Residents in Sooke are concerned about the imminent tax hikes to pay for the new sewer system.


powered by FreeFind

Frequently Asked Questions

Councils Agenda for a Sewer System

Taxes & Costs

State of the Environment

Contact WRATH

Take Action. What you can do!

Calendar of Events & special Dates

The Referendum

The Alternatives

Letters written and who to write

Articles Published

Contact Council


May 16, 2001.

Dear Mayor Macgregor and Members of Sooke Council;

Re: Administrative Issues - Sewerage Implementation

There are a number of areas of confusion arising from the sewerage implementation process to date. Your assistance in clarifying these matters is appreciated.

1. Clarification of the term 'Council Initiative'

  1. February 26, 2001 - minutes of Regular Council Meeting - 'Council Initiative' is adopted as a 'public consent process'.
  2. 'Council Initiative' is a permitted means under the Local Government Act by which a council can undertake to provide a work or service either as a local improvement or within a specified area. Nothing in the Act defines the term as a method of obtaining public consent.
  3. If a council chooses to proceed under the 'Council Initiative' option, public consent is deemed to have been obtained unless a 'Petition against work is successful' .

Clarification as to what constitutes a 'Council initiative' is important here. In a legal sense it will decide not only the elements to be included in the bylaw which must be adopted in order for council to proceed, but also what information must be made available to the property owners.

2. Design/Build/Operate public/private partnership

(DBO - 3P agreement)

  1. February 26, 2001 - Minutes of Regular Council Meeting - Council, by motion, confirmed its intention to proceed with a Design/Build/Operate public private partnership request for proposals after obtaining public consent.
  2. Council has included in its Infrastructure Grant Application the possibility of a cooperative agreement with the T'Sou-ke Nation, and has reiterated this possibility in recent public statements.
  3. The Local Government Act defines a 'first nation' as a public authority.
  4. With the above stated DBO-3P proposal and the possible agreement with the T'Sou-ke Nation, Council has both a proposed agreement with a private partner, and a possible agreement with a public authority.
  5. Under Section 177 of the Local Government Act, Council would be required to provide details of any agreement, proposed or completed, at the time notice is given for a 'petition against work' opportunity, not after the process has been completed.

Please clarify the above issues by providing answers to the following questions:

  1. Does Council agree that 'Council Initiative' is not a means of obtaining public consent?
  2. Should the motion of February 26, 2001, be amended?
  3. Does Council agree that the 'Council Initiative' in the sewerage proposal is not simply an undertaking to provide a service, but includes the decision to proceed with a DBO-3P request for proposals, and perhaps the creation of a partnering agreement with the T'Sou-ke Nation?
  4. Does Council agree that the public consent process must not precede the request for proposals, or the finalizing of any agreement with the T'Sou-ke Nation?
  5. Does Council agree that details of any and all agreements, either proposed or made, must be available to the property owners when notice of petition is given?
  6. Does Council agree that the Motion of February 26, 2001, be amended to reflect this requirement?
  7. Given the complexities of this proposal and the possible inclusion of partnering agreements, does Council have the assurance that 'Council Initiative' is a permitted means to proceed? Source?

Because the issues surrounding the sewerage initiative are complex and the process to be followed is dictated by the Local Government Act, a legal challenge will most assuredly follow if the Act is contravened.

It is in the community interest that property owners understand the issues involved and accept that the process is fair and proper. It is important to avoid the costly process of going back to the beginning if due process is denied and a court challenge issued.

Your prompt written response to these questions is anticipated and appreciated.

Yours truly,

Gail Hall

Director of Research, WRATH

Please address your response as follows:

Worried Residents Against Tax Hikes in Sooke (WRATH)

PO Box 886

Sooke, BC., V0S 1N0

c.c. Don Sutherland

Local Government Branch

Ministry of Municipal Affairs

800 Johnson Street

Victoria, BC..


Email WRATH

FAQ

Sewer Proposal

Taxes

Environment

Contact WRATH

Action