Rossland or Greater Trail? Amalgamation options confuse and consternate

By Andrew Zwicker

Signs reading 'Welcome to Greater Trail' could be something residents and visitors driving into the area now called 'Rossland' see one day. Amalgamation of various forms and functions in and around the Greater Trail or Lower Columbia region has been an issue that has popped up over the years but has never fully gained traction. The issue has been back on the table recently with a concerted effort to get the province to agree on carrying out a governance study on the area, with one possible result being the amalgamation of the eight jurisdictions that currently govern the 20,000 people who live in the area.

Recently at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) conference, local elected officials met with Bill Bennett, the Minister of Community and Rural Development – the man who would be responsible for commissioning such a study. At that meeting our politicians presented their case in the hopes of initiating a governance study for the 'Greater Trail' area. It was believed at that time by most that they all wanted the study; however certain actions since then have shown that not all municipalities involved are so keen on the idea.

“At that point we thought all communities were on board with doing one study for the entire region,” noted Rossland Mayor Greg Granstrom. “We were mistaken, obviously, and are aware now that certain jurisdictions did not want to take part. We found ourselves a bit dumbfounded and with a bit of correspondence found that perhaps we weren’t informed correctly. I guess that is the polite way of saying it.” 

Recently, Rossland council – along with the other councils – received word from the Ministry that the study would not be moving forward unless all municipalities involved were fully on board. Shocked Rossland councillors had believed a consensus had been reached and had been wondering who had been holding the process up.

This week, the Rossland Telegraph contacted all of the area mayors and elector area directors (apart from Montrose who we were unable to get in touch with by press time) to get their thoughts on where the study and potential amalgamation stands now.

Part of the issue behind the confusion is that the province has said they only have funds to carry out one governance study and will only move ahead on it if all municipalities are completely on board with the idea. Apart from an entire lower Columbia region study there has been parallel talk of a second or alternate study to potentially amalgamate the Beaver Valley (incorporating Fruitvale, Montrose and electoral Area A). The province has essentially said that we must choose one study or the other and perhaps neither unless everyone can agree on it.

Just who was holding out on going ahead with the study? The answer was not entirely clear. However, following our telephone survey, one option going forward emerged as the clear favourite.

Marie Christensen, director of Electoral Area B, explained that the misconception that all jurisdictions were on board at the UBCM was the beginning of the confusion. 

“At the UBCM, that’s where it all went wrong. Area B was not on board, and I made that very clear but maybe they all didn’t hear it. Area B at this stage would love to just stay alone by ourselves. We do not want to amalgamate.”

Explaining further, Christensen cited an inability for the various jurisdictions to get along as one reason why they are not interested in amalgamating.
“We can’t see any benefits at all for Area B until we see some movement. We need to learn to get along a lot better before we take that next giant step. If we’re not getting along now, what makes people think we’ll get along if we amalgamate? It will become that much more Trail-centric. It will be totally controlled by Trail, no matter what they say now. You’d have a person sitting on the board from Area B but what good is that going to do its all one municipality. It’s one vote against everyone else.” 

Some feel that the shining example of local acrimony in the past two years has been the ongoing recreation saga.

“It was most unfortunate that recreation came up when it did and maybe it was symbolic on how some people were feeling at that time,” added Fruitvale mayor Libby Nelson. “Given that, maybe it was the right time to derail the (amalgamation) process. That whole system was really interfering with the progress that we were making.”

With only a limited amount of money from the province for one study, Ali Grieve of Area A sees recreation as a black mark on our area’s record in the province’s eyes.

“I agree that if we’re not able to perform recreation together how would the government see us? They may be thinking, 'Oh you can’t even do that together but you think you can do this?'. Why would the province want to put any money into that study? I don’t think it gives the province much hope that the study would result in a successful amalgamation.”

Similar sentiments were echoed by all of the municipalities contacted apart from Trail. Mayor Dieter Boggs sees it a bit differently. “My perspective is that the recreation issue should actually support amalgamation. We should say, 'hey, let’s get out of this kind of situation we’re in now by having just one municipality'. That would really solve it. What we went through on recreation, if anything, should cause people to look at it with a greater perspective rather than a divided perspective.” 

Mayor Granstrom sees the main problems behind the current lack of cooperation as narrow-mindedness on the part of some jurisdictions. “One of the things that has to happen – and I do see some positive change happening – is that we have to lose the parochialism. We have to lose that. I don’t know how you do it. I know that our councillors have bent over backwards in this current sewer review study and the recreation discussions. We put forward what we felt were positive discussion and options so that we could move forward, and they’ve met with some resistance from Trail and I sometimes don’t understand why.”

