Residents of Nanaimo gathered in front of council to have their voices heard in opposition to the city’s decision to use the Alternative Approval Process to fund a $48.5 million Operation Centre.
Joe Figel, along with other members of the Nanaimo City Council Oversight Hub, presented their case outlining what he refers to as several key points the city didn’t do when asking residents for their permission to borrow the funds.
The city announced the project in early September when they held open houses highlighting the project and the impact it would have on the community, but Figel says the method used to provide information to residents was not enough.
“Had the city given us the opportunity they should have given us, if they wanted to be procedurally fair, the number of votes opposed to this project would have been much higher,” he says. “There is a likelihood the number would have been in excess of the 10 per cent needed.”
Figel says residents he spoke to just want the process to be fair and just, and if the results show taxpayers are in favor of borrowing the funds, he will accept it.
“We would like the city to acknowledge that the process has not provided effective notice of the city’s process, and does not reflect or represent the citizens’ wishes,” he says. “We would like the city to hold a referendum and provide proper notice to the city.
“Also, be sure the citizens have received and are aware of the process.”
Councilor Sheryl Armstrong says she knows AAP can be difficult at times, but this particular vote is more than just about the process.
“I have struggled with the AAP processes, I have voted for some and against others,” she says. “For me, it is all about the operational necessity.
“A lot of people don’t want to spend money on public works, but that is what keeps the city running. The other option is through taxation.”
Armstrong says she doesn’t dispute residents’ claims that the city could have provided more detailed information about borrowing the money, but she adds it is up to residents to stay informed and there are avenues to do that.
“I think people have to start taking responsibility and get involved in the community to know what’s going on,” she says. “We only had six people attend the open house, but residents can check the city’s website to find out information on anything in the city.”
According to the province, AAP replaced the counter-petition process in 2003 which was designed so municipalities could “test the waters” with their residents to streamline and reduce costs associated with the borrowing process.
If 10 per cent of voters were against the borrowing bylaw then governments would be forced to find an alternative to borrowing, but if fewer than 10 per cent disapproved municipalities could proceed with the vote and borrow the money.
No indication was given if a referendum would take place, but those in attendance said if another vote is conducted and residents approve, they will accept the results if the city does the same.
According to the city, an AAP costs the city between $10,000 and $20,000 whereas a referendum would cost the city $297,000 and doesn’t include staff time during regular working hours.
Approximately 3.8 per cent of the vote was conducted on Nov. 3 which wasn’t the threshold for the city to halt the borrowing process.
