I have some concerns about the proposed new City Hall/institutional space/rental housing units and the AAP being used to move the project forward:
1. The APP (Alternative Approval Process) that is taking place relies on 10 per cent of eligible electors to object to borrowing the money, if the borrowing is to be disallowed. It assumes that the other 90 per cent of eligible electors don't object and that they are in support of the borrowing and the project. Little effort has been made to notify people of this issue. Information about the AAP and project is mostly available at the town's website. More notification effort could have been made via the mail (an insert in utility bills for e.g.) or by delivering a handout.
2. The amount to be borrowed is $13.5 million. By paying it back over 30 years at $860,520 per year the amount paid becomes just shy of $26 million. Practically double the initial loan amount!
3. Incurring off-site storage expenses of $8,000 annually, and annual lease payments of $32,000 for Robert St. Development Services offices seems an awful big leap to spending $26 million on a new City Hall. It may well be a good idea to have a new City Hall but has any investigation been done into the cost of building up and over the existing City Hall?
As a town that hangs its reputation on its Heritage buildings the town should be a leader in heritage restoration. The owners of the building where Plantitude and White Space reside, as well as the owners of the Temperance Hotel have both recently demonstrated that there is currently a case for restoring heritage buildings as opposed to not.
4. The sketch (shown on website) of the proposed development does not add anything of architectural interest to the landscape and it also appears that the upper stories are only set back on Buller Street.
5. There was an announcement in February of this year that the town has chosen a development partner and that they are using sole-source procurement. The notion of having no competitive bidding on a project of this scale does not appear to be in the best interest of tax payers.
6. The town ran a banner ad in the June 6 local paper (this one!) directing people to the website for more info. Some of the answers to the questions were not satisfying;
Q4 - There is no commitment to house or relocate the Ladysmith Museum. This is not encouraging given how things went with the Ladysmith Marine Society (Ladysmith community Marina).
Q8 - The town will lease the housing portion of the building for 60 years. There is no indication of the revenue the town will receive via this lease.
Q13 - Debt payment to be $860,520 per year. Paying $860,520 per year the amount paid becomes just shy of $26 million.
Q17 - The 95 rental housing units are directed to "middle income" earners. The phrase "middle income" means nothing as it has no monetary value. In any event isn't it the low income earners that are struggling the most in these volatile housing times so shouldn't some of the units be dedicated to them?
There is much to consider with this proposed project. Whether you are for it, or against it, the AAP is not the best way to obtain the backing of electors. A project of this size should be put to referendum so electors can say "yes" or "no" ... doing nothing should NOT count as an affirmative choice.
Catherine Cartwright
Ladysmith
