The Strathcona Regional District’s board of directors split into two camps on Wednesday, with electoral area directors on one side and municipal representatives on the other.
A contentious issue – one in which electoral directors believed they would be dragged against their will into paying for a service they have no interest in – had directors facing off against one another.
The problem began after Area D Director Brenda Leigh said she had no interest in establishing a service in which all regions within the regional district would have to participate and pay for feasibility studies on things like tourism or economic development functions, even if the study had nothing to do with a particular area.
“I do have a big problem being forced into any feasibility studies that Area D has no interest in and if the board can force that, then Area D is not going to support this bylaw,” Leigh said.
Campbell River Director Andy Adams said his understanding, however, was that the new bylaw did the exact opposite.
“If I’m reading this correctly, it’s saying in that section that if you’re in, you pick up the cost. If you’re not, you don’t,” Adams said.
Tom Yates, the regional district’s corporate services manager, clarified that was “exactly” what the section said.
“The bylaw speaks to cost recovery, the bylaw says that areas that do not participate in the study are exempt from paying for a study,” Yates said, but added that, “Whether or not areas participate in a study is a matter for the board to decide in each and every case.”
That was cause for concern for Area A Director Gerald Whalley who interpreted that to mean that municipal directors, of which there are nine who sit on the board, could force the four electoral area directors into a study they don’t want anything to do with.
“This is electoral areas against municipalities,” Whalley said. “Unfortunately, this is the way it always turns out. We’re outnumbered on this but you can see the four electoral areas are all opposed. You’re going to drag us into this, this doesn’t help.”
But Campbell River Director Larry Samson said the new bylaw would prevent that very thing from happening.
“My understanding from Mr. Yates is that if we don’t have the bylaw, you are dragged into it,” he said. “So without this bylaw, you are paying whether you like it or not, at the board’s discretion.”
Yates confirmed that.
“Those areas that do not participate in the study will not be responsible for sharing in the cost of that study if this bylaw passes,” he said. “If it doesn’t pass, then the board falls back to the old bylaw from 1969 that says all areas participate in all studies and all participate in cost sharing.”
But Whalley said that wasn’t entirely the point.
“The point that is the real sticker for electoral areas is not the apportion of costs, it’s that the majority vote of the board will determine whether we participate or not and because we’re always outnumbered, if you guys want us to participate in something we don’t care about, you just vote and we have no say,” he said. “And that’s why we’re so opposed.”
Adams took exception to that.
“It’s unfortunate when electoral areas try to make this an electoral area versus municipal issue,” Adams said. “I think Mr. Yates has clearly identified this is to ensure that the areas paying are the ones who are interested.”
Leigh said she still had no interest in the function and said it was tearing the board apart.
“This is totally unnecessary and divisive of our board,” Leigh said. “I think we should just make this go away and operate the way we always have.”
The board in the end, however, pushed the bylaw through first three readings with directors Leigh, Whalley, and Area B Alternate Director Mary Lavelle and Area C Alternate Director Dan MacKenzie opposed. But before directors were about to vote on the final piece of the bylaw, Campbell River Director Ron Kerr spoke up.
“I have a concern with jamming this through. I think the two sides right now are seeing something different,” Kerr said. “I think before the final step there needs to be some clarity to this. We need a little bit more time to clarify this rather than just going over the cliff. There are too many question marks floating around.”
The rest of the board, with the exception of Director Samson, agreed and asked regional district staff to prepare another report clarifying the points brought up by directors.
Once the report is received, the next step to pushing the bylaw through is to obtain approval from voters.
The board is considering doing that by having municipalities approve resolutions through their respective councils and electoral areas by signing a consent form on behalf of their constituents.
