59 Carden St.

Was free parking a bad decision?

Posted by Magda
A comment Councillor Mike Salisbury made during the free-parking debate jumped out at me.

"I think we owe it to ourselves and to the city not to flip on it just because we got the bill in the mail," he said Monday, referring to the suggestion council dump a pilot project offering two hours of free parking downtown because of the cost.

On one hand, he's right: council knows now what it did before about how much the project would cost. If nothing's changed, why should council retract its decision? Besides, it likely would be confusing and frustrating for downtown shoppers and merchants.

On the other hand, it seems some councillors were saying they were wrong to try the project in the first place -- in which case it would make sense to correct that error as soon as possible, rather than sticking with it just because it's been made.

Either way, the discussion Monday night leaves one to wonder about council's decision-making process.

Councillors voted 6-5 not to reconsider the free parking pilot.

How accessible is public information?

Posted by Magda
It was a weird week in the realm of freedom of information requests.

In case you don't know, these are requests anyone -- not just reporters -- can make of most public institutions for just $5. Most requests should be granted, unless they're exempt under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In the last few months, I've been trying to file more of these because they often make for interesting and important stories.

The responses have been varied. When I asked for details of all lead-in-water tests done in people's homes in Guelph in the last 15 or so years, the response came almost immediately. When I asked for the compensation given to former CAO Larry Kotseff when he left the city, my request was denied. (I went through a failed mediation process with the city on that one, and it's now in adjudication.)

But last week was an interesting mixed-bag week for FOI requests.

--I filed a request back in April for briefing notes regarding changing property tax law for energy-saving home improvements. That was after we and the Star reported that a Guelph man who installed a windmill saw his property value increase so much, the extra taxes he was told to pay nearly offset his energy savings.

I waited the legislated 30 days, then called the Ministry of Energy to find out what had happened with my request. They were working on it, I was told.

I called back periodically, always getting the same response. It seemed almost pointless after the province decided in June to change the rules, charging the tax at a lower residential rate rather than an industrial rate. But the response to my request finally came -- last week, six months after the allowed 30 days had passed.

--Some time ago, I'd requested a list of everyone who has a permits to take water in Guelph and Wellington County. (A permit is required if you're pumping more than 50,000 litres a day.) I also wanted to know how much each permit-holder was allowed to take. It seemed pertinent, given the debate over whether to renew Nestle's permit.

I got a call months ago from the Ministry of the Environment's freedom of information person. They didn't have such a list, she said. Of course, they had all the information, but it was in seperate documents and might be impossible to compile.

We discussed it a number of times as she tried to figure out how to compile the information. Finally, a couple of weeks ago, I got a letter from the ministry stating that the information didn't exist.

Frustrated, I called someone who works directly in water policy at the ministry. A few days later she confirmed that yes, she could provide me with the information -- though in a slightly different form that I'd asked for. But she wouldn't charge me for photocopies, she said, since I'd waited so long.

Watch for a story on that in the Merc in coming days.

--I'd requested communication between the city and the county regarding Wellington Terrace. The city responded saying there were 36 pages, which would cost $7.20 to photocopy -- plus a search fee of $390. I'm appealing the pricetag on this request.

I'll keep you updated on what I find out from these requests.

What others are doing

Posted by Magda
Hamilton council considers this week whether to adopt a one-garbage-bag limit in 2008. It's all part of a measure to divert 65 per cent of that city's trash from landfill -- the next step after that city opened its own composting plant last year.

I'm surprised by the number of Spectator blog readers who are in favour of this. Check out their discussion.

I'm curious what our readers think -- would such a measure be effective here? Would you be receptive to it?

What do you think?

Posted by Magda
Our blog is about to turn one month old. And, perhaps fittingly, I'm going off to web training all of next week. Presumably I'll come back full of the latest in blog ideas.

In the meantime, though, please let us know what you think of this blog. Is it useful? Interesting? How could we make it better?

If the province had guts...

Posted by Magda
Here's an interesting tidbit from a meeting of the organics selection committee this week.

Janet Laird said: "If the province had guts, they would select the best technology and tell us all to do it."

She added that the risk there is the possibility that the selected technology won't work properly.

But it's an interesting thought -- a provincial body could oversee composting around Ontario, commission building a plant for every 500,000 or so people, and pass laws that force municipalities to compost.

What do readers think? Is this too draconian? Do municipalities need the chance to figure things out for themselves? Or is it silly that each neighbouring city is figuring things out on its own, when we could all be working together?

Guelph's secret weapon

Posted by Magda
Guelph residents haven't been doing a very good job of sorting their green bags these days, but city staff expect that'll change when a compost plant is up and running again.

When the plant first opened in 1996, only about 5% of what was in the green bags shouldn't have been there, said Janet Laird, the city's director of environment.

"It's hard to ask people to sort when the facility is not open," she said. "My experience with the City of Guelph is when they know you're doing it, they'll sort."

That's good news -- teaching people to sort is one of the tricks of setting up a new compost system. It's a good sign that the city realizes the strengths it's got in a willing-to-sort population.

Look closely at companies' histories

Posted by Magda
How important is history when selecting a composting technology? That question was pondered Tuesday by the committee tasked with picking a new technology.

Some city staff suggested the companies could be relied on to provide accurately their own history -- of projects that both succeeded and failed.

I don't think that's true. I wrote a story some time ago where I included history of some of the companies applying to rebuild Guelph's composter. The information was easy to get from the ministry. But when I called one of the companies to ask about a fine they'd paid over odours, the spokesperson told me there had been no fine. He then backtracked when he realized I'd been speaking with the ministry.

