The path of that plan would come by way of a Bylaw that would be put in place pending approval by the AAP process which will end on March 18th.
As Regional District explains it, the net annual cost to Regional District residential ratepayers will be $2.94 per year, which would be part of the Regional District component of our annual tax payments in July.
 |
| click to enlarge |
The Board of North Coast Regional District will be able to move forward with their plan, should the AAP process delivers less than 10 per cent participation, which has been recorded as 1,198 residents of the North Coast District areas where the proposed services will be introduced.
Should more than 10 percent of those eligible to participate record a vote against the proposal the Regional District Board would have to reassess their plans or go to a referendum.
 |
| click to enlarge |
The details towards the proposed Bylaw can be explored here.
In October of 2021. Regional District introduced its bylaw towards the Regional Broadband Contribution Service, noting of the Regional District's proposed plans for a partnership agreement with CityWest for the deliver of broadband services through the Regional District area.
 |
| click to enlarge |
The full scope of that proposal can be reviewed here.
More background on the Alternative Approval Process now underway is available here.
A wider overview of past Regional District themes is available here.
I hope 1200 people take the time to object to this AAP proposal by the NCRD.
ReplyDeleteHere is why;
- Citywest should not be a named party in the bylaw, to do so appears to be bias. Any Bylaw proposal, or agreement should state "any communication or telecommunication provider". Citywest has already benefited from grants for the connected coast project and has a monopoly in Prince Rupert. They do not need to be subsidized any further, especially via taxation.
- This is a progressive tax policy based on property value. A proportional policy would be a more equitable choice. Example would be any new fibre connection would have a one time connection charge.
- One can see how this bylaw could be written to cater to a specific local telecom monopoly. Especially considering how some individuals spent time with the NCRD and are now with said Prince Rupert telecom provider.
Rural broadband infrastructure is a necessity, and needs to be a priority.
But this policy proposal has a corporate self serving odor to it and will do nothing to accelerate broadband development in our underserved monopoly of a region.
I oppose this bylaw for the following reasons;
ReplyDelete- The bylaw language paints Citywest as the sole benefactor of these funds.
- It is unclear if this bylaw would only apply to residential property values and not commercial property values.
- There is no sunset clause to assess bylaw impact and deliverables.
- Potential conflict of interest between the NCRD and Citywest
- If a new city sign for Prince Rupert costs $240 000, I fail to see what $40,000 will accomplish in terms of broadband infrastructure.
There are other avenues for rural broadband providers to invest in infrastructure costs, the introduction of this bylaw is not one of them.
If you oppose this bylaw, fill out your form and drop it off at the NCRD office before March 18th 2022.
https://www.ncrdbc.com/sites/default/files/docs/2022_01_21_aap_re_regional_broadband_contribution_service_establishment_bylaw_676_attachment_b_-_aap_form.pdf