Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for 2010

By Murray Dobbin, Vancouver Sun November 17, 2010

File photo of Catalyst Paper plant in Port Alberni.

File photo of Catalyst Paper plant in Port Alberni.

Last spring, Catalyst forest products was facing financial problems and began playing hardball with its host B.C. communities. It hand-delivered partial payments of its municipal taxes to Powell River, Campbell River, Port Alberni and the District of North Cowichan.

Catalyst claimed it had calculated the value of the municipal services it actually used and that was all it was going to pay. Hammering its nasty point home, Catalyst took the four communities to court claiming that their tax rates were too high.

B.C. courts ruled against Catalyst bullying, but the Supreme Court of Canada has just granted Catalyst leave to appeal. Yet in 2010, Catalyst was paying only $2,250,000 in taxes in Powell River, less than half its 1999 bill. Yearly decreases have cut the company’s share of the overall tax bill by two-thirds while residents and businesses have seen theirs nearly double.

Yet studies demonstrate that taxes are a minor consideration in investment decisions, usually placing fifth or sixth down the list of factors such as the cost of transportation, energy, labour, land and borrowing. Property taxes account for a minuscule 1.15 per cent of Catalyst’s total B.C. operating costs, not enough to make an impact on its viability.

City councillors in Powell River, however, panicked at the implied threat to close. They are eagerly pursuing more ways of letting the company dispose of its responsibilities.

In doing so they have started a race to the bottom with the other communities. Powell River’s solution? An Agreement in Principle (AIP) that includes a plan to have Catalyst cotreat the city’s liquid waste in its treatment facility.

The deal is fraught with problems. If Catalyst goes bankrupt, the cotreatment deal could be jeopardized by court decisions regarding the disposal of its assets. Six months after the deal was signed, it’s still unclear what would happen if the mill closed permanently and was dismantled. Moreover, if the mill closes temporarily for more than a week, we would see raw city sewage being pumped into the ocean.

There are other problems. City council openly acknowledges the $750,000 fee it would pay for sewage services bears no relationship to Catalyst’s cost of treating the waste — it is simply the amount by which Catalyst wants its taxes further reduced.

In other words, the co-treatment deal looks like an indirect government subsidy to Catalyst. That violates the Community Charter and provincial law.

But Powell River is counting on up to $10 million from the province for the project. It is applying to the provincial Innovation Fund, one of the municipal grant programs funded by a portion of the tax on gasoline. This fund is supposed to reward environmental innovation but through co-treatment, the standards for the city’s effluent will in reality be lowered to the industry standard. The only novel aspect of the deal is that it privatizes Powell River’s sewage treatment — not exactly the “innovation” the fund was designed to encourage.

Catalyst would get virtually all the benefits from other aspects of this agreement. For example, Catalyst’s old administration building would be handed over to the city for a dollar. While that sounds like a good deal, it saves Catalyst potentially hundreds of thousands because the building is contaminated with asbestos, which Catalyst would otherwise have to remove.

But what has many Powell River residents upset is the secrecy surrounding the deal and the fatally flawed consultation process. The agreement was signed last April but there still has been not been a single public-consultation meeting held to discuss it. The only nominally public process is through an advisory committee required by the Ministry of Environment for municipal liquid-waste management plans. But the agreement was signed before the advisory committee ever saw it.

The membership of the advisory committee itself violates almost all the ministry guidelines that require representation from “local environmental and recycling groups; business, labour, ratepayer and consumer groups; school districts…. ”

None of these groups is represented on Powell River’s committee. Yet city council claims this committee constitutes its public consultation, another violation of ministry guidelines, which call for robust and open public consultation on liquid-waste management plans.

Catalyst’s sweetheart deal with Powell River would require an injection of significant provincial dollars to make it work, and the provincial government is reportedly onside.

But should provincial taxpayers’ money be used for a deal that would lower environmental standards, privatize an essential public service, and accelerate a race to the bottom among B.C. municipalities?

Murray Dobbin is a blogger on The Vancouver Sun’s Community of Interest blog and lives in Powell River.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read Full Post »

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

MONDAY 18 OCTOBER 2010, 1: 30 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL

Items of Business:

Consideration of the following bylaws:

Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaws 2278, 2279, and 2280

Revitalization Tax Exemption Program Bylaw 2276

 

Read Full Post »

News release – October 8, 2010

Last Thursday’s decision by Powell River City Council to postpone a vote on a proposed bylaw that would move the City closer to  privatizing wastewater services gives councillors time to open up the process to democratic input and thorough public consultation before any further action is taken, CUPE Local 798 President Graham Mahy said today.

