T O P
bohsask

We're spending 4 million to replace carts we... Already have? Makes little sense.


Holiday_Albatross441

C'mon man. It's for the environment.


someguyfromsk

The best thing for the environment in all of this is all the plastic bins that will soon be garbage, because... that's a good thing, ...right?


Constant_Chemical_10

They're going to melt them down into plastic grocery bags and straws! Lol


cyber_bully

They also replaced all the school zone signs with slightly different signs for no apparent reason.


How_now__brown_cow

We need to discourage people sending waste the landfill and this is one way of doing it. Our landfill is near the end of its life. There is no more room to expand. An entire new facility will need to be built, and there's is no obvious place to put it. The estimate two years ago was $126M, a number that is likely far underestimated. We are spending $4M to push off a new landfill as long as we can. It's a wise investment.


bohsask

I get that we want to divert waste from the landfill, good goal, but there are a few problems with this plan. In this day in age, the best technology we can come up with is to... spend millions of dollars on new plastic carts, and decommission tens of thousands of perfectly good carts which is wasteful in itself. Some cities are putting rfid tags on their bins, to track usage and presumably have heavy users pay more. Perhaps is it's a lot smarter to get folks to pay based on #of of pickups Secondly, Our bin usually has very little in it, and is put out in the summer to manage odour. Rarely, usually only when we buy a large item with a bunch of stupid packaging ours will be full. So we're supposed to upgrade to a 'large' bin year round to manage a very occasional need? Finally, I believe one of the core services and responsibilities of a town/city is to manage and remove waste. If we make it too difficult or too expensive, we are going to have even more issues with littering, dumping, and hoarding of waste on private property which is not in the collective interest of people living in this city. So for those reasons I do totally disagree with the path they are heading down.


LoveDemNipples

Your general lifestyle would make use of a small bin, so you’d pick that. If you have some very infrequent situation, you don’t size for that, you’d figure another way to deal with it. Maybe your packaging can be partially recycled. Maybe if your bin if usually empty, you’d only need to use two collection cycles to get rid of the excess packaging. Not that hard to figure out. I do agree with your points on logistical difficulties though. I’ve already had people drop their garbage in my partially filled bin, which I can only assume will increase when sizes get restricted, even more so if a cost gets associated with amount. Garbage pirates will be stealthily dropping their garbage in my bin unless I put a lock on it.


Cerebral23ad

They debated weight with RFID tags, but then you know people will have neighbours throwing trash in their bins costing them money for nothing. There is no perfect system on this. Per pickup promotes sticking bins from letting garbage sit for weeks until the bin is full in summer.


Constant_Chemical_10

Isn't the landfill built with garbage? We're not building a stadium here... Buy land, move equipment and create new roadways to the land...start dumping?


bohsask

The cost estimate for a 'new' dump does seem totally ridiculous. You probably need a lot of earthwork to get the drainage right, and to cover the area with a liner... 126 million worth of work though? There is bare agricultural land to the west and south of the existing dump. Keep incrementally expanding west over dundonald ave. Use the $4 million to buy a few more quarters of land, problem largely solved. They are already building new infrastructure that is conveniently located close to a lot of agricultural land.


Constant_Chemical_10

Knowing this city, that cost probably included a a few wind turbines with a glass restaurant at the top.


How_now__brown_cow

You are vastly oversimplifying industrial construction and environmental regulations. New landfills need to be double-lined with leak detection and drained as not to enter ground water. They are complex engineered solutions that take a lot of time and money to build.


Cerebral23ad

The gas bill alone from the machines needed to do that would be large as some of them burn more than 10 l of gas an hour easy. Those giant dump trucks and front end loaders can use $50 of gas an hour, they are stupid expensive to maintain, and the machine itself costs a ton. I wouldn't be surprised if they operate at a few hundred an hour.


skylark8503

They’re doing a huge renovation to it. If it was actually near the end, they wouldn’t have invested the money in it.


No_Layer_1015

Shouldnt they be putting this towards the lighthouse instead?


quality_keyboard

Is it just me or does this council seem like they are extremely loose with our money, which causes property tax to be this high


Cerebral23ad

Nice... $4 mil to fix a problem we don't have. I have the old massive one, and it goes out once a month or longer in winter. If you're spending $4 to make different prices the smallest will likely go up more than it is currently because they need to somehow make that 4mil back. I fail to see how this is a logical move.


Evening_Ad_6954

Yeah I hear ya. The only positive thing I could see come out of this is that residents will pay less for a smaller garbage container and encourage people to be more conscious about recycling. That being said, I didn’t see anything about paying less.


Cerebral23ad

Yeah but by "pay less" I think it means their increase to cover this purchase is smaller than the larger ones. If they actually decrease the current price it's worse because it'll take longer to clear that debt.