Without the consensus required by the province, the second option of perhaps starting with the three Beaver Valley councils has since emerged as the majority option of choice.

Grieve thinks starting small might be the trigger to ultimately getting the whole process going. “This has been talked about for so many years and it never seems to get off the ground and maybe that’s because no one has been prepared to take the big leap. If that’s the reason, then maybe we should start taking some baby steps rather than the big leap all at once. Have some small successes and work towards the big plan.”

At this stage all of the municipalities contacted agreed that perhaps the study that they can all get behind right now would be a governance study on amalgamating the Beaver Valley communities. Trail has not supported this option in the past; however, the issue is coming before Trail council on Monday the 21st.

“Area A has been working very closely with Fruitvale and Montrose on a number of projects in recent years and we would all support just the one Beaver valley study,” explained Grieve. “To us it only makes sense to put some money where the study has a higher rate of working out. As a first step that’s how we see it working. I don’t think the people of the Beaver Valley are ready for that bigger 'Greater Trail' step at this time.”

If an amalgamation were to happen in Beaver Valley that would reduce the number of local governments at play in the area but Mayor Boggs sees that as an unnecessary step that would not help to solve the current issues.

“In Greater Trail we’re less than 20,000 people and it’s a fairly compact area, so why would we start out with going from seven to five governments? Why not go from seven to one? If there are going to be some savings in a reorganization of the political spectrum, then why not study doing the whole thing at once? From my perspective that option doesn’t make any sense.”

While Rossland was originally in favour of a study for the whole area, they now favour a Beaver Valley study in the hopes that that can lay the groundwork for how it could be done again down the road on a larger scale. 

“Since there was not unanimous support for the whole region, we support a governance study for the Beaver Valley area,” said Granstrom. “The reason we do that is that we feel that is a study that can be accomplished and it can be something positive that actually moves forward. It’s possible and it’s achievable in the relative short term. Should that study produce something positive, which I think it would, perhaps we can use that as a template for the whole region. 

“Certainly council was in support of a governance study for the entire region; however, when we found out there was not unanimous support we took the position that we should support the communities that want to do a study, are unanimous, and can actually make a difference and actually accomplish something. That’s where we are at right now.” 

Of the municipalities talked to, Area A, Area B, Fruitvale and Rossland were in support of starting with Beaver Valley. Warfield supports the entire region but would not be against the Beaver Valley plan. The City of Trail is the only player currently holding out on that study. 

So long as one or more jurisdictions are not in favour of the Beaver Valley study than the province has said they will not move forward with either. Needing areas outside of the Beaver Valley to agree on what the communities involved do has confused Libby Nelson of Fruitvale.

“Technically, I really can’t understand why the Minister needs everyone in on a Beaver Valley amalgamation study. I guess they are just tired of all of the proposals coming in. If that’s where we end up then it shouldn’t really be relevant what the others think of Beaver Valley's amalgamation so long as Beaver Valley is all on board. I suppose the potential costs of the study must be why the Ministry is pushing the all or nothing approach.”

Messages were left by the Telegraph for Bill Bennett on the matter. A response was not received before press time.

As it stands now, without unanimous support on either governance study, the potential amalgamation of all or part of the region remains stalled. With the motion to support the Beaver Valley study coming before Trail council on Monday night, that plan could achieve full support in relative short order.

Of course, even if either of these studies go ahead, many more questions will arise. Mayor Granstrom notes a past BC example that went awry in the details of what to name the new city.

“There was another jurisdiction I’ll leave unnamed that was moving on amalgamation and then tried for two years to come up with a name for the municipality. It pitted neighbour against neighbour and after two years they disbanded the whole process on a little thing like what to name it.”

For now these potential issues will remain hypothetical until some form of cooperation and agreement can be reached. As Granstrom concluded, “the process needs to be people-driven or it isn’t going to work. Certainly Mayors Nelson and Boggs, who I’ve known forever, can sit down and hash things out, but it’s the people who have to drive this issue to make it work.”

What would you name the potential new city formed by bringing together the entire region? Are you prepared to be a resident of Greater Trail or perhaps the Lower Columbia Regional District? Should the regions be united as one? Would there be savings and efficiencies? Let us know your thoughts by commenting or participating in this week's poll.