qathet Regional District’s committee of the whole is supportive of maintaining the status quo at Texada Island’s metal transfer station and allowing continued access by not erecting complete fencing around the facility.
At the committee’s June 11 meeting, directors deliberated on a staff report, which sought direction on whether to put fencing, estimated to cost $30,000, around the facility.
Electoral Area D director and committee chair Sandy McCormick said erecting fencing at the site would have an impact. She said the Texada metal transfer station is called “the mall” by Texada Island residents.
McCormick said the regional district conducted a public meeting and a survey on Texada regarding this site, which she referred to as lot six.
“It was really loud and clear with 385 responses – that is more than one-third of our population,” she added. “That number is huge. What they said was loud and clear.”
McCormick said 375 of 385 respondents want to continue with the current usage of the site.
“Fencing would not allow that to happen, to the detriment of the public and the environment,” said McCormick. “Fencing is not required. In all of the years of operation I’ve never known of an issue from an injury or anything like that.
“Also, the $30,000 cost for the fencing is part of the waste management budget, so it’s not paid for just by the folks in Area D, it’s paid for by all of you and all your constituents as part of the waste management service.”
McCormick said as it is, the current use of lot six is to deposit waste metal, including cars, lawnmowers, appliances, bicycles, et cetera. She said it prevents illegal dumping in the forest and keeps the items out of the landfill.
People not only leave items, but pick up items for repurposing, said McCormick.
“It’s an incredibly valuable resource,” she said.
Fencing would further restrict access to the site, said McCormick, against the wishes of people from Texada, who want to maintain current uses.
“Lot six is Texada’s hardware store; if it was fully fenced, access to this valuable community resource would be denied because people couldn’t get in,” said McCormick. “Fencing would punish people who are doing the right thing. That is the wrong message for us to be sending to the public.”
City director George Doubt said the committee was dealing with two issues. One was to spend $30,000 on fencing, and the site is already partially fenced. He said he had read through information from the Municipal Insurance Association (MIA) and the association seems to be very careful about what it says.
Doubt said the MIA stated it was not a requirement, but if the site was fully fenced, MIA would see this as the qRD taking all measures to lower exposure and keep people safe.
“What they don’t say is what they would think about the regional district’s liability if it was only partially fenced or not fenced at all,” said Doubt. “I’m not sure what the MIA would think about our liability situation if we decide we are willing to accept the risk. I’m not sure the MIA is saying they will accept the risk.
“If somebody has an accident and sues the regional district, and their lawyer says ‘you should have fenced it off,’ is the MIA going to cover that liability?”
Electoral Area E director Andrew Fall said fencing is recommended by a number of organizations but it is not a requirement. He said in a recent survey, residents made it clear the preferred option was to leave the situation as it is, which would mean continued access.
“Given the role of the regional district is to provide services residents and taxpayers desire, I believe we should hold off for now for replacing and expanding the fence,” said Fall.
Electoral Area A director Patrick Brabazon said he was concerned about the liability issue.
“We should move very carefully,” he said. “There has never been a problem before but we don’t know, and we’re not going to know what our liability is until an issue actually arises. Out of respect for taxpayers of the whole regional district, not just Texada Island, we should tread very carefully.
Electoral Area B director Mark Gisborne said there is an issue of concern with liability but the property in question is a great place for the community to share in the recycling process.
“I’m completely in favour of not putting the fence up,” said Gisborne. “It would allow the public to continue to access the site. We should consider something similar at our resource-recovery centre.”
The committee carried a motion that it recommend the board receive the information from the ministries and agencies associated with the Texada metal transfer station lease renewal, management plan and site operations detailed in a staff report.
Regarding a second recommendation that the committee recommend the board provide staff with definitive direction on fencing the Texada metal transfer station in its entirety, Gisborne said he wanted to make a motion that the committee recommend the board advise staff not to fence the Texada metal transfer station in its entirety.
Doubt said his opinion was that the liability issue is an important one.
“All you need is one serious liability claim that is not covered by insurance to have a significant impact on the regional district’s finances and every taxpayer in the regional district,” said Doubt. “I don’t think we should make a decision like that until we have more information on what liability the regional district has and whether the liability would be covered by the MIA.”
Doubt proposed a motion to postpone Gisborne’s motion until after the regional district had heard back from the MIA. The motion to postpone failed.
The board carried a motion that the committee recommend the board advise staff not to fence the Texada metal transfer station in its entirety.
