Multi-unit recycling debate heats up

Proposed contract called costly

CHARLES HAMILTON A city-wide recycling program for apartments and condos is not a done deal, and some city councillors are raising serious concerns about the system proposed by Cosmo Industries.

Cosmo plans to pick up everything from paper to plastic to glass and aluminum from townhouses, condos and apartments for around $4.50 a month per unit. That is twice what some condo owners and apartment complexes are paying now for recycling services from private companies.

“We need to ask ourselves if it’s a good deal for taxpayers,” said Coun. Zach Jeffries.

Jeffries said his own research shows most condos and apartments are paying around $2 or less per month per unit for recycling from private recycling companies.

Jim Wheler, the president of a condo association in Briarwood, said his association’s current contract is significantly cheaper than Cosmo’s proposal.

“To satisfy Cosmo they are going to crush all our existing contracts,” Wheler said. “We shouldn’t be punished for being proactive.”

Jeffries said he understands that the city should be paying Cosmo more because it provides work for people with intellectual disabilities, but he said the proposed cost is just too high.

He and other councillors also said they’re uncomfortable with the 15-year term of the proposed contract, which is twice as long as the city’s current arrangement with Loraas Recycle.

“Going with Cosmo is premium price because it’s a premium service. We have to recognize that it’s going to cost more money. But is it going to cost double?” Jeffries said.

Council was divided during a heated debate at its regular meeting earlier this week, and no agreement was reached.

While some said the contract needs to be altered, others argued the city should accept the deal for the sake of the environment.

“Let’s keep our eyes on the bigger issue. Let’s get on with it. That mountain of garbage is getting bigger and bigger,” said Coun. Pat Lorje.

Lorje was the architect of the so-called “Cosmo compromise” after the singleunit dwelling contract was awarded to Loraas Recycle. That compromise led to Cosmo being guaranteed the multi-unit recycling contract, rather than opening a public bidding process.

Emotions ran high during the debate about the citywide curbside program, but Lorje said councillors who have hurt feelings should look to the future and forget the past.

“I’m just pleading with people to take a look at what we are actually debating here instead of talking about hurt feelings because Cosmo’s lobbying tactics were unpleasant last year,” Lorje said.

Coun. Darren Hill said it’s untrue to suggest that some councillors are holding a grudge.

“To say that it’s sour grapes is ridiculous,” he said.

“What you heard in chambers was that we are supporting Cosmo, but at the same time that we have to make sure we have the best program for multi-units and ensure that we are being good stewards of tax dollars.”

Hill floated the idea of simply giving Cosmo an annual operating grant instead of awarding it the recycling contract.

It’s unclear exactly how much money the city would pay Cosmo every year in subsidies and for higher costs of the recycling program.

When contacted, a representative from Cosmo refused to comment. The issue will be debated again at the next council meeting.