Members of the City of Powell River’s liquid waste management joint local-technical advisory committee have asked for an apology for statements in a grant application.
The city applied for $7.2 million from the UBCM (Union of BC Municipalities) Innovations Fund for a co-treatment project, a proposal to treat the city’s sewage at Catalyst Paper Corporation’s mill site. The application indicated that the project was going to start in April 2011 and that the option was selected in consultation with stakeholders.
Clark Banks, a committee member, said at the March 15 committee meeting, that he had asked Jim Palm, committee chair, who those stakeholders were. “He said the committee,” Banks said. “There are other committee members other than myself that are upset and shocked that this could happen. What it does is reflect on us.”
Don Krompocker, another committee member, said whoever wrote the application made it sound like the committee agreed to co-treatment and that the decision had already been made. Whoever wrote the application, he added, should write to UBCM and explain that the committee did not agree to co-treatment and has not made a decision. “I really take exception to that,” he said. “Whoever wrote that owes me and everyone on this committee an apology, in my opinion, for taking those liberties.”
Ann Nelson, another committee member, said everyone who has written grant applications understands that the wording tries to make the proposal sound as strong as possible. “I understand why the game is played, but I don’t want to be part of how that game is played in a very sensitive arena like this.”
Mayor Stewart Alsgard, who chaired the meeting, asked the committee members what they wanted to do about their concerns. They indicated they wanted an explanation and for the city to write to UBCM to explain the committee had not agreed to co-treatment.
After the meeting was adjourned, Richard Stogre, the city’s manager of engineering services, said that Al Gibb, an engineer with Dayton and Knight Ltd., had written the application. The committee is expecting Gibb to address its concerns at its next meeting, which is scheduled for March 28.
Krompocker also took the opportunity to ask Sisto Bosa, an environmental protection officer with the ministry of environment who is a member of the committee and attended the meeting via Skype, if there was a deadline for completing the liquid waste management plan (LWMP). Krompocker said it seemed the city was rushing to choose either co-treatment or a consolidated stand-alone plant because “somebody is going to put the hammer to us very quickly. Is that the case?”
Bosa responded that both the city’s wastewater treatment plants are not in compliance with their permits. However, there is no deadline for when the city has to complete the LWMP. “From our perspective, those plants are still in non-compliance, we would like the plan to be completed as soon as possible, taking into consideration there is time needed for consultation with the public and first nations,” he said. “There’s nothing that says it has to be completed by a certain time.”
Presentations during the meeting included an explanation from Stogre on the proposal to separate co-treatment from consolidation and an overview of the revised public consultation plan, given by Marie Claxton, city clerk. The new draft plan includes an open house, tentatively scheduled for May 3, followed by a dialogue event on May 10. Geoff Allan, a certified professional facilitator hired by the city, is proposing to organize a World Café, which provides participants with the opportunity to share ideas, comments and concerns on the LWMP.
