City of Powell River councillors are expected to vote on increasing the 2012 legal budget at the November 15 council meeting.
The city had budgeted $200,000 for 2012 legal expenses. According to a report from Dave Douglas, director of financial services, as of the middle of September, the city had spent $214,868.
During the November 1 committee-of-the-whole meeting, Douglas recommended increasing the 2012 legal budget by $115,000, with funds to come from the 2012 surplus, for a $315,000 total.
Councillor Chris McNaughton pointed out the $378,147 surplus identified in Douglas’s report as a source of the funds, was actually earmarked for asset management. “It’s not a surplus,” he said. “We approved it for a specific purpose. I think we find it quite easy to dip into surpluses, but there was a designated purpose for that.”
Council told the public the city was increasing taxes by 3.8 per cent not for operations, but for asset management, McNaughton said. Council approved reduced services and staff levels in the 2012 budget, including cuts to transit and garbage and recycling services and the closure of the concession at the Powell River Recreation Complex.
Councillor Maggie Hathaway said she thinks council should discuss how it can reduce legal costs. “They’ve just gone right through the roof, compared to other years,” she said. “Legal costs just keep going up and up and up and there must be some way we can reduce the cost.”
McNaughton agreed. “Council needs to be very mindful of all of the legal costs that we might face,” he said. “But, we all must take a look at this and say they’re very specific initiatives that council has engaged in and they are somewhat unique.”
Mac Fraser, chief administrative officer, provided a breakdown of some of the legal expenditures, totaling $104,349:
• Freda Creek: $39,052.23.
• Agreement in principle and term sheet with Catalyst Paper Corporation: $42,663.59.
• Catalyst subdivision: $15,637.80.
• Catalyst in regards to Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act: $6,996.06.
åtion period, Fraser balked at supplying a breakdown of the total $214,868. “There is a point of client-solicitor privilege,” he said, adding he would not want to recommend to councillors that they release the information.
There is case law in BC that speaks to the ability to withhold that information because it might be extremely indicative of some other point of privilege, Fraser added. He did say he would report back to council about releasing the information.
