Skip to content

Council votes no on ballot question

Mayor Stewart Alsgard stands alone in seeking elector assent for co-treatment

by Laura Walz editor@prpeak.com Powell River voters will not be marking their ballots this November in response to a question about co-treatment. A majority of City of Powell River councillors passed a motion at the October 21 council meeting to take no further action on public consultation or a referendum question regarding liquid waste management plan treatment options until the city receives word on its funding application for joint treatment.

Earlier in the day at the committee-of-the-whole meeting, Stan Westby, chief administrative officer, reported he had been told by a UBCM (Union of BC Municipalities) representative that funding announcements for the Innovations fund were not expected until after the November 19 civic elections. The city had applied for funds to enable co-treating its sewage at Catalyst Paper Corporation’s Powell River mill.

Mayor Stewart Alsgard had proposed that a question about co-treatment be added to the civic election ballot. A staff report provided a summary of events and legal requirements and recommended against the mayor’s proposal.

Councillor Jim Palm, who made the motion at the council meeting, said adding a question to the ballot would be premature. “Why would you take something to the public when you do not have the answers, in order to have that discussion with the public?” he asked.

Councillor Aaron Pinch, who seconded the motion, said to him the most crucial point was the funding. “If we don’t have the money, I don’t see how co-treatment would happen,” he said.

Councillor Dave Formosa said he had no problem with a referendum. “I would just like to have the public and myself and council have the opportunity to have all the information they need to make an informed decision, as to what it is we’re going to build and how much it’s going to cost,” he said. “We need the information and to rush it I don’t think is the right thing to do.” Formosa also said he would like to see other questions on a referendum ballot, for instance about a new library and fire hall.

Councillor Maggie Hathaway pointed out that the options for questions are meaningless without dollars attached. “I agonized over the question and at this point, I just don’t think we have enough information to pose the question to the people.”

Councillor Chris McNaughton said he agreed a referendum question for the civic election would be premature and the city may be required to seek elector assent if and when an agreement with Catalyst is finalized. “It’s better to go to the community once, to do it respectfully and responsibly and have all the information,” he said. “At that point, the community will be able to make an informed decision.”

Alsgard was the only member of council who voted in opposition to the motion. He also attempted to bring forward his motion for a referendum question for reconsideration, but no one seconded the motion to reconsider.

During question period, Alsgard said he believed this was the right time to seek elector assent for co-treatment. “It’s not a matter so much of whether the funding is there or isn’t there,” he said. “It’s a question of how do people feel and what opportunities should they be given to take a look at the concept of a partnering agreement.”

The question would “simply say, here’s a concept,” Alsgard added, “and how do you feel about that concept. This was giving people the right to express their view and I believe in this instance that opportunity has been denied.”

George Orchiston, a concerned citizen, said he believes council’s decisions regarding Alsgard’s motion are invalid and violated both council’s procedural bylaw and the Community Charter. He has written a letter to the city listing his objections and interested readers can view it here.