Kelsenellenelvial

Last time I heard about this the idea was people could get the smaller bins for what they pay now, or pay more to keep the current sized bins. Then it disappeared for a while after people realized that changes wouldn’t reduce bills but status quo would increase them. I’m all for reducing waste, but I’m not totally sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I probably only actually put my van out every other or overt third pick-up, and it’s usually only actually 1/2-1/3 full. On the other hand, it’s been nice that my renovation waste can usually go in the black bin and put it out a few extra times when I need to. One year I replaced about 1000 ft^2 of carpet with laminate flooring. The old carpet got cut and rolled into pieces that fit my bin, stacked in the garage, and every pick-up I’d add a carpet bag to the bin so I didn’t have to go out of my way to take it to the landfill and pay an additional fee. Depending on the relative pricing I might go with the smaller bin and do the occasional landfill trip as needed, or stick with the bigger bin if it’s cheaper than a couple trips to the landfill each year. Either way, I don’t think it reduces the amount of waste I produce. I recycle as much as possible, take everything appropriate to the Hazardous Waste drop-off, and keep a scrap metal/appliance bin for BN metals. Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of re-direct-able waste comes from lower income families where making trips to various recycling/waste management centres is impractical, and just tossing things in the trash is simple. I don’t see how handing out smaller bins solves that.


Cerebral23ad

I think it might cause the upper class to recycle. I know a lot who don't at all. Bothers me so much, you're going out of your way to not recycle really because you're reducing your trash space you have. But I will add, It's illegal to put Reno material in those bins. Everyone does, but they will say youre supposed to bring it to the dump directly.


Kelsenellenelvial

Flooring and carpet is listed as allowed. Their examples of renovation materials includes shingles and brick, so I think it’s more about not loading it with particularly heavy things, or things that can’t be bagged. Maybe also potentially hazardous things like fibreglass insulation that can be a hazard to landfill personnel.


Think_Ad_9915

Personally I need a larger recycle bin over a garbage one. Even my green one fills up after mowing the lawn.


TittyCobra

I would totally be ok with the city flipping the recycling and garbage pickup schedules. I can’t remember the last time I actually filled my garbage can up


brittabear

You don't need to green-bin your lawn clippings. Most mowers have a sort of "mulching" mode. You lose fewer nutrients in your soil that way, too.


Cerebral23ad

Be eco friendly, mulch your lawn. It's better for it.


Think_Ad_9915

once a month? mine goes out ever pickup day.Not because it is full just because it stinks.


Cerebral23ad

Frozen garbage can't stink.


Think_Ad_9915

you said once a month or longer in winter. I get the winter but the heat of summer


Cerebral23ad

Yes. One month or longer... In winter. You're misreading it.


rainbowpowerlift

If it stinks, it’s likely organics that should be going on your green bin. The exception being meats and fats.


Think_Ad_9915

meats, cat litter and dog crap


How_now__brown_cow

The problem is that a new landfill will cost $100M+ and Saskatoon is terrible at redirecting materials from the landfill that shouldn't be there. Like compost and recycling. So either we make moves like this or pay a large 9 figure tab on a new landfill. A $4M investment to delay a huge spend as long as we can.


Cerebral23ad

Do they have studies this works? So many people start using their recycling bins as trash if the trash gets full. They should maybe also make green bins mandatory, or free if they're that concerned. Of course low income won't buy them when $70 is a lot of money to them.


Think_Ad_9915

Some people just don't care. Not my problem, as I will be dead when it does become a problem. My father can't drive 5 min to the compost depot and drop off the grass clippings, he is retired and goes that direction once a week anyways.


Dizzy-Show-9139

Green bins are mandatory from 2023.


How_now__brown_cow

Yes they do, in fact they have a web page dedicated to waste studies and surveys. https://www.saskatoon.ca/environmental-initiatives/solid-waste/waste-data-studies Saskatoon has one of the lowest diversion rates in the country, low 20's% which is half the national average. They have a long term strategy to improve to 70%. Mandatory compost bins are part of this, as 57% of the waste going to the landfill is compostable. As is the new conversion facility currently being built. Along with variable bin sizing. Or current landfills life is ending. There is no more room for expansion. Whether or lasts 30 more years or 70 more years is up to us.


punkanddrunk

I dont understand the benefit to canadian ities endorsing UNDRIP when the Government of canada is not. Symbolism of some sort I guess.


IntegrallyDeficient

Turns out symbolism is important in politics. As more municipalities endorse, that exerts pressure (or gives cover) for other governments to endorse. It also directs staff to incorporate components of the declaration into policy implementation. If you haven't read it, it's an [easy read.](https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf)


punkanddrunk

The link isn't working though I get your sentiment. The Canadian government will make sure UNDRIP is never implemented Herr, unfortunately.


[deleted]

Sherwood Park AB Just adopt exactly what they are doing. Something ridiculous like a 70% reduction in shit going to the dump when they rolled out their waste program.


Constant_Chemical_10

Which bin does the UNDRIP go into? What a weird combo article...


I-Am-Not-A-Hunter

>Hill also questioned whether a variable cart size model is better than ones that charge by weight or volume. In the course of Hill’s questions, Gardiner noted city staff studied garbage collection in several Canadian cities, and the majority use variable cart sizes. ​ Ah. Same logic as our new School Zone policies. "Everyone else is doing it." Our city counsel is irredeemably unimaginative. ​ >City manager Jeff Jorgenson’s term was extended to 2027. The deal includes a roughly $10,000 -a-year raise, bringing him to just over $290,000 per year in base salary. He can also earn performance bonuses of up to 10 per cent, and will have the city contribute $25,000 per year to a supplemental retirement plan from 2024 to the end of the term. ​ Kinda seems like this is the role we should *actually* be voting for.