On behalf of the St. Albert Taxpayers Association, I want to question four things: the assumption that recycling is always in the public interest; the options that were missing in administration's proposals to council on automated garbage pickup; the early move to “organics” recycling; and council's never ending pursuit of St. Albert being the “best.”
First: questioning the “motherhood and apple pie” issue of recycling is a thankless task. Why? Because of the belief that recycling is always good, always effective and something our public leaders should push for. A senior citizen reminded me that 45 years ago, recycling was started by kids who collected newspaper and sold it. It was a way to decrease the cost of recycling. Now it’s a different story. It is a major cost to taxpayers. In the last six months of 2009 blue bag recycling meant St. Albert sent an extra 873 tonnes to recycle compared to the same period in 2008. In 2008 homeowners did their own recycling of a total of 3,145 tonnes. Personally I was happy to drop off recycling on my way to Edmonton ... it cost me nothing. But now, just to get another 873 tonnes recycled 18,200 homeowners paid $491,400.... or $562.89 per tonne. In comparison, landfill costs were $197.76 per tonne in 2008. So we are paying $365.13 extra per tonne for the privilege of recycling waste, some of which has no market. And the $4.50 per month charge in 2009 has increased to $5.50 per month in 2010.
Second: automated garbage collection with toters by city employees, which council voted for last week. Administration did not present a preferable option — have all of St. Albert's garbage collected by the big trucks that our current contractor operates. This would also have met many of the reasons cited by administration in justifying their chosen option. St. Albert would have avoided buying big specialized trucks with automated lifters, toters, and two new staff positions. No one on council seemed to ask about or consider this option, which the St. Albert Taxpayers Association thinks would have been a less costly option and stopped empire building in administration. What we did get was our service cut in half costing us an extra $2.73 per month.
Third: organics recycling was approved, not just for yard waste, but year-round for kitchen waste. Council moved this up from 2012. Looking at council reports, if this results in a five to 25 per cent increase, we're going to pay $1.1 million extra or $777 per tonne to pick up a maximum extra 1,407 tonnes of organics. In addition, in the winter, as Mayor Nolan Crouse put it, “we'll have a little frozen lump in the bottom of a toter.”
Fourth: this idea that St. Albert has to have the best of everything. This was exemplified by one councillor saying this gets St. Albert back in a leadership position regarding recycling. No one on this council seems to consider whether many of the citizens of St. Albert in fact can afford this “best of everything” spending.
The bottom line is the equivalent of a 5.06 per cent tax increase — a two per cent tax increase for blue box, a one per cent tax increase for automation and 2.06 per cent for organics/toters. Consider this if you believe that council only increased your taxes by an average of 2.89 per cent for 2010. Consider as well the 44 per cent increase in your utility rates (2009-2012) brought to you by this council when you vote in the next election.
Lynda Flannery, St. Albert Taxpayers Association
