City of Powell River Council has been criticized for the lack of a referendum question regarding liquid waste management this fall.
Ellen Gould, a member of Powell River Water Watch, said the community once again is being denied the opportunity to have input into this critical decision. Speaking at the Thursday, October 2, committee of the whole meeting, Gould said it appears that a referendum question regarding co-treatment will not be on the November civic ballot.
“When will the community get an opportunity to weigh in on this?”
Co-treatment is a proposal that would see the city’s sewage treated at Catalyst Paper Corporation’s Powell River division.
Gould said the city’s five-year financial plan states that if shared funding from other levels of government cannot be secured, “apparently you are contemplating paying the whole $10-million shot.
“You are now saying that you won’t go ahead with co-treatment without provincial or federal money,” she said. “That conflicts with what you say in your five-year financial plan.”
Gould said an open house in 2011 showed overwhelming opposition to co-treatment. “The key facts for the public to be able to make an informed decision on co-treatment are already known,” she said. “The idea that more money has to be spent exploring this option is basically not true.”
Gould said a plan for co-treatment is based on the assumption that the Catalyst mill in Powell River will remain open until 2032, a date not based on any economic assessment of the mill’s long-term viability. She said the city’s own consulting engineer has advised the mill’s facility is too expensive for the city to operate as a stand alone, assuming the city could even buy the plant if the mill went bankrupt.
“If the mill closes before 2032, Powell River will be faced with two bad options: borrow the money to cover the entire $50-million cost of a stand-alone plant or pump untreated sewage into the ocean,” Gould said. “This would be at a time when Powell River is financially stressed because of the mill closure. It could turn what would already be terrible blow to the community into a catastrophe.”
Gould asked why the city continues to throw good money after bad for co-treatment.
Councillor Jim Palm said the issue has basically been dormant, and that sentiment was heard loud and clear at Catalyst’s community stakeholder meeting on September 30. He said Sarah Barkowski, environment manager for the Powell River division, when asked the question about co-treatment, said she hasn’t been dealing with the issue.
“I don’t know how much clearer we can be, but until we find a funding source, we do not intend to borrow $10 million to pursue co-treatment,” Palm said. “We don’t have the money. It’s that simple.”
Palm said his number one priority, holding the portfolio of public works, is the replacement of the trunk line from Haslam Lake to the new holding tank at the top of the hill on the road to the lake. He said that project will cost $3 million to replace and the money will have to be borrowed.
“Secondly, we’ve already committed to the library, and if people want to pursue that we have to borrow up to $3.5 million for it to become a reality.
“We have a number of priorities that are very costly. Even though we are not compliant on the liquid waste side, our hands are tied because of a lack of funding, and we know, under no uncertain terms, we have hit the ceiling in terms of taxation increases. That is why we have frozen our capital spending for the next five years.”
Councillor Debbie Dee said she believes there is a resolution that council has passed indicating that it prefers to go through a phased, consolidated process. She said this means starting with co-treatment and then building up reserves to proceed in the future with a complete, consolidated plant. She added that in March or April this year, council was presented with a liquid waste management plan that included the primary clarifier in the Townsite.
“Council rejected that and asked staff to take the primary clarifier out of the mix and come back with other options,” she said. “That’s where it stands.”
Dee said council cannot go to referendum without a question on borrowing and a decision has not been made, so that’s why there is nothing on the November ballot.
During question period at the conclusion of the committee meeting, Liz Webster, who had been seated in the gallery, said she attended the waste water management session at Dwight Hall in 2011. She said it was well attended and well facilitated.
“The overwhelming attitude was that people were totally opposed to co-treatment,” Webster said. “I am absolutely flabbergasted that we are sitting here today in 2014 and this is actually still an issue, given that the community was so unbelievably opposed to this.”
She asked why the city is still considering co-treatment.
Mayor Dave Formosa said the reason why the city would favour treating wastewater in the mill’s facility if it is economically feasible is to save about $15 million and to go from five facilities to one. He said what is now being awaited is the cost of the conversion.
“If it doesn’t make financial sense, it’s a pretty simple one for me,” Formosa said.
In order for the city to embrace co-treatment, he said he has to be positive that the option is available. “I’m not ready to make a decision.”
Councillor Maggie Hathaway said co-treatment is a shorter-term fix. She said that over a period of time, 20 years, she thought, the city would save money and build its own treatment centre.
“It’s not a permanent solution,” Hathaway said. “I’m embarrassed that this council has spent all of this time. Sechelt elected a council, it had opposition, but now they are building a treatment plant in a very short period of time. We need to move ahead.”
