Part 1: County Explores Local Organics Processing and Farm Cost Concerns at PEC Committee - 04/15/2024
- PECConnect
- Apr 15, 2024
- 6 min read
The agenda was approved with two added items. One was an update related to the Farm Trust and any overlap with the Environmental Committee. The other was an update to the committee work plan. There were no declarations of conflict, the previous minutes were approved, and there were no announcements or public comments.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Organic Processing Feasibility Study
The main early discussion was a detailed update on an organic processing feasibility study. The goal is to reduce the cost of organics disposal because the county currently pays to collect organics and ship them out of the county for processing. The meeting focused on the idea that regulations make it hard to reduce or cut the program, so the most controllable part is disposal, not collection.
Key points discussed: The study is looking at up to five county owned properties and multiple processing technologies to find a workable combination. The aim is to produce AA quality compost, meaning a high quality product that can safely be used broadly. There was discussion about the benefit of keeping nutrients in the local cycle instead of exporting organic material out of the area.
Public consultation has already happened through three public sessions, but the feedback so far has been on the evaluation process, not on a chosen site. The committee heard that public concerns included property values, traffic, and possible impacts near candidate sites. The consultant is now evaluating sites and technology options, and a future consultation is planned once a shortlist is ready. The process also includes provincial regulatory review and licensing under an environmental compliance approval.
There was discussion about costs and potential savings. The study is meant as a cost savings measure, with a rough target of about $150,000 per year in avoided costs based on current spending, with the expectation that costs could rise over time. The study budget was described as roughly $50,000 through procurement, with a higher approved ceiling mentioned but not expected to be used. Collection is expected to stay contractor based because buying and running trucks in house would likely be too expensive and inefficient.
Questions also came up about: Whether compost would be available to the public or only farmers. The answer was that AA compost would be suitable for gardens, farms, and general use. How compost might be distributed or sold, including whether revenue could help offset costs. Whether a private business could do this instead of the municipality, and concerns about government competing with business.
The response was that no local operation appears to have the needed capacity, and the primary goal is savings, not competition. Whether existing local composting related operations might be a partner option, but no discussion has happened yet. A concern was raised about making sure future public materials clearly show where candidate sites are, since maps and references were hard to interpret.
At the end of this agenda item, the committee passed a motion to receive the update.
Funding Opportunity Discussion
The committee reviewed a new funding opportunity from Farm Credit Canada, described as a short window application program with a deadline around mid May and a possible maximum of $25,000.
The main discussion was about what the committee should do with the information. Some members felt an application needs a clear project already in progress, and the timeline is too short to invent a new project from scratch. Others felt staff may already have suitable projects and the committee should push the information to the right department quickly so staff can assess fit. There was also discussion about whether it is appropriate for a committee to point to a specific project versus simply encouraging staff to apply where eligible.
There was a related idea to notify a community group that had presented previously so they would not miss the opportunity, especially if their plans could match the funding criteria. A motion was passed to proceed to discussion, and the group generally aligned around sharing the opportunity with staff and relevant community contacts rather than locking onto one committee chosen project.
Other Updates and Items
A planned agriculture related meeting was postponed because the scheduled speaker had a medical issue, and rescheduling was mentioned for late summer.
The committee discussed a successful matching grant that will fund two approved slow moving vehicle awareness signs. The signs will be provided through an agriculture organization, and the committee agreed to ask council to support installing them. Suggested locations were mentioned in general terms, and the group agreed location would be refined through discussions with county operations and roads staff.
There was also a separate issue tied to an earlier plan where the provincial transportation ministry was expected to install signs on certain routes but it did not happen due to staff transitions. The committee agreed to push for continuing that work with the ministry.
Two motions were passed here: One to support council backing installation of the donated signs and to have designated committee members meet with operations to facilitate installation. Another to recommend council direct staff to continue previous discussions with the provincial transportation ministry about the related sign initiative.
Stormwater Charges Awareness
The meeting included an awareness discussion about stormwater management and how some municipalities have begun charging stormwater related fees that can land heavily on farmland in newly expanded urban boundaries. A specific example from another community was used to show how high the cost could become.
The group discussed that provincial policy changes have opened the door for municipalities to charge, but there is little standardization. There were mixed views on how to handle this. Some wanted to keep it as internal awareness only and avoid putting it into wider public record too early. Others felt municipalities will eventually have to deal with stormwater planning anyway, so it is worth staying alert. The group landed on a practical middle ground: be aware, watch for it locally, and discuss again only if it starts to surface as a real county issue. A motion passed to receive the discussion.
Farm Trust and Work Plan Updates
A short update was given about upcoming attendance at a Farmtech Trust related event, framed as a question and answer type session, with no further details yet. The committee received the update.
The work plan was reviewed and someone flagged that a previously noted outreach effort at agricultural fairs related to specific programs should be checked and included if it had been approved earlier. The work plan discussion was received by motion.
Next Meeting Timing and Adjournment
The scheduled next meeting date was noted as late October, but several members felt that was too long. The group agreed it would be better to hold a meeting in July, partly to prepare for fair season outreach and keep momentum. A motion passed directing staff to schedule a July meeting, with the practical approach being a scheduling poll.
The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.
Key Takeaways
The county is exploring in county organics processing to reduce disposal costs and produce AA quality compost, with public consultation continuing once a shortlist is ready.
The committee supported installing slow moving vehicle awareness signs and pushing staff to continue discussions with the provincial transportation ministry on related signage.
Stormwater charging models in other municipalities were flagged as a future risk for farmland, and the committee agreed to stay alert but not escalate it beyond awareness unless it becomes local.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:05:52. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.
Comments