A couple of thoughts that would have furthered the discussion around due dilgence. We did not ask Dean what research he did among his peers (other than visiting facilities with the technologies), his peer associations or through his participation on AMO’s waste diversions committee. All of those would have been fair questions to balance with your question as to whether the recycler of our glass was asked to comment on a suitable technology beyond the material specifications they have for their own processes.

I am glad you will be having the conversation with Dean and Bill regarding our tendering process as this is an important area to understand and have confidence in as Councillors.

I disagree that our composting system failed. It was state of the art for its time. But there is a limited life span on this equipment because of technological advances and extreme operating conditions. The glass system we have just approved has an expected life span of 7 years. We can make sure we plan for this or we can let it collapse and create a crisis.

During 2000-2003, we invested $5M in an upgrade of the MRF to replace aging equipment and to introduce technologies to increase diversion and reduce operating costs. This investment was successful. In fact, over the years, our staff have a great track record of achieving the cost efficiencies and diversion rates projected for the investments they have recommended to Council. The composting facility should have been next on the list for attention. A planned investment in upgrading and/or repairs would have avoided the current crisis. However, this was stopped from the top for political reasons and we are left mopping up.

Happy New Year,

Karen

As for your question… I would have to say yes. If over half of council thinks something should be voted down I would suggest that it probably shouldn’t pass. No ONE vote makes or breaks a motion (and that is probably a really good thing).