carts. The ICI/ business sector delivers to the landfill over 80,000 tonnes of garbage yearly, over 20,000 tonnes of that is organic /food waste deposited in a special landfill cell # 7. accessed over eight years.
We have had concerns about the amount of CO2 dispensed and leachate leakage from 80,000 tonnes of yearly ICI deposited and questioned Council on the amounts no response. The Waste Management state over 75& of waste to landfill is produced by the ICI business sector pay $ 1 million in tipping fees for organics to landfill #7 we pay $ 17million for 3900 tonnes of organic > THe city hired a consultant stated their recommendation the ICI/Business sector should be the priority Target for waste reduction the City enviro committee chose the Residential group as their non-professional recommendation to City Council which blindly accepted and approved, a total disservice to the residential group.
What you should know is the City Manager announced the
What the residents should know the Waste Management in their presentation to City Council operating budget the rate increase for the next four years garbage collection 2% each year 2024-2026, Recycling 1% per year for 2024-2026, for orghanics 1% per year 2024-2025 also the waste reduction fee 2% per the year 2024-2026. Waste Management state there will be no increase in the $.1.5 million recycling tipping fee also the Organic tipping fee which cannot be justified.
We have had some support on this issue but all residents should be deeply concerned and voice their opinion, the ICI/business sector should have been the target.
Thank you for the correction on the organization, Ken.
A few things that might improve your analysis: first, I believe curbside organics had citizen support in the high 80% in two polls and a feedback opprtunity in the last budget cycle. As I understand it, the ICI sector is indeed expected to divert organics from the landfill and the City is working with businesses to make it work. (And just because your neighbour had to shovel a corner lot, doesn’t mean you don’t have to shovel your smaller lot).
Further, your accounting seems to ignore the $millions in grants for the project. And the government (yes, the UPC) is going to buy municipal recycling which will reduce costs (contrary to the forecast y’all made for the blue-bin-apocalypse).
And finally, and most importantly, you have no cost benefits for ghg reduction. Recent analyses place this at a current dollar amount of $115/tonne of CO2eq. Using your organics numbers that’s over $2 million a year assuming 40% conversion.
If you consider the costs and benefits, this program will save taxpayer dollars (and help save ourselves by preserving a livable environment, which must have some value, even for Boomers?)
Right on Mr. Ikle, fully agree with you. The ICS (in particular COMERCIAL waste) is the biggest issue. Lethbridge should awake and get out of the costly and insignicant curbside recyclying programs, municipalities across Canada, USA are. The City should realize the recycling facade is not going anywhere except increasing cost and expenses to the tax paying populous. Cut your losses now and get out of Recycling now City of Lethbridge@
Correct, Harold. The green bin is nothing more than a revenue source for the City, manufacturers of bins, and justification of someone’s job in waste management at City Hall.
I am forced to pay for, and store, a big bin which, will never be used. My small amount of food waste goes down the disposer in the sink.
Sophie, we do not understand why the City Environment Committee chairman and three enviro groups non- professionals picked the residential group at 3900 tonnes in the collection cart yearly and not the ICI Business sector at over 20,000 tonnes.to landfill cell #7 The landfill experiences over 100,000 tonnes annually. Statistics Canada also expert Consultants “s and City waste engineers State over 31% of waste in landfill is organic.
Our group was concerned about the purchase of two pieces of organic equipment for the Organic cell/ICI solution in November 2020 and April 2021 costs of over $1.5 million dollars, the question was when did Council We note no Council approval or CIP project number. We attended a requested meeting with the City Manager and GM of Waste recycling to discuss the items. The item landfill #7 was brought to our attention the ICI solution which has 20,000 tonnes of organics to cell #7 from the ICI Group at a tipping fee of $50,00 tonne.
The ICI group was given a 5-year transition period extended to 8 years with no targets to 2021 and voluntarily not mandatory like the Residential which is now stuffed with a 50% target.
Our concern with the landfill and the methane gas which is collected from cells like #7 and flare dispensed the effect on the environment.
The GM Waste&Recycle that there is over 25 years of leachate leakage at the landfill.
I would add back in 1990 the Ecological group from Coaldale presented to our City Council the plan for a Back yard composer system to reduce organic/food waste by 2005 there were over 5000 sold, today there is over 11,000 also 35% of households have in- sink garburator this is Council authorized waste diversion, voluntary not mandatory..
The Residential Group have every right to speak out against the disserve by the Environmental groups and Council who must have their project and ignore the !7million dollar cost.
The $17 million dollar cost should be placed on the problem generators the ICI group-.