While I admire the efforts of our councilors until they can figure out why a road paved doesn’t last more than 1 – 2 years we will need 15 – 25 million a year just to keep re-paving things.

from june of 2011
http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2011/06/fairshare-mou-provides-322-million-to-peace-region.html

from the web page come these words ….

Initiated in 2005, the Provincial/Peace River MOU (also known as FairShare) provides at least $20 million annually to the Peace River Regional District, indexed to changes in the rural industrial assessment base. The funds act as “grants-in-lieu” as Peace River communities cannot access what would ordinarily be their municipal industrial property taxes. The industrial tax base is located outside the boundaries of the region’s municipalities, making conventional taxation practices impossible.

The funds are divided among local governments within the regional district through a formula determined by the region. With this new round of funding, the MOU has now delivered $184.2 million to communities and rural areas in the Northeast

This agreement aligns with Premier Christy Clark’s commitments to:

•Provide northern and rural communities and parents the tools they need to grow and succeed.
•Put more power in the hands of communities to decide on the allocation of infrastructure grants, rather than trying to use one-size-fits-all-programs.
•Representatives from the communities of Chetwynd, Hudson’s Hope, Taylor, Tumbler Ridge, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and Pouce Coupe were signatories to the MOU.

Annual payments are made directly to the Peace River Regional District, no later than April 30. The agreement is in effect until March 31, 2020.
====================================

Seems like some reasonable words. Not sure exactly how this works. Most definitely not sure whether any other regional districts have such agreements or whether they might get similar monies in other ways. If they don’t, then this whole notion of “fair share” does not seem to meet the criterion of “fair”. Nothing fair about that at all.

So, I wonder if we can get a bit more info about this.

As the saying goes, the more one learns about what is happening, the more questions pop up. This one certainly pops up a lot of questions.

So has this all come from the Mayors’ get together?
——————————
A paper from the past … around 2004 probably.

http://www.unbc.ca/assets/qrrc/fair_share.pdf

May have given rise to the BC/PRRD agreement.

from that paper:
One region has undertaken a study that reveals their contribution to provincial revenues in the area of natural resources far outweighs the provincial expenditures within their region. The report entitled Northern Revenue and Expenditure: A Fiscal Review of the Northern British Columbia Economy 1998/1999 was commissioned by the North Central Municipal Association in March 2002. The study found that while provincial government expenditures in the region were roughly proportional to population (8.9%), the northern economy contributed one and a half times more in provincial revenue than what it received in provincial government expenditures.

BTW, the recommendation of tht report was:

“That UBCM endorse the policy paper and the proposed direction to pursue the development of a resource revenue sharing agreement with the provincial government for BC local governments.”

So from that we got the BC/PRRD agreement and no more?

From those who know, what happened to that recommendation of say 7 or 8 years ago? Died? If so, why?

BTW, I could not get a video link to the meeting last night. I went to the City’s page this morning and there is no video record of last night’s meeting available.

Another glitch? Roads not repaired? Video capability not repaired? They had almost 3 weeks since they had problems at the Core review meeting.

gus said “Another glitch? Roads not repaired? Video capability not repaired? They had almost 3 weeks since they had problems at the Core review meeting.”

Like I said here previously, the “glitch” is city hall management.

Most would have a difficult time making the case for their “market value” and be able to justify their tremendous pay and benefits package.

Time to show Derek Bates the door, and bring in a “fixer” to swing the ax. The city is beyond teaching old dogs new tricks (core review).

It’s time to get some new dogs.

The Video from last nights council meeting is there now, all 3 hrs and 54 min worth.
On the City website under City hall then down to Mayor and Council then over to Council webcasts click the ‘Council’ tab next to the ‘Live’ tab and you will see the ‘Video’ highlighted in blue, click and enjoy

Fair share, why to buy more air butt head? Getting sick of this crap.same with a gas tax for our road repair, kiss off can’t manage the tax money you have now same as giving a drunk a drink, when its gone go looking for more…..

thanks nu2PG …

here is the web page address I go to:

http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/Pages/Agendas.aspx

There is a list there with date; starting time; minutes; highlights; video.

