Powell River Regional District Board of Directors is split over whether to proceed with a regional recreation study and has referred the matter back to its committee of the whole. The motion will come full circle because the committee had previously referred it to the regional board.
At the May 28 regional board meeting, directors decided to put the brakes on endorsing the city-led study because of concerns that the City of Powell River could assume control of rural recreation facilities and functions. The majority of regional directors did not want to give sanction for the study without further information. So, a vote was held to return the matter to the committee of the whole and passed, opposed by city directors Russell Brewer and CaroleAnn Leishman, plus Merrick Anderson, Electoral Area E director from Lasqueti Island. The three wanted to see the study go ahead. With the motion passing, the committee of the whole will have a second look at the recommendation.
The recommendation from the committee to the regional board, on May 21, also passed by a split vote. The motion was that the regional recreation initiative be approved, and to be expanded with a scope of work to include all regional parks, trails, sport fields, community halls, recreational programs, Salish Centre Arts and Culture, Powell River Recreation Complex and Dwight Hall. The motion further stated city staff be authorized to take the lead role in the completion of a detailed study of the regional recreation initiative and report back to the regional district board, Tla’amin (Sliammon) Nation Council, and city council, to determine other possible amenities that could be included in this potential service initiative.
The identification of the various facilities was the concern of rural directors.
At the committee of the whole meeting, Stan Gisborne, Electoral Area B director, and Sandy McCormick, Electoral Area D director, opposed the regional recreation initiative motion going to the regional board. They brought forward a motion calling for no further action to be taken to complete an expanded regional recreation initiative study. The motion was defeated.
The committee then approved the motion that contained the recommendation for the regional board. Gisborne, McCormick and Colin Palmer, Electoral Area C director, were opposed to the regional board discussing the regional recreation initiative any further.
At the regional board meeting, prior to the vote to endorse the regional recreation study, McCormick said she understands why the city would want all of the facilities listed in the motion to be included in the study, but she was going to vote in opposition, not because she opposes the study, but she opposes the inclusion of the facilities.
“It’s fine for the city to want to find out what’s there in the hinterlands but those of us out in the hinterlands don’t necessarily want our facilities looked at,” McCormick, who represents Texada Island, said. “I’m concerned by including all of the items in this motion that there will be opposition created on the island.”
Islanders are going to see it as an attempt by the city to take that away and erode some of the island’s recreation function, she said.
Palmer said he would not be voting in favour because the whole process is bad and it’s not going to work.
“I’m going to ask the chair of the rural services committee to put this on the agenda because at least three of us out of the five have an interest in sitting down and working out what some of these issues are going to be,” Palmer said. “Then, we can report back to the board, showing this is where the electoral areas have some distinct interest in what potentially could happen.”
He said two years ago, two city directors, not the current ones, sat in the final regional district budget meeting in March prior to adoption and made financial demands of rural directors. If not met, they would not pass the vote for the budget, Palmer added. The city directors have a combined weighted vote of seven on the regional board.
“That was a seven-vote threat that caused major agony for the people at the meeting. I wasn’t there but when I heard about it I was horrified.”
Palmer’s worry is that if the recreation initiative is approved regionally, these seven votes are going to control the regional district’s taxes forever.
Al Radke, the regional district’s chief administrative officer, said the matter could not be referred to the rural services committee because it’s a regional issue, so city directors cannot be excluded. City directors do not have voting status on the rural services committee.
It was agreed the matter could be referred to the committee of the whole, however, for further study.
Prior to the vote to return the matter to the committee of the whole, Brewer said the regional district previously heard a presentation from Ray Boogaards, the city’s parks, recreation and culture director, who outlined the study.
“I’ll remind everyone that it’s just a study,” Brewer said. “Any work that would stem from this would have to come back to the board regardless. This is just giving approval to undertake a study.”
After the board agreed to return the recommendation to the committee, McCormick said she would like to hear from Boogaards again at the committee of the whole about what’s going to be perceived as an attempt by the city to take the rural facilities and do what they want with them.