“We are glad to hear Councillors Debbie Dee and Maggie Hathaway asking for time to review and discuss the bylaws,” said Mahy. “Reducing industrial taxes and privatizing our wastewater treatment system is a double whammy for residents. It will shift taxes to home owners at the same time as forcing them to pay more for a core municipal service. The public has a right to weigh in on the issue.”“This bylaw is the beginning of a process that will lock our community into a 20-year contract with literally no public consultation,” said Mahy. “That’s just wrong, and all members of City Council should  listen to what residents are trying to tell them. Keep this system public.”

Powell River City Council was set to vote on a proposed bylaw that would cap the property taxes collected from Catalyst Paper Company at $2.25 million  until 2014. The proposed tax revitalization bylaw is the first step in an Agreement in Principle (AIP) signed by the City and Catalyst in response to the company’s refusal to pay its 2009 assessed taxes. If completed, the AIP  will  lock the City into a 20-year contract to pay the company to treat municipal wastewater.  Ellen Gould, a member of the Powell River Water Watch Coalition, addressed the packed Council meeting last Thursday asking that the City respond to residents’ demands to hold a public forum on the issue.  Councillors Debbie Dee and Maggie Hathaway said that the process should be transparent. To date, Powell River City Council has not held any formal  public consultation on the AIP or the possibility of privatizing sewage treatment.  By law, the City must advertise the proposed bylaw for two consecutive weeks and allow sufficient opportunity for public comment. The City plans to hold a special council meeting next week to introduce the bylaw and pass the first three readings. Final decision on the bylaw must be made before October 31st.  CUPE Local 798 and the Powell River Water Watch Coalition are encouraging residents to write and call City Councillors to urge them to reconsider the City’s willingness to privatize wastewater treatment and to hold open public consultations on the Agreement in Principle.



Read Full Post »

The presentations from the Water Watch Coalition Public Presentation on Wednesday, July 21 are now available on our library page.  CUPE has also posted photos of the event on their website.

Read Full Post »

WOW!  The public meeting held by the Water Watch Coalition last night was terrific.  Many thanks to the 90 or so folks who came out to learn more about the City’s proposal to enter into a partnership with Catalyst Paper to co-treat our sewage.  There were many thoughtful questions from the public and on the whole, I think everyone came away with a better understanding of the situation.

Water Watch Coalition members Trish Cocksedge and I gave presentations on the democratic process and background on the LWMP to date, MLA Nicholas Simons presented insights to the Provincial role, and Robin Roff of CUPE gave an overview of P3 projects.  Councillor Maggie Hathaway was in the audience and very graciously agreed to field questions during the question period afterwards, so a big thank you to her for jumping in.  If you missed the meeting, the presentations given last night (and video of the entire event – I hope!) will be posted to our site shortly, and the petition is still open for signatures in case you haven’t had a chance to sign it yet.

Many thanks to everyone for making this such a successful – and enjoyable – event!

Read Full Post »

Late Friday afternoon, the City posted notice of a meeting of the Liquid Waste Management Steering Committee for

Wednesday, July 14 @ 3:00pm

The agenda was was only posted today and is available here.

I would like to urge everyone to attend this meeting if they can.  Included in the agenda package is a staff report which contains some startling recommendations from City staff that

the Liquid Waste Management Steering Committee recommend to Council to endorse or reject the City/Catalyst co-treatment proposal based upon the findings presented in the Draft City/Catalyst Mill Joint Wastewater Treatment Report.

Further, if the Steering Committee elects to recommend endorsement of the proposal, they should:

request the Advisory Committee evaluate the Catalyst Co-treatment Proposal based upon its own merits and provide a recommendation to the Steering Committee for presentation at a Public Open House.

request the Advisory Committee compare the Catalyst Co-treatment Proposal with the Waste Transfer Site and the Townsite Treatment Existing Site and provide a recommendation for siting a treatment facility to the Steering Committee for presentation at a Public Open House.

This raises concerns on a number of fronts:

1)    Staff are urging the Steering Committee to make a recommendation based on an incomplete draft report.  This is wrong because the draft is being significantly revised, including changing the assumed discount rate which will impact cost projections.  How can we depend on a staff recommendation that is based on a report that has critical information missing, such as:

a)     the cost of using Station H?
b)     how much the mill will charge us to purchase the treatment facility if they close permanently
c)     who is liable if the municipal sewage damages the mill’s treatment facility (ie if someone dumps oil or other waste into the sewage?)
d)    D&K reported in the teleconference on June 28 that if the mill were to close for an extended period, there is no possibility of holding effluent for more than a few days so the only option would be direct discharge of untreated effluent.   Under the co-treatment proposal, the mill would be the permit holder.  Who is liable for the fines for untreated discharge from the mill into Federal waters, and how much are they?

