59 Carden St.

Commenting problems fixed

Posted by Magda
Typepad, which services our blogs, writes today that its spam filter was indeed overaggressive yestserday and should be fixed now.

If you still have trouble commenting, please let me know.

Commenting broken

Posted by Magda
There's something wrong with the comment function on our blogs. So, if you have something to say, please hold onto it! Our tech people are trying to sort the problem out as we speak.

Update: several people (myself included) are having this problem. I've notified Typepad, which provides our blog service. In the meantime, comments that the program considers to be spam do get saved, and I'm able to go in and publish them. So feel free to keep commenting -- I'll watch the spam lineup and try to publish comments that get trapped there.

Glass recycling costs

Posted by Magda
Technical difficulties have been resolved. I've now posted the costs for the fix to the city's glass recycling system, approved by councillors yesterday.

A city divided?

Posted by Magda
South-end residents have long said they pay the most in taxes and get the least services in exchange.

At council yesterday, staff said the tax rate is the same across the city.

But Councillor Karl Wettstein argued that homes in the south end are worth more than homes elsewhere in the city. So while all residents pay the same percentage in taxes, the south end contributes more to the pot, he said.

"Whether you like it or not, taxes on homes in some parts of the city are higher than in others," Wettstein said. "That has divided the city. And, the part with higher taxes has no services."

This surprised me. All areas of the city should have services -- I think most people agree with that. But I'm not sure the level of tax paid should impact that in any way.

The cart before the horse

Posted by Magda
I did a bit of a double-take yesterday at council during a discussion about the south-end recreation centre. The discussion had eerie echoes of another I've had recently.

South end residents came to the meeting to urge council to go ahead with a feasibility study for the proposed south-end recreation centre. Some councillors were opposed, because the city is also preparing to do a master planning process for all recreation facilities. Councillor Gloria Kovach argued the master plan needed to happen before the detailed planning for the rec centre.

"I can't support the motion (to go ahead with the study in 2008) as it stands because its counterproductive. It's putting the cart before the horse," she said.

Allow me to take you back less than two months.

"I'm concerned that it appears to me that they're getting the cart before the horse," former councillor David Birtwistle said regarding a discussion about composting technologies that could be used in Guelph. "There's a waste management study going on, so what is the big rush to have a look at these technologies?"

It's sometimes necessary to make sure a government isn't so mired in studies that nothing goes ahead. But it's also possible to forge ahead in a piecemeal way, without looking at the big picture. I'm not sure which is happening here, but the similarities are interesting.

(Incidentally, council approved the south-end rec centre study to go ahead before the master planning, and they seem to be on track to pick a compost technology before that master planning process is done.)

About those numbers...

Posted by Magda
With some help from waste staff, I've got a better understanding of those glass recycling costs now. What it comes down to is that it's cheaper to send glass to recycling than to landfill. That means that in the long run, it's cheaper to buy a fix to the glass recycling problem -- even a million-dollar one.

There's additional savings, too, from not having to ship bins of glass from the recycling plant to the transfer station -- that costs about $62,400 a year -- and extra income from processing more recyclables, which can then be sold.

(There's still a small piece I don't quite get -- city staff figure the system will pay itself back in seven years, but my calculations show it's eleven. Hopefully I can sort that out with them soon.)

I'm suffering from some technical difficulties on this end, but I'll post the detailed cost breakdown later this afternoon.

An expensive holiday

Dalton McGuinty’s new Family Day will cost the city $233,000 in wages, councillors heard. That represents one day of salaries for staff who would be eligible to take the day off.

Councillor Leanne Piper expressed concern over the effect that would have on Heritage day, which is the third Monday in February — just like Family Day.

The city has long held heritage presentations in shopping malls and organized special events at the museum on that day, she said. The city can require some employees to work that day so those programs continue, staff said.

Our green city

Posted by Magda
A local environmental program could save the city one megawatt of energy, 1,700 tonnes of coal, 1,500 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and $1.5 million in energy costs over five years, council heard tonight.

Project Porchlight has handed out 30,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs to Guelph homes, and was reporting back to council on the savings that installing all those bulbs would bring.

But it wasn't the only wildly successful environmental program council heard about today.

Green Impact Guelph is also distributing energy-saving kits, and has spun a $50,000 provincial grant to do so into a project worth $600,000 in money and in-kind donations. Plus, they've been hearing from homeowners eager to get the kits and who have installed the items, which include a low-flow showerhead and insulation for piping.

Cutting energy use is an individual thing, but these organizations are helping Guelph residents push the envelope a bit.

After a few glitches...

Posted by Magda
Electronic voting worked smoothly at council today. It was introduced a meeting or two ago. Initially, some councillors had a hard time registering their votes, and some audience members -- especially those watching on television -- had to squint to see who voted how.

Today, there were no issues, and it was very clear how the votes came down -- a big boost to council transparency.

Something doesn't add up

Posted by Magda
Details of the city's glass recycling system don't seem to add up. But council passed the proposal anyway.

The city's been sending glass to landfill for three years as staff tried to work out a way to separate bits of broken glass from pieces of paper and broken plates. A recommendation was to come to a committee last week -- which is the normal procedure. But without warning, it was pulled from the committee agenda in the middle of that meeting and referred directly to council.

Items that come to council normally appear in the council package, which is available the previous week. The glass recycling recommendation wasn't in the package. I made some calls to find out why, but they weren't returned. I assumed that it wasn't going ahead.

Then, at council tonight, an amended agenda included the glass recommendation. But the costs didn't seem to add up. Councillor Christine Billings questioned waste manager Dean Wyman, but didn't get an answer that satisfied her. “I think I’m going to give up with the numbers,” she said eventually.

But the problem troubles me. Wyman says the system will pay itself back within seven years, but my close reading of the numbers doesn't suggest that at all. The city needs to recycle glass -- it's required to by the province, and it's simply the right thing to do. But it's troubling that this proposal was accepted without a clear understanding of how much it's going to cost.

Read more about this in tomorrow's Mercury. I'm also talking to Wyman in the morning. Watch this space for more information about glass recycling costs.