We are AAP’d out in Kamloops
Reid Hamer-Jackson · 23 September 2026
What an AAP actually is
The Alternative Approval Process is how a city borrows large sums without holding a vote.
Instead of asking electors to vote yes, the City publishes a borrowing proposal and waits. If at least 10% of eligible electors fill in a form saying no before the deadline, the borrowing cannot proceed without a referendum. If fewer than 10% object, it passes.
It is legal, it is used by municipalities across British Columbia, and Kamloops has used it for years. The City’s own figures: since 2000 Kamloops has borrowed more than 50 times, the large majority through an AAP, with two referendums in that whole period.
Reid is not arguing the process is illegitimate. He is arguing that silence is being counted as agreement, on sums most people never heard about.
Where Reid stands
Use it for what it was meant for
The AAP was designed for civic infrastructure — pipes, roads, water treatment, the things a city cannot run without. Reid accepts that other communities also use it for arts and recreation, as Kamloops has. His objection is not the tool. It is how it has been used here over the past four years.
Tell people, properly
Not a notice in the paper and a form at City Hall. Reid has pushed for mail-outs to every household when the City is asking to borrow at this scale. If a decision turns on whether people know it is happening, then making sure they know is part of the job.
Show the whole cost
The borrowing figure is never the whole figure. Interest over the life of the debt, annual debt servicing, and what it costs to operate the building once it opens all land on the tax bill. Citizens should see the full number before the clock starts, not afterwards.
The arts centre: yes, but not there
Reid supports a performing arts centre for Kamloops. He does not support the chosen location, because of significant parking problems, and believes there are better sites in the city.
Recreation: use what we own first
Kamloops should keep advancing recreation. Before building new, the City should make more efficient use of the facilities and land it already owns.
Borrow responsibly
Debt is a tool, not a problem in itself. What matters is that the people paying it back understand what they are taking on, in plain numbers, before it is taken on.
What he has actually done
Not a position taken during a campaign. A record, with dates.
-
August 2024
Moved to cancel the $275 million Build Kamloops AAP. The motion got no seconder. He raised it again in September, days before the deadline: “There’s many people in the city that I’ve talked to that haven’t heard about it.”
-
June 2025
Voted against using an AAP to borrow about $151 million for the police building, arguing it should go on the election ballot instead. “If you are going to have a $150 million borrow on the table, you might just get people involved.” Only he and Councillor Neustaeter opposed it.
-
April 2026
The lone vote against two further AAPs — $16.7 million for land on McMaster Way and $9 million for Tranquille Road works. Council voted 7–1. He asked whether a mailer would go to households; staff put the cost at $11,000 to $38,000.
-
July 2026
Voted against an AAP for the $160 million police building, preferring the question go to voters. Council chose the AAP 5–4, to be held in early 2027. Staff estimate the project needs about a 6% tax increase over six years.
One thing he says plainly: in June 2024 he supported council’s recommendation to seek borrowing approval for Build Kamloops. When the details came back a month later he voted against them, alone, and he has voted against every AAP since. He has been criticised for that change. His answer is that he saw how little the public knew, and changed his mind.
The other side of it
Council colleagues and staff have defended the AAP, and the argument deserves to be heard. The City’s corporate services director has pointed out that every municipality in B.C. uses it, calling it “about as illegal as the Motor Vehicle Act.” Councillor Middleton has noted that turnout at municipal elections is historically low, so a ballot question is not automatically more democratic. A referendum also costs more and takes longer.
Reid does not dispute that it is lawful or common. His case is narrower: at this scale, on this much debt, the people paying should be told loudly enough that not objecting genuinely means agreeing.