by Laura Walz [email protected] A Powell River resident has advised the City of Powell River that he intends to launch a legal action about the decision not to seek elector approval for co-treatment.
City council has approved a phased consolidation option for treating its sewage. It combines co-treatment, a proposal to treat the city’s sewage at Catalyst Paper Corporation’s Powell River mill, with a stand-alone consolidated plant for the future.
George Orchiston delivered a letter to city hall on Thursday, September 22. “Given the city’s deliberate conduct to deny citizens a binding vote in this matter, albeit with great sadness, I wish to inform the mayor and council of Powell River that at the earliest opportunity, I or my legal counsel will initiate legal action on this matter in order to [ensure] that I and my fellow citizens of Powell River may exercise their democratic rights and cast their vote in a binding referendum as to whether or not they wish to proceed with having the city’s wastewater treated by Catalyst Paper,” Orchiston wrote in his letter.
Orchiston raised the issue of elector approval in July. In a letter to mayor and council, he cited sections of the Community Charter which he believes require the city to obtain elector approval for an agreement between the city and Catalyst to dispose of the city’s wastewater through the company’s effluent treatment system.
Council directed staff to obtain a legal opinion, which council released to the public on September 15. Donald Lidstone, of Lidstone and Company, in a letter dated August 21, advised the city that elector assent is not required.
Lidstone went through the relevant sections in the charter, including section 22 which addresses agreements that grant exclusive or limited franchises. It states a council may, by bylaw adopted with the approval of the electors, enter into an agreement that grants an exclusive or limited franchise for the provision of a number of services, including sewage disposal through a sewage system.
In his opinion, Lidstone wrote, the key factor based on the statute and case law seems to be whether there is only one entity providing the service and whether they have the exclusive right to do so. “Given that Catalyst will not be the exclusive provider of liquid waste treatment services on a long-term basis we do not think the proposed agreement is a franchise,” Lidstone wrote. “We recommend that the city and Catalyst be careful to structure the proposed agreement such that it does not resemble a franchise.”
Section 28 outlines rules for disposing of water and sewer systems as well as other utilities. The government’s website states that these are core municipal services with high visibility and strong community interest. “Council can only dispose of operating water and sewer systems where there is assent of the electors and where an agreement is in place to ensure that the water or sewer service is continued,” it states.
Lidstone wrote that the city is not disposing of its sewer system. “Instead it is disposing of effluent to a private facility, so assent of the electors is not required under that section,” he stated.
At the September 15 council meeting, Mayor Stewart Alsgard noted that some residents were concerned about the issue of elector assent. He added that in the interest of openness, perhaps there could be a public question on the ballot for the November civic elections.
Orchiston wrote that the mayor’s suggestion was “a further insult to the citizens of Powell River" and pointed out that the vote would be non-binding.
