A former Prince Rupert Council member has spoken out towards the city's plans to use the Alternate Approval Process designed to fast track plans to access loans required for a pair of infrastructure projects for the community.
As we noted on Wednesday, the City has moved forward with the AAP process setting the date of August 14th as the deadline for residents to attend to City Hall and collect their Elector Response forms and then return them to City Hall.
Anna Ashley who joined City Council in 2008 and served until 2014, used a Social media post on Thursday to take note of that deadline and the AAP process.
The former elected official sharing some of her concerns over both the use of the AAP mechanism and the timing of the consultation with the public which as she notes, takes place in the summer when fewer residents may be around.
The former councillor calling the move by City staff and council as "a sneaky and underhanded way of doing things"
 |
| click to enlarge |
Ms. Ashley, hasn't spoken out on may issues since she came up short in the 2014 vote count to hold her seat at the Council table. That result coming from the wave of new faces of eight years ago.
But the former councillor comes by her concerns over the AAP practice with some history.
She ran for office in 2008 on a campaign of concern over lack of transparency and accountability for the council of the time.
Following her election, she was on the City Council that authorized the AAP process in 2013 towards a loan proposal for airport renovations.
The councillor noting that she was not a fan of the AAP at that time calling the mechanism a bad process, a theme she seems to be channelling again.
There may be some residents sharing her concerns, her post to social media is currently serving as a sounding board on how the current city Council is moving forward on their loan authorization planning.
That an indication that Council may have to do a better job of informing the public on the issue and the importance that they have placed on the AAP initatives.
This is the first AAP push for the current council, the process was one used a number of times from previous councils on a range of initiatives over the last eight to ten years.
The AAP which is in effect a negative petition program, puts the onus on the population to speak out towards the plans, requiring at least ten percent of registered voters (1,029) to register their dissent to the request.
That would trigger a larger and somewhat more expensive full referendum to move the loan programs in this case forward.
CFO Corinne Bomben and Mayor Pond outlined some notes towards the two loans at the June 28th council session when the AAP process was approved.
"What you have just put on the floor is the approving the ad that goes in the paper and will also be on our website for both of the loans and its approving also the form that people can fill out if they disagree with the city going forward with the borrowing.
And it also establishes the number, being 10 percent of the electors that must sign to the negative, for the approval of the loan for Council to consider it and to possibly go forward with a referendum" -- City of Prince Rupert CFO Corinne Bomben
That ten percent of electors makes for a number of 1,029
Mayor Pond explained the difference between the two options:
"Whenever Council borrows money beyond its term basically, it requires approval of the voters.
There's two methods to do it.
One is to go directly to referendum which is a cost, 40,000 dollars roughly, 40,000 dollars and we have a referendum and people vote.
Or, there's an Alternative Approval Process which is to the negative.
Which is we assume we'll go ahead with it unless 10 percent of the registered voters, in this case ... 1,029 fill out the proper forms and register an objection by a certain time in which case we could go to referendum" -- Prince Rupert Mayor Herb Pond
None of the Council members spoke to the topic at the June 28th session that moved the AAP process forward.
Among the concerns for some in the community from Council's recent work on infrastructure challenges is the increased burden that will be placed on the water and sewer utility bills to pay off the debt in the years ahead, that with some significant rate increases ahead for taxpayer.
Some background on the Loan Requests and the AAP plans can be reviewed below:
City of Prince Rupert starts the clock on Alternative Approval Process for two infrastructure loan plans
City Council set to use Alternative Approval Process towards Infrastructure Loan financing
City Council members to gain update on financing plans for loan authorizations on infrastructure work
Prospect of loan requirements for infrastructure work brings concerns and comments to Special Session of Council
More notes on the city's infrastructure challenges can be reviewed here.
A wider overview of past council discussion themes can be explored here.
Prince Rupert vision 2030
ReplyDelete“Most indebted city in British Columbia”
Say hello to double digit tax increases until the end of the decade
No amount of PILT payment will save you, taxpayers will eat double digit tax increases for the next decade and beyond because this city can grow their business tax base.
ReplyDeleteGood luck!
Well actually, a certain amount of PILT and Port taxes would make a difference…….say, an uncapped and fair amount
DeleteWould love to see your math comrade.
Delete$600+ million infrastructure deficit
$100 million in potential debt for a city of 12 000 residents that just increased their civic payroll by seven figures.
Keep hoping for that policy change on the PPTA.
Would love to see you attach your name to a single comment like that in public, comrade.
DeleteWe’re all comrades comrade.
DeleteYou should stop worrying about names and be worried about the mountain of debt that taxpayers are going to service.
This loan only fixes 26kms of the problem. Rupert has approximately 90kms of road and sewer that is well past due date.
No courage to actually take a position on the issue. A more expensive and time consuming process is her alternative. No concrete suggestions. calling people sneaky for something she previously voted for herself is really disingenuous
ReplyDeleteActually, in the article it notes she was against the AAP process related to the Airport renovations of the time and voted against it. She had advocated a referendum to allow for community discussion and debate on the topic. NCR
DeleteWhat a novel idea, a councilor voting against the administration's party line. Years ago councilors used to vote on their thoughts not the party line. I miss those days.
DeleteI remember that. From what I recall the objection to a referendum was that it would cost about $14K (if memory serves). There was a culture of belt-tightening back then, but a lot has changed. The cost of a referendum would be immaterial relative to the cost of the projects.
DeleteCan someone explain how taking out multiple newspaper ads, making several Facebook posts, and producing a YouTube video inviting public comment at a public meeting which will be video recorded, and also later posted to YouTube and Facebook….is now considered sneaky? What?
DeleteThis might come as a shock to some. There are people that never go on Facebook or YouTube.
DeleteWhy wait until people are going into holiday mode to bring this forward? Maybe because that makes it harder to garner the required 10% votes.
Another 4AM conspiracy theorist
Delete