The video is there for Monday, May 07, 2012

For Monday, May 18, 2012, it states “n/a” – the agenda is there and I looked at that prior to the meeting … but still no video.

I refreshed my cache as well to make sure I am getting the real thing.

sorry, that should read May 28, 2012

[ur]http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/Pages/webcast.aspx[/url]

So your way of accessing gets me to the above address.

My way of accessing is through the home page uner the panel on the left, which is called “Frequently Visited pages” …. the top line item is “council Agendas & Minutes”.

That leads to the address I showed in my previous post.

So two ways to get to videos, each leading to a different final address…….

Thanks for leading me to one which has the video ….

However, the City is still not off the hook completely … they need a webmaster who is smart enough to design a site which has only one way in to an item or one which automatically changes all links …. or remembers to change all links if there are multiple links to an item.

http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/Pages/webcast.aspx

I now notice that the panel on the home page also has a link called “Council Webcasts”, 9 lines down.

It also has a link to “air quality”

Thought I would check that out

that led me to this page:

http://www.princegeorge.ca/environment/airquality/Pages/default.aspx

Top line item state: “Wed Apr 11, 2012 04:00 PM Dust Advisory Continues”

SAeems we still have a dust advisory … right from April 11, 2012 till now….. no notice of it ending yet …. the others seem to have ended ….. so this one must still be going on …..

I mean this reminds me of roads …. one has to maintain things and it is very ewxpensive and time consuming to maintain things …. and one has to have competent staff to maintain things … especially web sites……

Gus the report you make note from the Northern Municipal Association was one of several attempts to get a better deal from the Province. It made a strong argument but the liberals (like the NDP before them) didn’t budge.

This current attempt is just the same thing that’s been pitched over and over again with the Province each and every time saying “no ain’t gunna happen”.

IMO this “notice of motion” is more about getting some media attention away from Brian and focused on Stolz.

“IMO this “notice of motion” is more about getting some media attention away from Brian and focused on Stolz.”

Hey, you know the good Councillor Stolz quite well it seems … LOL …. I think many people in PG are finally getting to know him.

Oh, btw, Stolz does not work alone. ;-)

Oh, one more thing about Councillor Stolz. He does not like grumpy people, so be careful … LOL

Different Perspective … the other paper that comes from “the north” and put together by IPG, NDI and likely others as well is this one.

In my mind it provides a more studied view of what role the North of BC plays and, especially, can play in the development of the province and this part of the province. I think it is less of a money grab than the BC/PRRD agreement seems to be and Stolz’s thinking might be.

Again, it has been said, there has been some action, but who is identifying the objectives, who is responsible to implement them, and who is responsible to monitor whether they are happening, and who is responsible for monitoring their effectiveness and tweaking the program if it does not work as intended?

In other words, are our elected officials in Ottawa, Victoria, PG Regional District and the City of PG playing nicely together or are they all trying to be like Tarzan and beating their chests?

forgot to link the report … http://www.bcbc.com/Documents/2020_200910_IPG.pdf

Here is the BCBusiness Council’s Outlook 2020 site just ot show that we are a small part of the whole of what is happening in the province.

http://www.bcbc.com/Events_Descriptions/2020.asp

I found the following website that suggests our Council might want to do some research before suggesting something. It also leads one to believe the councilors that have been there awhile (ie. Brian) have pretty short memories.

Want to know what has and hasn’t been supported in the past. Easy to do just check out http://www.ubcm.ca/resolutions/default.aspx

Use “Revenue Sharing” as title in the search and you will see how many times municipalities have run this up the flag pole.

Also interesting that a search under sponsor for “Prince George” brings up all the motions our Council has tried including one in 2007 that called for. wait for it, “the authority to impose a gas tax to fix our roads”. It was not supported by the other local governments who thought it was a dumb idea.

Hey Mitch2 …. great find!!!!! thanks for that!!

Looks like the last resolutions shown are for 2010. The last one for Prince George is 2007. Looks like no action in 2008, 2009, 2010?

