Two notices were posted recently to the Regional District website, in the first they outlined how the District plans to use the AAP option towards their plans to provide annual financial contribution to the Lester centre of the Arts.
The details towards the Bylaw can be reviewed here, of note from the document:
 |
| click to enlarge |
The details towards the Bylaw can be reviewed here, of note from the document:
The path forward for the AAP initiative came out a report from the June NCRD meeting
 |
| click to enlarge |
Both initiatives have the same 10 percent voter threshold as the current City of Prince Rupert initiatives, the the totals will however be based on the regional electoral base not municipal.
The details on the process for the Regional District AAP can be reviewed from the links above in red.
The deadline for response towards both AAP's is August 7th.
It's doubtful that the Regional District use of AAP will make for the same kind of conversation currently taking place related to the City of Prince Rupert's AAP ambitions.
That mainly to the lack of attention that Regional District efforts receive from the media and public, the body of government one that mostly moves forward with little interest or awareness from the public.
Short of their Agenda packages and minutes there's little to review from the Regional District information flow, unlike the City of Prince Rupert they do not provide for a video archive of their proceedings, leaving the bulk of their work for the most part out of sight and out of mind.
With that lack of a video record however, there's no real background to any discussion that they may or may not have had towards the twin initiatives.
Past notes on Regional District themes can be reviewed from our archive page.
I wonder if they will also be accused of being sneaky for trying to fund civic assets?
ReplyDeleteOK I'll do it if it makes you happy. Sneaky
ReplyDeleteThis approval isn't mortgaging my next unborn child for 30 years like the city plan.
As important as cultural institutions are, I think that it's more difficult for the NCRD to justify an AAP for these projects compared to the City's funding for infrastructure that is in a critical state.
ReplyDeleteI guess you are referring to the Wheelhouse as a justified expenditure.
DeleteI don't know how you read that into my comment. As for the Wheelhouse, it doesn't strike me as having been approached on a purely commercial basis, as it should have been, notwithstanding that the City received grant funds.
DeleteThe money was given to the city and could of been used for infrastructure.
Delete“Local governments may use the grant to meet an immediate infrastructure need for their community, save it for a future opportunity, or leverage it to secure other sources of funding, including borrowing, reserves and other grant programs, to cover major infrastructure and long-term planning initiativesocal governments may use the grant to meet an immediate infrastructure need for their community, save it for a future opportunity, or leverage it to secure other sources of funding, including borrowing, reserves and other grant programs, to cover major infrastructure and long-term planning initiatives.”
We built a bar and will never see a return.
If you don’t think a revitalized heritage building, a reinvigorated public waterfront space, a First Nations partnership and a local business partnership is not a good return on investment, maybe you need to rethink things
DeleteI believe the return is that Wheelhouse is the tenant and they pay rent, right? That building hasn’t earned any revenue for the city in decades.
ReplyDelete