EDITORIAL – AAP issue is far less about procedure than about when to use it

An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.

NEW WRITTEN PROCEDURES for conducting an Alternative Approval Process that will soon be adopted by City council do little to fix the problems with it.

Under the plan presented to council Tuesday (July 15, 2025) by staff, the method for calculating the number of eligible voters (using various statistics including census figures, BC Stats and City tax data), how to accept and count AAP forms, and an opportunity for electors to withdraw forms after submission would be established in bylaw form.

This actually doesn’t do much different than what the City did for the AAPs that were used to get approval for the performing arts theatre and the ice-rink complex. Remember that the AAP is considered a “Yes” decision by electors if less than 10 per cent of them sign and return forms objecting to a project.

The APP is an alternative to holding a referendum in which voters attend at a polling place and cast a ballot yes or no. That method requires them to physically vote “yes” for a project or service to be approved, or “no” to be rejected, rather than non-participation being counted as approval as it is in the AAP.

The new provision  that would make it possible for an elector to withdraw an AAP form after submission is bizarre. Imagine if such a provision was applied to a referendum — a voter requesting that his or her vote be withdrawn after the ballot has been cast.

That, of course, would be impossible, because voting in referenda is confidential, while voting by way of “no” forms in an AAP is not. So why put such a clause into the AAP rules? All it does is further tip the scale to the “yes” side.

The biggest problem with the proposed AAP bylaw, though, isn’t about procedural details. No, the real problem is the lack of guidelines for when using an AAP is acceptable.

Let’s be honest, an AAP stands a better chance of success than a referendum does. An AAP doesn’t have the same level of public debate on a project that a referendum does, and doesn’t require voters to get out and cast ballots one way or the other.

The excuse that AAPs are cheaper than referenda is hogwash. In Kamloops, it’s said that a referendum costs about $200,000 to hold. That’s a small price to pay for being certain that a community wants or doesn’t want a project, especially when you consider that last year’s AAP was for the staggering total of $275 million.

What’s needed is a set of qualification rules that take the decision on which method of approval to use out of council’s hands. By this I mean definitions of essential versus non-essential projects. Defining “essential” isn’t all that difficult; all that’s needed is a listing of the types of projects for which an AAP should be employed.

For example, infrastructure projects that are necessary for public health and safety should qualify for the AAP method. Such things as water treatment plants, major sewer projects, fire protection, public works, flood protection and, yes, police detachment upgrades. Some, maybe many, will disagree with me when I say using an AAP for the new police station is justified but police must have proper facilities in order to create a safe community.

Therefore, an AAP is appropriate. If it defeats the plan, then it can go to a referendum.

But projects such as parks, recreation complexes and arts and culture centres are lifestyle enhancements — important ones, certainly — but not essential. Those should always go to referendum.

A second criterion should be applied — the project or service cost when paid for via debt financing. Establish a cutoff for when an AAP or a referendum is mandatory.

Those two requirements would serve to sort out the AAP vs. assent voting (referendum) methods for approval of debt financing of community projects, and bring fairness into the picture. Otherwise, the division caused by the existence of the AAP method with continue.

Mel Rothenburger is a former regular contributor to CFJC-TV and CBC radio, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award, and a Webster Foundation Commentator of the Year finalist. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired daily newspaper editor.  He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.