Staff:
- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation
- Introduced the presentation and Cynthia Coates, RDCO
Information gathering presentation for RDCO.
- Continued with the PowerPoint Presentation - COK Context Approximately 45000 tonnes of organics be handled at the landfill currently.
- Glengrow are managed with minimal nuisance complaints - do well food waste would be added to Glengrow production.
- Spoke to Waste Collection Impacts and identified benefits and challenges/gaps.
- Spoke to Landfill impacts - spoke to benefits and challenges, lower methane from the service, revenue per cubic meter would lower - solid program moving forward.
- Spoke to Glengrow Composting Impacts and noted benefits and challenges - would lose half of glengrow stocks.
- Responded to questions from Council.
Capital investment in methane capture system does it undermine investment there? Yes less landfill gas to be captured would take a few years. there would be decrease in revenue over time but unable to quantify that at this time. increase to consumer would have negative impact on landfill operation. Not a significant decrease but a decrease. Loss of Glengrow does help offset rates we charge at landfill due to the sales.
Still not dealing with Strata - Cynthia - single family is an easy low hanging fruit, challenge with multi family, it is managed by the private sector, difficulties with working with that sector, maybe opportunities.
Cynthia Coates, Supervisor Solid Waste Services:
- Continued displaying the PowerPoint Presentation.
- Provided an overview regrading curbside food waste collection.
- Discussed the Timeline of the Plan of Organics - Strategic Priorities for RDCO?
- Spoke to Regional engagement results and community specific results.
– implement a curbside organics (food waste) program; Food waste diversion is a key tool to assist communities to meet climate action targets
- Spoke to Single family curbside collection -
- Spoke to Feasibility Study and looked at 4 possible options to collect from residents, various parameter financial environmental social and risk. - looked at 4th cart, Co-mingled option rose to the top and that is the one we began engagement on.
- First Phase of engagement, asked if public interested in food waste collection, 30% response rate,
- First phase 73% supported a food waste program.
- First phase key themes noted, support concerns regarding costs, nuisances, wildlife and odour. Scheduling component.
- second phase engagement - tried to fine tune it, curbside system we would need transfer station, frequency of collection would need to be determined, 4200 filled out survey, 76% for curbside program.
- Bir weekly garbage was 70%, only 49% are willing to pay certain amount. For transfer stations residents wanted costs to be considered.
Spoke to Kelowna Results 2466 - largest concerns in Kelowna was rats.
overall between the 2 phases, similar themes between engagements, costs, wildlife and bi-weekly collection
Spoke to next steps to determine what final costs will be.
Preliminary service model looking at curbside collection would need at least one transfer station.
- Looking for feedback and comments from Council.
- Residents are showing a desire to divert food waste from landfill.
- Commented on four options on how food waste could be managed in the future.
- Responded to questions from Council.
[food waste is going to the curb now but just going into a different bin]
- Raised concern regarding costs - an extra $66.00 to $90 per year per household
- Raised concerns with attracting rats and animals -
- 63,000 homes on curb side collection - not all have has yard waste carts like strata (unsure how to deal with strata complexes)
guests departed at 8:57
the meeting recessed at 857