Coming up on Monday at City Council will be an update on the Waste Plan Regina, or more specifically the "annual" update that was postponed from 2015, and then again in 2016 due to the election. What you will find in this report is something that many of us already know - Reginans are awesome at recycling and the City of Regina is only accepting a fraction of what they could be because it "doesn't make enough money". This became brutally evident over Christmas when the whole "should we recycle wrapping paper" debate came to head.
Below is my delegation for your consideration. I encourage you all to read and share, and provide your feedback. I also encourage you to read the full Waste Plan Regina (2009) report, and corresponding 2016 update, so you can get a better sense of how far we've really come in seven years. Spoiler alert: We haven't really come that far.
Regina City Council Delegation – Monday, February 27, 2017
RE: Waste Plan
Regina 2015/16 Update
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Chad Novak,
and I am here representing the Saskatchewan Taxpayers Advocacy Group, which is
a grassroots organization proudly standing up for the rights of individual
taxpayers. I am here to address the item that is recommended to be removed from
the outstanding list, that being the 2015/16 Update for the Waste Plan Regina.
I’ve spoken on this issue previously, and I’ve also
monitored a lot of the online discussions that occur around this topic –
specifically when questionable actions of the City take place. Like, for
example, the recent revelation at Christmas time that the City of Regina would
not accept certain types of Christmas Wrapping Paper. What transpired during
that short time frame was the revelation that the Regina Residential Recycling
Program is more about profits than it is the environment. This became quite
obvious when the comment was made by Emterra that while it could recycle regular wrapping paper, it is lower quality and would
not bring in as much money for the company or the city, which gets a share of
the profit (See Appendix A). This was then contradicted by the City (See
Appendix B) suggesting that these materials simply were simply “not recyclable”
– which is concerning as it demonstrates a clear effort by the City of Regina
to sway citizens opinions from the truth, which was graciously explained by
Emterra. The fact of the matter is, these items are recyclable, it’s just
that Emterra, and in turn the City of Regina, wouldn’t realize a reasonable
profit – or possibly even experience a loss – by recycling the material. This
is further supported by the fact that many of the items that we currently
reject are actually recycled by many other cities (See Appendix C), and is
included in the list of industry accepted recyclable materials in material the
world over.
So, what first needs to happen is turning our attention away
from the potential profit of a fully-recyclable item. Once we do that, then we
can realistically expect to see our diversion rates increase. After all, the
City of Regina realizes such a minimal return from Emterra for profit-sharing
(Average $150,000 [approx. 2.5%] – see Appendix D), it’s almost meaningless to
look to refuse certain items because of their profitability. I can guarantee
when you go to residents and tell them they can recycle any material included
in a generally accepted recycling list – not just the items that turn a tidy
profit – you will realize a significant jump in your diversion rates. Not just
because it’s going to make things a lot less confusing for residents, but also
because you are actually diverting a lot of material that is currently going to
the landfill now, simply because it’s been determined it doesn’t make enough
money. The environment needs to be the #1 driver here – period.
It’s been suggested that it’s actually Emterra who is the
one deciding what material gets recycled, but I’ve since found that couldn’t be
further from the truth. In fact, it’s right there in black and white in the
legally binding contract with Emterra that they “shall receive all collected
materials regardless of the level of contaminants” (See #36 in Appendix E).
Further, that “it will be the operator’s responsibility, at it’s sole cost,
risk and expense to dispose of all contaminants.” This confirms that Emterra must accept and process every
single item that residents put in the blue bins, regardless of whether or not
it can be recycled, let alone it’s profitability. With regards to what Emterra
must contractually process, it is clearly stated that they “must accept and
process any and all of the designated materials received.” (See #43 in Appendix
F) As you will see in Appendix G, there is no differentiation of certain types
of materials that the City of Regina has since designated as “non-recyclable”
(or “non-profitable”).
