Golden Town Council will be asked to reconsider its controversial time-zone decision Tuesday after receiving nearly 300 letters, a petition bearing 2,395 signatures and statements outlining potential impacts on local businesses.
Councillor Wes Routley has submitted a formal motion asking council to reconsider its Sept. 1 decision to end seasonal clock changes following the Nov. 1 time change and remain permanently on Mountain Standard Time, or UTC-7.
The decision would align Golden with the majority of British Columbia. However, it could place the community one hour behind the Columbia Valley and Alberta during the summer if those regions move to permanent Mountain Daylight Time.
The possibility of that separation has prompted a significant public response.
Council’s Sept. 22 agenda includes 298 letters concerning the decision. Of those, 268 oppose the change, raise concerns or ask council to reconsider. Another 30 support council’s decision.
A petition organized by Golden resident and business owner Natasha Shoemaker has gathered 2,395 signatures from Golden and surrounding communities.
According to the submission, 1,947 signatures were collected in Golden and Blaeberry, 245 in Nicholson, 63 in Parson, 46 in Brisco and Spillimacheen, 53 in Field, and 41 in Radium and Invermere.
The petition is accompanied by 23 business impact statements from businesses that collectively employ approximately 175 people in Golden. Those employees were not added separately to the petition total because some may have also signed the petition individually.
Opponents argue that the change could turn Golden into a “time-zone island,” separating it from neighbouring communities with which residents share employment, healthcare, education, business, recreation and family connections.
The petition identifies potential complications involving employee schedules, deliveries, contractor coordination, tourism bookings, medical appointments, school travel and regional youth sports. It also raises concerns for families whose members live, work or attend school on opposite sides of the proposed time boundary.
Several business owners warned that moving an hour of daylight from the evening to the morning during summer could affect patios, outdoor recreation, tourism businesses and other activities that depend on long summer evenings.
Questions about the public consultation process were also raised repeatedly in the correspondence.
Earlier this year, Golden participated in a regional time-observance survey with Electoral Area A of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District and neighbouring East Kootenay communities. Many opponents believe council should have followed the local survey results, which showed greater support for remaining aligned with the East Kootenay.
Some residents have called for a referendum or for the question to be placed on the municipal election ballot, arguing that a change affecting nearly every resident and business should be decided directly by voters.
Supporters of council’s decision, however, emphasized the potential health and safety benefits of additional morning light, particularly for children travelling to school during the winter.
Others said ending the twice-yearly clock change and aligning Golden with most of British Columbia would bring its own advantages. Several supporters noted that CPKC already operates on Pacific time, while others argued that residents, businesses and visitors are capable of adjusting to a time-zone boundary.
Some also encouraged council to stand by its original decision rather than reverse course in response to public opposition.
The petition asks council to rescind its Sept. 1 decision and maintain year-round alignment with the Columbia Valley, East Kootenay and Alberta.
If council is unwilling to reverse the decision immediately, petitioners are asking the Town to pause its implementation and conduct a broader impact assessment involving businesses, healthcare providers, the school district, regional sports organizations and neighbouring communities.
Council will consider the correspondence and petition alongside Routley’s motion to reconsider the original vote at its Sept. 22 meeting.
At press time, Council is currently meeting and discussing this item. Watch the full meeting on YouTube.
