Ratepayers vote a tough sell for city officials

City of Iqaluit officials have less than a week to convince the city’s skeptical, cantankerous ratepayers to vote yes next week to a $4-million borrowing proposal.

The vote, to be held only among private and corporate property owners on the city’s tax rolls, will take place Sept. 11 at Iqaluit’s curling rink. The polling station will be open from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.

About 600 ratepayers will be asked to vote yes or no to the following question:

“Are you in favour of the City of Iqaluit borrowing $4,050,000 as set out in By-Law 584: By-Law to Borrow Money for Municipal Purposes?”

The vote is required by the Cities, Towns and Villages Act. Although city council has given first and second reading to the borrowing bylaw, it can’t do a third reading unless a majority of ratepayers say yes to it in next week’s vote.

The $4 million is part of a five-year, $50-million, capital spending package that the city put together last year. It’s aimed at road paving, recreation facilities, and badly needed improvements to the city’s water and sewage systems.

As its share of the package, the Government of Nunavut has agreed to give the city $31 million. But to get the cash, Iqaluit must put up the remaining $19 million. The city has gathered $15 million from tax increases, reserves and other funds – but must borrow the last $4 million.

Iqaluit ratepayers contacted by Nunatsiaq News this week are divided on how they plan to vote. Some say they will vote yes, others say they will vote no, and some are undecided.

But nearly all of them are unhappy with the status quo, and most say the city, and the Nunavut government, must change the way that Iqaluit’s municipal government charges its residents for money to pay for municipal services.

Most ratepayers feel they are paying an unfairly high share of the bill for services that all residents use – whether or not they actually pay for them.

Larry Simpson, a long-term Iqaluit homeowner who was once president of the now-defunct Iqaluit Ratepayers’ Association, says he’s leaning toward a yes vote.

But he says, compared to other residents, such as the large number of government employees living in subsidized staff housing, Iqaluit ratepayers carry an unfair financial burden.

“I’m inclined to vote yes. But in the bigger scheme of things, I still think taxpayers are paying a disproportionate burden of taxes for services, for infrastructure, for improvements. I think people who live in an apartment building have it much better than a homeowner,” Simpson said.

“In return for a yes vote, I would like to see the city assess this question.”

Simpson said he, and perhaps many other ratepayers, are happy the city is finally taking strong measures to recover back-taxes from people who have accumulated large debts over the years.

“I’m happy with the direction the city is taking with the deadbeat taxpayers. If they didn’t do that, I would have been much more negative on the vote. I think they’re willing to make some unpopular decisions, instead of just giving in. There seems to be competence there in financial matters,” Simpson said.

Other ratepayers, however, have already made up their minds to vote no.

Bryan Pearson, another former president of the Iqaluit Ratepayers’ Association, who is also a businessman, homeowner and former mayor of Iqaluit, said he does not trust the city’s ability to handle such a large debt.

“Their management skills seem to be lacking with their waste, their unbelievable waste of money. I wouldn’t support it,” Pearson said.

Pearson suggested that the municipal government’s past history of blunders, such as the non-functioning $7-million sewage treatment plant, shows its officials can’t be trusted to manage large infrastructure projects.

“I’m not impressed with the municipality, with the dump and the sewage treatment plant, and they just can’t do anything right. The dump is just an utter disaster. It just goes on and on and on. They can’t do anything right. They’re rebuilding these roads over and over and over, but not a single sidewalk anywhere.”

Other ratepayers say they are still trying to gather the information they need to reach an informed decision.

Lorraine Thomas, an Iqaluit homeowner, said she’s still undecided.

“I personally am undecided because I haven’t had time to research the issue, but I definitely will vote, and I will definitely research it before I vote. It is up to me to figure this out,” Thomas said.

She said, however, that the city hasn’t left people like her with a lot of time to absorb information and reach a decision, since many residents are just getting back to town after being away for the summer.

“Maybe the time is a bit tricky for people who have been away boating or on the land or out of town.”

Anne Crawford, another Iqaluit homeowner, said she’s leaning toward a yes vote – but said the city hasn’t provided enough financial information.

“I don’t feel that I have received adequate information on their financial situation to make a decision on incurring additional debt, though I have respect for the council and the decision they’ve made. I worry about where their total debt is and where it’s going to come from, and how it will be supported.”

And she said the city needs to look at better ways of paying for municipal services, especially user-pay systems for water, and a gasoline tax on drivers to help pay for the roads.

“User-pay is a much more effective way of directly relating use to cost,” Crawford said.

However, Crawford says she trusts the current city council and believes it has done well over the past three years.

“I’m leaning toward the proposal because I have respect for the decision-makers. But if it passed I would be interested in seeing them find alternative ways of paying their bills.”

She also said that Iqaluit ratepayers pay thousands of dollars more per year in property tax than do homeowners in the hamlets, who usually pay a few hundred dollars a year at the most.

“Ratepayers in Iqaluit don’t see the additional services that they receive in return for the additional thousands of dollars that they pay per year. So it does become a question of equity,” Crawford said.