The heartfelt concern stated by Loraas for Saskatoon residents regarding the delays in tendering the recycling contract was touching (SP Aug 18/11.) I'm guessing splitting the tender between collection and processing probably wasn't part of his program either. Although Loraas is the only game in town when it comes to a processing plant (Cosmo only does paper) I can't imagine what it will do to the bottom line should he not get both contracts. Then again, whoever gets the collection contract has to take the recyclables somewhere.
On the bright side the landfill life has been extended for another 40 years. The cost of $54.6 million for the extension is to be paid by tipping fees and other revenues generated by the landfill. Either the tipping fees are going through the roof or the other revenues will be fees charged to households for each bag of garbage disposed of. I'm not counting on the wind turbine generating anything other than power and that revenue will have to go to pay for the turbine itself.
If the tipping fees get too high in Saskatoon, folks can always access the Loras Landfill north of the city.
This whole thing is just garbage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Admin indicated last night that the landfill lifespan extension is based on the assumption we will increase our diversion rate from 23% to 50% in the near future - which depends on better recycling.
ReplyDeleteLorass has the only plant now. Cosmo threw Saskatoon Curbside Recycling under the bus and has formed a partnership with the national comapny, Waste Management. Will be interesting to see how all this plays out.
ReplyDeleteSplitting the collection and processing is a practice that is done all across North America. If our administration needs to know how to do this, all they have to do is call Edmonton or Winnipeg.
ReplyDelete...or Sean Shaw who continues to dupe the uninformed councillors into a quickly archaic system of recycling.
ReplyDeleteyes, I have them all on my puppet strings!
ReplyDeleteI caught the part of Council on Shaw Cable 10 last night that dealt with this item. I was intrigued to hear that Hill and Clark were totally against making the bidding something that could save the tax payer even more money. This Forced recycling program is a joke. Our city will be full of garbage in a few years. The final recorded vote 6 for letting everyone in on the RFP and all 4 socialists voted against it as I am sure they would have preferred a large company that they can envision the Union labour force will have a hand in.
ReplyDeleteThat is probably because the "socialists" read the reports from Winnipeg and Edmonton that clearly state seperating the processing and collections increased the total costs by a minimum 20%
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:35, then you have nothing to worry about. If the best bid for collection only along with the best bid for processing only add up to 20% higher than the best integrated bid the separated bids will lose out in the bidding process. No harm, no foul.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the socialists don't want to take a chance that the separate bids may do better than an integrated bid so they 'gamed' the system from the beginning.
Don't forget that we still have to see the point totals in new RFP. The old RFP had point totals that were a total joke. You might have well just printed Loraas all over the sheet.
Council and Admin, and those pushing for the single-stream system, are all doing so under the expectation that Loras will win the bid. It is designed that way and all the advocates are telling the drones that the best way to recycle is the way Loras is doing it.
ReplyDeleteThis deal is being brokered with Loras, using the environment as a means to incite outrage against anyone who opposes it. If you oppose mandatory curbside recycling, then you are anti-environment.
The Councillors who voted against the motion did so to ensure that the RFP wasn't stalled an additional (at least) 2 months.
ReplyDeleteThe RFP, before it was changed, allowed companies to bid on either processing or collecting, they just had to submit a joint bid.
Now, under the new RFP, if two separate companies submit separate bids and have no interest in working together, and they win, it will be up to the city to play partnership manager and to ensure that one doesn't work against the others interest.
For instance, what incentive is there for a company doing the collecting to ensure minimal contamination when they are being paid by the tonne?
Of course, those damn socialists who said exactly this in Council on Wed would have place educating people on how business works, right?
ha...that should read "have no place educating..."
ReplyDeletesingle stream is already flooded with contamination issues to begin with. nearly a third of what is recycled ends up in a landfill under single stream. just sayin....
ReplyDeleteIf the people who voted against Councillor Paulsen's motion on Wednesday had voted for the same motion that was promoted by Councillor Donauer in June then the RFP could have been adjusted between June and the Aug 17th meeting (2 months) and the new adjusted RFP could have been under consideration on the 17th and there would have been no delay at all.
ReplyDeleteThe incentive for a collection company to minimize contamination is to ensure that is part of their job. If the collection company is bringing garbage to the processor, the collection company should be charged for the cost of taking that crap to the dump.
It's beyond idiotic to suggest that you are going to give a multi-million dollar contract to a company to collect recyclables and then you aren't going to put controls in place to make sure that they are doing the job as required.
Municipal governments co-ordinating different companies to provide services happens all the time all over the place. I guess administration is saying that Saskatoon is unique in not being able to do the same function of governing.
Anon 8:51, forgive the socialists above. While they breach on their business knowledge it is all rooted in the union mentality where there is no accountability.
ReplyDeleteOf course their first thoughts relate to how can they maximize their slice of the pie while doing as little as possible.
great so Anon 851 how many inspectors are you willing to hire to have the city manage the recycling system they are specifically tendering to the private sector so they don't have to manage the system?
ReplyDeleteIf two companies partnered they would still get to bid on one part of the contract and there would be a vested interest on bothsides to minimize contamination - which would cut out the need for even more city bureucracy and tax dollar expenditures. But hey, if you want to play socialist and spend more tax dollars go right ahead.
1/3 waste from single stream? prove it.
less than 1/3 waste? prove it.
ReplyDeleteis your insinuation that if one company obtains the bid that no oversight or management will be needed to handle the contract?
that the only way we'll need said managers if there are 2 companies?
get a lesson in business, it will take minimally more work to manage 2 companies than it would take to manage 1.
lastly, why do you expect that if separate companies win bids they will not work cooperatively together. how you made that leap of faith I have no idea, my best guess would be you assume all companies are evil and will screw everyone they can for a dollar. Get some business sense.
you'll need someone to handle contract, whether it is one or two companies that ultimately win the bid. Having 2 companies will not mean opening an entire department to handle their relations.
Actually I would blanket the City with electric compactors. Paper products go in one end and everything else (except glass) goes in the other. These can even be solar powered. People repeatedly go shopping so have them at all the malls and in appropriate places in neighbourhoods without malls.
ReplyDeleteYou'll get almost as much diversion as the curbside but you'll do it at a cost of $6 million dollars a year less than curbside.
People who absolutely have to have curbside can purchase it themselves from one of two companies that are offering it.
It would be a simple, economical solution which frees up tax dollars for other needs in the city.
A friend of mine has a relative at Cosmo and he told me that Cosmo had presented this idea to the city a year ago. Apparently the city wasn't interested in anything that could work so well for so little money.