1990 ……

WHEREAS many municipalities located in British Columbia are faced with additional operating costs due to inclement weather conditions;

AND WHEREAS the Motor Fuel Tax Act imposes a tax on gasoline throughout the province, to be remitted to the Minister:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities petition the provincial government to amend the Motor Fuel Tax Act to transfer a percentage of revenues collected to those respective municipalities whose costs of operations are increased due to inclement weather.

That went to the executive and does not seem to have reappeared.

I believe resolutions which are specific to a select number of municipalities do not fare well for some obvious reasons. Once one rewords them and hits most or all organization members with common concerns the probability of being accepted rises tremendously.

Thus if it is related to roads maintenance without further conditions, which all municipalities can identify with, and also related to the idea that gas tax is ideally suited to be used for road repairs, and that at least half the roads in BC are municipal roads then I believe it has a high probability of being accepted.

Of course, whether the province accepts it, that is another matter all together.

So there is my opinion. See if anyone runs with it or an improved version.

I put “gas tax” into the text of the resolution. Spreads the net a bit wider. (hint for other net researchers)

gets 23 resolutions …

most did not pass the muster ….

Here is one which did and has a response from the province.

2003, from Telkwa ….

WHEREAS the provincial government increased the provincial gas tax by 3.5 cents per litre, effective March 1, 2003;

AND WHEREAS BC’s economic cornerstone resource extraction industries, such as mining and forestry, will be negatively impacted by higher costs for transporting raw resources to processing facilities and for transport of finished products to markets;

AND WHEREAS public transit is virtually non-existent in many northern communities – resulting in a disproportionate increase in the cost of commuting where personal vehicles are necessary for commuting to work and travelling to goods and services centres:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of BC Municipalities request that funds collected from this tax increase be fairly assessed and distributed throughout all communities to improve all aspects of transportation infrastructure.
———————

MINISTRY OF FINANCE response

The Government is already investing motor fuel tax revenue in major transportation projects across the province. The province typically spends over $200 Million more on transportation than it receives in provincial motor fuel taxes.

Under the Motor Fuel Tax Act, 6.75 cents per litre of the provincial motor fuel tax is dedicated to the BC Transportation Financing Authority (BCTFA). This includes the revenue collected from the additional 3.5 cents per litre recently imposed.

The revenue dedicated to BCTFA funds important transportation projects according to the priorities set out in the provincial transportation plan. The transportation plan was announced in the 2003 budget.

So, from reading that, it seems to me that what someone who gets paid to do this kind of work ought to be familiar with or become familiar with is the work of the BCTFA to see whether municipal roads are ever any part of the provincial transportation plan.

If not, then ask to discuss any benefits there might be of integrating the work of municipal transportation plans with provincial transportation plans.

I suspect that there is some cooperation between feds and province already since some of the projects are jointly funded projects.

So, if that kind of integration has not happened on the municipal-provincial front, then lobbying might get us there, and if that is successful, then there is a foot in the door.

Small steps ….. lead to larger ones.

One more that I think is relevant in showing how touchy the province is about access the fuel tax or exempting a user from the fuel tax
—————————————
2003 from Campbell River – Resolution Text

WHEREAS the provincial government has enacted an increase in the provincial fuel tax of 3.5 cents per litre, effective March 1, 2003;

AND WHEREAS this tax has caused huge increases to the cost of providing transit services:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of BC Municipalities petition the provincial government to exempt transit services from the 3.5 cents per litre increase in provincial fuel tax.

—————————–
Provincial Response – MINISTRY OF FINANCE

The fuel tax is a general source of provincial government revenue. Commercial truckers are also directly impacted by the 3.5 cent per litre tax increase and they are required to pay the tax.

The transit agencies will benefit from the highway projects that will be funded by the additional fuel tax revenue to the extent that new infrastructure improves road transportation between and within local communities. TransLink and BC Transit in the Capital Regional District currently receive funding from the fuel tax collected in those areas.

The additional revenue generated from the 3.5 cents per litre is required to fund major highway infrastructure projects over the next decade. If transit services were to be exempt from the tax, the lost revenue would have to be redirected from other sources of provincial revenue that is required to fund other important government programs.
———————————

I think the last sentence speaks for itself. Good luck, PG/Stolz.