The Champlain Township hosted its council meeting on September 26 and discussed the usefulness and utility of partnering with the Food Cycle Science Corporation. The partnership would include participation in the FoodCycler Program (FCP) and aim to reduce food waste in the Township through FoodCycler sales.
The FCP would include options to buy 50 of each FoodCycler units available: the FC-30 model, or the larger Eco 5 model. These models are odourless in-home food recyclers that transform household waste into compost. Both would then be made available to residents to purchase for home use, at a discounted price. For residents of the Township, the FC-30 would be priced at $150 each, and the Eco 5 model at $300 each.
Both models in this order would cost the Township approximately $35,500, with the ability to recuperate $22,500 from the sales to the public. The total deficit to the Township would be totalled at $13,000. These numbers exclude applicable taxes, and an agreement must be made by October 31 to secure these prices with the partner.
In their report to the council, Civil Engineering Technologist Benjamin Lalonde and Communications and Community Development Officer Zoe Fortin-Larocque detailed that, although the program has been implemented in nearby townships, the program was unlikely to generate the same sort of implementation in Champlain. To gauge interest in the FCP, the Township conducted a survey which resulted in a very low response rate.
The survey had a total of 136 respondents, with only 32 per cent expressing interest in buying a FoodCycler device for their home at the current price. The report therefore recommended that the Township not proceed with the FCP.
Councillor Sarah Bigelow stated her concerns during the meeting as the questions relating to the FCP were conducted alongside other municipal survey questions.
“The [FoodCycler] program deserves a survey of its own… we should give this program a fair shot,” she said. Bigelow was worried that because of the survey’s original length and the number of questions respondents had to answer, the program’s appeal may have gotten lost. As an owner of a FoodCycler herself, Bigelow referred to the use of the product significantly reducing her home’s food waste, diverting waste from landfills.
Of nearby townships that ordered the devices, Russell (250 units), East Hawkesbury (100 units), and The Nation (100 units) sold all of their ordered FoodCyclers to residents. Clarence-Rockland has sold 384 of 500 units, Casselman sold 42 of 100 units, and Hawkesbury sold 54 out of 150 units. Alfred-Plantagenet did not participate in this program.
The council then delved into an engaged and lively discussion surrounding the FCP.
Councillor Paul Burroughs questioned the feasibility of the FCP and highlighted the costs that would be added to the Township, “we’re catering to a very limited amount of people within our Township, and we are having to dish out money to do that.”
Burroughs further suggested that “those that want it, can get a hold of the machine” on their own.
Attempting to meet some sort of middle ground between the councillors and not let the FCP end before it began, Councillor Peter Barton proposed an option not listed in the original report.
“We could advertise the products and secure commitment from the community for purchase before we commit to the pilot project… I thought that this was a reasonable ‘4th’ option,” Barton suggested. There is a risk to the Township should there not be a significant amount of interested purchasers from the community, having the council “on the hook for the cost of return shipping, storage,” and so on.
Barton then closed by saying, “Hopefully we can advertise over the next month, secure commitment from purchasers and sign up for the project knowing that there is minimal financial risk while finding savings for the taxpayer.”
Council voted against Bigelow’s proposition for purchasing the FoodCyclers upfront, with Councillors Barton, Burroughs, Gerry Miner, and André Roy striking down the motion. Council then voted on Barton’s proposed option and passed, with Councillors Burroughs and Roy voting against it.
