CIVIC ELECTION ISSUES – AAP issue is being sidestepped in this campaign

Part of a series on key issues during the civic election campaign.

By DAVID JOHNSON
Columnist, ArmchairMayor.ca

I’M NOT USUALLY a ‘single issue’ voter, as normally one needs to consider a range of compromises and attributes regarding our various political representatives. But, that said, today in Kamloops we have an overriding issue that has nothing to do with the incumbent / legal wrangling / basement office / rant issues … and it’s purely economic.

As of today, in the last two years, Council has voted in favour of funding, via the Alternative Approval Process (AAP), to borrow more than $300 million for various projects.  That’s ‘voted for’ as of this date — not already borrowed, a timing thing that depends on the various project timing processes, but they have decided to borrow this much. It’s locked in.

One day we will absolutely, definitely, be owing this money, and will need to pay it back, which means, without a shadow of doubt, increased taxes. Kamloops council used the AAP for all of this, rather than consider any referendum on any project involving this money.

AAP history

In British Columbia, the AAP is a provincially legislated mechanism under the 2003 Community Charter designed to streamline local government decisions and reduce taxpayer costs by acting as a “reverse referendum.” Instead of holding a full-scale public vote, municipalities use the AAP to “test the waters.” It assumes community assent unless 10 percent or more of eligible electors submit official forms registering their opposition.

To facilitate this, the province created the modern Alternative Approval Process. (Editor’s Note: If a project is rejected through an AAP, the City may then choose to either drop it or put it to a referendum.)

The intent project-wise

Municipalities and regional districts typically choose the AAP most commonly for:

Long-term borrowing for funding major civic infrastructure like water or sewer treatment plants and pipes, public works facilities, road or bridge building infrastructure or, in a recent Kamloops experience, a new RCMP station, an AAP decision that this council chose to put off till after the election because it’s politically and optically electoral suicide to vote for an AAP just before an election.

All in all, it is considered appropriate to use the AAP to fund this kind of RCMP infrastructure, especially in our case where the feds have said that they will build it and send the invoice to the City, a situation we should avoid.

AAPs were also intended as a way to fund boundary extensions to municipal borders to absorb new land parcels as well as parkland disposal to sell or swap designated parklands, or to set up new tax-supported programs across broad local regions.

To be clear, the AAP was designed to allow cities to fund for the more boring and unsexy infrastructure projects and not the high optics ‘nice to have’ ice rinks and PAC pet projects … but they did it anyway, to the tune of $300 million… which we have to repay.

In other words, procedurally the AAP was created to fix and rebuild utilities and roads and the rest on that list but was not intended to severely overspend on non-essential ice rinks and PACs.  Those should have been up to us, the voters, to decide via referendum.

People are struggling to pay rent and buy food; they aren’t paying attention to obscure municipal politics and borrowing structures.

In the past, the amount of written response to AAPs in Kamloops on a resident per capita basis is infinitesimally small.

Referendum votes, especially when included as part of municipal elections, average about 30 per cent.

An important point ‑ the percentage of eligible residents, or even voters, that did not actively vote against an AAP by going through the process DOES NOT mean they agree with the project or its funding at all.  Anyone who is suggesting that, is either unaware or intentionally misleading.

Council has intentionally taken advantage of an administratively efficient way to do its business, in a slimy way to fund their own pet projects, without properly engaging with residents or voters, and just making a unilateral decision on their own, which effectively what agreeing to run an AAP has become, and politically hiding behind the broken AAP process as some kind of democratic function.

It isn’t, it’s so years from now they can point at a PAC and say, “I did that.” The problem is, it’s undemocratic, and will cost us huge for decades.

The finances

According to the Community Charter legislation, there are no monetary limitations per project regarding when it would trigger a full referendum instead of an AAP.

To repeat, the way the Community Charter is written does not impose a specific dollar limit on the amount of money a city can borrow using the AAP.

This is a thing that some today around the province are calling for, a per capita limit to the AAP amount they can ask for per project, per year, and per decade.

In addition, the Community Charter regulates borrowing through “oversight” at the provincial level.

Under Section 174 of the Community Charter and the Municipal Liabilities Regulation, a City’s total annual debt-servicing costs – principal and interest due each year, cannot exceed 25 percent of its eligible revenue from the previous year.

That’s the only financial limit, a rule that for a town Kamloops’ size, which operates with around $330 million in revenue … a number that is about equal to the amount the City will need to borrow for the projects they have already voted in favour of by using the AAP.

That’s a terrifying thought – the amount Council has agreed to borrow recently, is about equal to the total revenue the City earns in a year.  And that didn’t stop them at all.

At the Community Charter’s 25-percent limit, that means the City can spend up to about $82 million directly on debt repayment each year … which includes any other debt servicing the City is already paying today … but does not discuss where we are going to get it from.

The Community Charter ‘oversight’ only has to checkmark that the amount of debt servicing does not exceed $82 million, with no consideration as where it’s going to come from.

For us, that means a severe cut in future services, or just a long series of big increase in taxes.

Guess what’s going to happen?

Questions for today:

– What is every single campaigning individual’s approach to any future use of the AAP, both mayoral and council?

– Do they support, or reject this kind of use of the AAP?

– and how will they vote when the motion comes up?

– and where do they draw the line between pure infrastructure, and ‘nice to haves’?

Moving forward:

– Who is going to petition the provincial government to rein in the inappropriate use of the AAP?

– Should an absolute per capita dollar value be attached to the use of an AAP, and beyond that it must be a referendum?

– Should the province add to the Community Charter, giving it powers to disallow a Council from abusing this process … like has been happening in Kamloops and other B.C. municipalities?

This is an election issue being ignored, or creatively sidestepped, as we talk about personalities and ‘harmonious working environments’ as our primary election issue.

Like I said, I’m not usually a single-issue voter, but if something is going on that could literally bankrupt our city and its future finances … maybe it’s a reasonable thought.

David Johnson is a Kamloops resident, community volunteer and self-described maven of all things Canadian.