I hope the city will be very hesitant about signing up with a company that built a failed facility elsewhere. And I hope city staff will dig into company histories themselves, instead of relying on the companies to be upfront.

For the record

Posted by Magda
We've never published the text of the charges before, so here goes.

Today the city pled guilty to this charge:

• Between January 14, 2005 and October 29, 2005, did commit the offence of discharging a contaminant or causing or permitting the discharge of a contaminant, namely odour into the natural environment contrary to Section 14 (1) of the EPA.

These charges against the city were dropped:

• Between January 14, 2005 and October 29, 2005, did commit the offence of failing to comply with Condition 5 (1) (a) of Provisional Certificate of Approval number A170128, by failing to operate and maintain the site in an environmentally safe manner which minimizes odours, contrary to Section186 (3) of the EPA.
• Between December 24, 2004 and July 27, 2005, did commit the offence of failing to comply with Condition 23 (1) of Provisional Certificate of Approval number A170128, by failing to maintain a written record of daily site inspections, contrary to Section 186 (3) of the EPA.
• December 21, 2004 and August 8, 2005, did commit the offence of failing to comply with term or Condition 4 of amended Certificate of Approval number 9326-5ZUN89, by failing to notify the District Manager in writing, contrary to Section 186 (3) of the EPA.
• Between May 11, 2005 and November 23, 2005, did commit the offence of failing to comply with Condition 7 (1) of Provisional Certificate of Approval number A170128, by failing to conduct daily litter pickup from the site and roads and ditches within one kilometer of the site, contrary to Section 186 (3) of the EPA.
• On May 11, 2005, did commit the offence of failing to comply with Condition 9 (2) of Provisional Certificate of Approval number A170128, by failing to ensure that the Organic Waste Processing Building and composter are maintained at a negative pressure at all times unless an emergency occurs, contrary to Section 186 (3) of the EPA.
• On or about September 7, 2005, did commit the offence of failing to comply with Condition 9 (2) of Provisional Certificate of Approval number A170128, by failing to ensure that the Organic Waste Processing Building and composter are maintained at a negative pressure at all times unless an emergency occurs, contrary to Section 186 (3) of the EPA.
• On or about December 7, 2005, did commit the offence of failing to comply with Condition 9 (2) of Provisional Certificate of Approval number A170128, by failing to ensure that the Organic Waste Processing Building and composter are maintained at a negative pressure at all times unless an emergency occurs, contrary to Section 186 (3) of the EPA.

These charges against former waste manager Cathy Smith were dropped:

• Between March 11, 2005 and March 16, 2005, did commit the offence of discharging a contaminant or causing or permitting the discharge of a contaminant, namely odour, into the natural environment contrary to Section14 (1) of the EPA.
• Between March 11, 2005 and March 16, 2005, did commit the offence of failing to comply with Condition 5 (1) (a) of Provisional Certificate of Approval Number A170128, by failing to operate and maintain the site in an environmentally friendly manner which minimizes odour contrary to Section 186 (3) of the EPA.

How soon should compost plant reopen?

Posted by Magda
There was some uncertainty Tuesday over just how fast the city should aim to rebuild its composter.

Members of the committee picking Guelph's new composting technology were working on a list of priorities they plan to use to pick the winning applicant.

When it came to rating those priorities, the consultant working with the committee put timeline as one of the least important.

Janet Laird, the city's environment director, interrupted him, saying she's not sure the current council will go for that.

 

"I think for our council, the project schedule is more important than is usually the case," she said. "But that said, we're going to be living with this for 20 or 30 years and council's reputation will be much more impacted if it fails."

There seems to be a lot of political pressure to rebuild the new plant as fast as possible. In some ways, that's good, since our organics are going to an incinerator in the interim. But some who live near the plant argue the location was a bad one to begin with, and the city should reconsider where to put the plant. That, of course, would take far longer than reopening on the current site. And the political will seems to be pushing for reopening forward as fast as possible.

Furious over fine

Posted by Magda
Susan Antler was one of the first people I called after the city accepted its $40,000 fine today for releasing odours from its composting plant.

She was furious.

Antler is president of the Composting Council of Canada, and a long-time advocate for making composting
a part of our everyday lives.

She was really angry yesterday that the province of Ontario, which she said hasn't been doing nearly enough to nurture composting, would charge Guelph after the city set the path for municipal composting across the province.

"There's definitely times when organizations stumble," she said, referring to Guelph's odour issues. "It's all very nice to go ahead and fine, but (the province) is not nurturing composting in Ontario."

Organics make up about 40 per cent of the waste stream, and so they should get about 40 per cent of the province's attention when it comes to waste, she said. Instead, the province took some pains to roll out a program earlier this year to help recycle wine and liquor bottles -- which make up about two per cent of the waste stream -- without equivalent attention on composting.

"The City of Guelph did a huge service for composting, to move it ahead across the country," she said. "The City of Guelph should be proud of what they've done and keep their chin up and realize they're moving into the next phase."

The province, on the other hand, has much to be ashamed of, she said -- not the least of which is its failed recommendation to divert 60 per cent of trash from landfill by 2008. That recommendation came in a provincial discussion paper, but was never finalized. And with 2008 rapidly approaching, it's clear that recommendation won't be met.

The only good that could come of the whole Guelph situation is if the $40,000 fine were put to good use, Antler said.

"There's no money to raise awareness of organics in the province," she said. The $40,000 provides "an opportunity to create a cohesive communication plan about value of composting."