What I’m saying here is essentially, the City has the
ability to enforce this contract, and Emterra is legally bound to accept and
process all materials that the City tells its residents to include in their
Blue Bins. What residents deserve an answer to is this: Will the City step up
to the plate and encourage residents to include any and all recyclable material (according to
standard practice in many other jurisdictions, and as accepted by industry
standards) in their Blue Bins, regardless of profitability? If not, can they
please explain why? It should not be residents’ concern as to whether or not it
costs Emterra more money to process certain materials, as that is something that
Emterra ought to – and most likely did – take into consideration when
negotiating the contract in the first place.
What you really need to come to terms with is that, until
the City makes meaningful changes to our curbside recycling program (by
increasing what is accepted), it’s going to be that much more difficult to
increase that rate by any meaningful amount. Instead of coming back to
residents in 2020 and saying “sorry, we tried”, why not proactively do
something now to meaningfully increase that diversion rate?
Thank you
for your time this evening, and I will gladly answer any questions you may
have.
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION (Subject to inclusion
based on time and questions by Council):
The City of Regina continues to realize significant
surpluses at the Regina Landfill of $15 Million or more. The actual cost of
processing our recycling – aside from the collection of it which is a subject
for another day – is only $1.5 Million (See Appendix H). Why are we not funding
this program entirely from the continued surplus at the Regina Landfill, as the
two would seem to be intrinsically linked.
Also, the City of Regina now realizes additional revenue of
approximately $775,000 from the Multi-Material Stewardship Western (MMSW)
program, which is over and above what was originally considered in 2013 when
introducing the curbside recycling program. The MMSW program is specifically
intended to cover “up to 75% of the net costs for a municipality to operate a
recycling program for waster paper and packaging.” Why, then, are residents not
realizing a reduction in their recycling fees as a result of this new funding
source, which is expected to last for the foreseeable future? Also, considering
the goal of the MMSW program, it would directly contradict the intention of the
program if we are not actually using that money to offset the operating costs
of our recycling program, which is evident in Appendix I where it speaks to
exactly what this money will be used for (taken directly from this 2015/16
Waste Plan Regina Update). For the City to use this money for further public
outreach is effectively a slap in the face to that industry.
An added cost savings that can be realized down the road is
implementing offset biweekly collection, so that we aren’t doubling down on the
environmental footprint that is caused by the dual collection system as it
exists today. (Loraas is contracted out to collect recycling biweekly and
in-house staff collect garbage weekly) This would not only improve our
environmental impact (which is consistent with the public feedback in Appendix
J – also taken directly from this 2015/16 Update), but it would result in
significant cost savings, furthering the call for eliminating the separate fee
for curbside recycling.
While residents are being lead to believe that our diversion
rate is steadily increasing, the statistics in your own report suggest
otherwise, going from 16% in 2009 when the Waste Plan Regina report was
released, to only 20% in 2016 (See Appendix K), or a 4% increase in seven years.
Obviously, there are a few ways to impact that rate, including reducing our
waste and increasing that which we recycle, but at the end of the day, the
numbers are pretty consistent over the three years in this update, with the
total tonnage of recycling actually decreasing over the years included in this
report. It should be noted that in the 2009 Waste Plan Regina, there is no
suggestion that anything beyond 40% could be attained without additional improvements
(See Appendix M), so is the lofty goal of 65% by 2020 truly realistic, or are
we just setting ourselves up for yet more failure?
Interestingly, our
garbage has reduced over this time by over 6,000 tonnes, without any
corresponding increases in recycling or other programs, pointing to the fact
that people are possibly consuming less? As well, considering that only 14% of
what residents toss in the garbage bins ought to have been thrown in the blue
bins (See Appendix L – again taken directly from this 2015/16 Update), it is
not the fault of residents not knowing what to and what not to recycle – which
goes against the idea that more public education is necessary. Contrary to what
is planned, it is obvious that further public education is NOT required nor is
it the solution – spending money on this kind of campaign is both wasteful and
meaningless as it is clear that residents do fully understand and support a
properly run recycling program.