3)    It is procedurally defective in terms of public consultation for the Steering Committee to endorse a proposal before having the consideration and recommendation from the Joint Public & Technical Advisory Committee.

4)    The Steering Committee should not make any recommendations or endorsements before the Advisory Committee reviews and gives input on a FINAL report (ie not a draft with key variables as yet unknown).

5)    The City should be exploring the possibility that the money identified for co-treatment is NOT the only funding available.  For example Vancouver is pursuing Federal money for their LWMP based on new Federal regulations and the fact that they are releasing effluent into Federal waters.  The City also has not explored the possibility of Green Grants related to emissions that would be available because of the recently-signed Sustainability Charter.

6)    There has to date been no official or meaningful public consultation regarding the co-treatment option, and yet staff is recommending that decisions be made by the Steering Committee.

7)    The co-treatment option calls for burning of biosolids.  In some of the only public consultation held (an open house in 2004), 78% of citizens surveyed supported beneficial use of treated biosolids as a soil conditioner

If you can possibly attend this meeting, please go.  If not, please come to the Water Watch Coalition Public Meeting on Wednesday, July 21 at 7:30pm in the Cedar Room of the Recreation Complex.

Read Full Post »

Wed. July 21, 7:30, Cedar Room, Complex

Our City has signed an Agreement in Principle to pay Catalyst to co-treat our sewage.  Upgrading our sewage treatment system is one of the biggest projects the city will ever undertake.   It involves millions of dollars.  But this deal is high risk.  Future city councils will not be able to change the agreement.  Our wastewater system is a critical public resource.

Yet taxpayers have not been asked what they think about it.

The Powell River Water Watch Coalition is holding a public meeting to discuss the future of wastewater in Powell River.

some pre-meeting Water Watch videos will be shown starting at 7 pm, and some snacks will be shared after the meeting.

Read Full Post »

Many people have already signed the petitions we have been circulating at our public information tables, and we have expanded our petition online.  Please take a moment now to sign it and support public control of our water resources.

Read Full Post »

Catalyst has recently made announcements regarding the appointment of new directors to their board and the appointment of a new President & CEO, Kevin J. Clarke.

Mr. Clarke’s appointment begins June 21, 2010, and he comes to Catalyst after nearly 30 years with World Color (Quebecor World).  World Color is the company that has risen from the ashes of Quebecor World’s bankruptcy:

“World Color Press Inc., formerly Quebecor World Inc., and its affiliated debtors and debtors-in-possession announced on July 21, 2009 that they have successfully emerged from protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act in Canada (”CCAA”) and Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The settlement of claims results from this process is ongoing.”

Indeed, Catalyst’s press release announcing his appointment notes that “His achievements include major restructuring, market development, plant closure and start-up initiatives.”

Also of note in the board appointments, a New York lawyer who specializes in Chapter 11 reorganizations, Mr. Alan Miller, has just joined the board of Catalyst:

“Also joining the Board is Alan Miller, senior counsel with Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, a New York based international law firm with offices in 10 countries. Mr. Miller has, over the past 30 years, concentrated in business reorganizations, including Chapter 11 reorganizations, out-of-court debt restructuring, secured financings and related investments. An author and lecturer in the field of his specialty, Mr. Miller was admitted to the bars of the US Court of Appeals 2nd Cir.; US Court of Appeals 3rd Cir.; US Court of Appeals 5th Cir.; Eastern District New York; New York State; Southern District New York and the US Supreme Court.”

One may wonder where this is leading …

Read Full Post »

In The News

PRWWC was recently in a couple of articles, the first on CUPE’s website:  Powell River Community Coalition Forms

and the second in today’s Peak newspaper: Councilor’s Comments Not Welcome at Mall

It is not clear from the article, but Councilor McNaughton was asked to leave by mall security because he was not adhering to mall guidelines which prohibit approaching people directly.  Rather, groups with information tables are instructed by mall management only to provide information when people come up and ask them for it.  According to mall management, Councilor McNaughton’s comments are indeed welcome at the mall (contrary to the headline) and in fact, he was offered a table of his own to present his information but he declined.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »