The City of Revelstoke is not disclosing to taxpayers the details of a recent settlement between the city and a property development company that, when it filed its lawsuit, claimed it could cost the city up to $14 million.
The recent settlement was not announced by city officials; when asked last week, Mayor David Raven referred questions to city staff.
Back in September of 2011, the Selkirk Land and Cattle Corporation (SLCC) filed suit in the Supreme Court of B.C., alleging that the City of Revelstoke had damaged the company’s 106-acre parcel of development land located upslope of Camozzi Road in Arrow Heights.
The developer planned to subdivide the property into 40 large lots, which would be developed with nearby Revelstoke Mountain Resort in mind.
The lawsuit said the city and SLCC had an agreement that allowed the municipality to access the property to build a road and a water reservoir. The road would then be extended by the developer into the planned development.
The SLCC filing said the city never lived up to the agreement to build a proper road and built a dirt one instead. It said this damaged the property and didn’t fulfill many aspects of the agreement. SLCC said the city failed to complete road-building and surveying that would assist SLCC with its development plans. The working agreement had fallen apart by 2005 and work halted.
In addition, SLCC said city plans to change the property’s designation through revisions to City of Revelstoke planning documents threw a wrench in their subdivision plan.
When it was filed in 2011, the Selkirk Land and Cattle Corporation’s lawyers, Kelowna-based Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP, complained of the city’s actions in a media release. “The city has never expressed thanks to Selkirk. The city has never paid a dime for access or rights,” they wrote in the media release. “Selkirk is left with scarred lands and sloughing issues which the city ignores while using the road regularly to maintain the reservoir.”
The City of Revelstoke filed a response to the lawsuit in May, 2012, refuting or disputing many claims made in the statement of claim. The city claimed:
— they had an agreement with SLCC, but it went sour after SLCC representatives ordered them to stop ongoing work and get off SLCC property;
— the city didn’t start construction of the road without notifying SLCC;
— SLCC was underplaying the fact the road to the reservoir would benefit their development plans;
— that the city was proceeding with plans to survey the SLCC property as outlined in the contract when SLCC representatives ordered them to stop;
— city staff didn’t trespass on SLCC property;
— they are not responsible for any possible slope stability issues because the plaintiff didn’t allow ongoing road work to be completed;
— that although the road and reservoir aren’t exactly where they were drawn in a “sketch” plan, some deviation from a sketch plan is reasonable because the drawing is a loose representation of land not yet properly surveyed;
— that the deviation from the sketch plan is minor and doesn’t greatly impact the development;
— that the agreement allowed the city to go forward with the road and the reservoir.
We reached Selkirk Land and Cattle Corporation representative Robert Powadiuk by telephone in Ontario. He told the Times Review that an agreement had been reached with the City of Revelstoke, but it contained a confidentiality clause that prevented him from speaking about it.
Powadiuk was part of the development group that launched Revelstoke Mountain Resort. He also retains a small private stake in the resort, he said, but is not part of the management group.
City of Revelstoke CAO Tim Palmer confirmed the two parties have reached “a mutually agreeable solution” to the situation “and look forward to working together in the future.”
What’s the agreement going to cost city taxpayers? The City of Revelstoke is not prepared to say.
“As with most court settlements, speaking about details in not appropriate and we wish to respect the settlement process and all those involved,” Palmer said in a statement. “The city is content with the resolution we have reached and has no further comment.”
Court records show the case was scheduled for trial at the Kelowna Law Courts for June 3, but the trial was cancelled before it reached court. Although a trial would have likely resulted in public disclosure of the results, the private agreement between the two parties makes discovering the details of the deal – and its cost to taxpayers – much more difficult.
