YPR was transferred to the airport authority in 1997 by agreement under the National Airports Policy, and there have been subsequent subsidiary agreements under the Airports Capital Assistance Program to provide federal funding related to safety, asset protection and operating cost reduction. For example, see
This B Travenn individual is good, pays attention and has the stuff together. Give him a Gold.
Here’s a link back to the original story. The presentation to council was made by Bob Busch, general manager of operations for the BC SPCA at the January 25 meeting of council.
Thanks S. Thomas for the link. BTW I like your reporting and do believe you give the people the facts. Thank you for reporting news back to the citizens of Prince Rupert. I am one who does appreciate it. 
ACAP provides some funding for equipment and some operating costs eg. big runway repairs. Long way from covering the costs of running YPR. Consider the cost of an electrician, plumber, or other contractor to do a job where it can take over three hours for a 30 minute job because YPR is on an island and the contractor has to take the ferry both ways; on the Ferry’s schedule. Plus the extra costs the contractor has to incur for the cost of the ferry’s commercial rate is past on to YPR. Consider the cost of Urea (de icer for the runway, apron). Urea costs double what it costs Terrace airport (for example) because YPR has to barg it out to Digby. The Jet fuel for the airport also has to be barged out and can only have one fuel truck at a time on the barg; guess who sucks up these costs? Big reason why YPR does not have 100 LL AVgas for general aviation aircraft; which further lowers income from fuel and landing fees. Guess how many thousands of dollars it cost to hire a barg to Digby? The airport even has to pay the Ferry for its staff runs; something other airports like Terrace do not have to incur. I could go on and on with other costs but I am sure, with a little thought, you can appreciate the fact that YPR is certainly in a unique situation and with this comes a large, extra burden with no costs to the city. Worth a thanks IMO.
Furthermore, if you expect YPR to thank the PR tax payers for the Ferry subsidy (as per your post) It certainly isn’t unreasonable to expect a Thank-You to YPR for not costing the city tax payers a dime don’t you think?
What threat? Is it not business practice that if you are running with a deficit and unable to acquire the monies needed to operate for an extended period of time that your business will either close or need to modify to operate accordingly? That would be the case for any business. Unfortunately, I have never thought of the SPCA is merely a “business”, it is a necessity in this town. The thought that they may have a reprieve for one year is encouraging but what happens then, what happens to the staff and the volunteers who put their heart and soul into that operation. The only consolation I can see at this time is that they will continue to do the best they can, for as long as they can, for our animals and I thank them for that.
Thank-You for the link S_Thomas 
I think we’re going about this airport ferry business the wrong way - I think it should be fully funded and operated throught the ministry of transportation. Since we have no highway or road access to our airport the government should be footing the bill. Sure it will still be our “tax dollars” being spent - but I dont feel that it should be coming out of our municipal budget (any of it), instead it should be thought of as an extension of Highway 16.
Dex … I have no issue with how YPR operates … my issue is with the airport ferry and how it drains money away from community services, including the SPCA. I don’t want to see the SPCA’s services closed or curtailed.
I haven’t flown through YPR in years and I have nothing to thank them for … if you want to debate whether YPR deserves a thank you from its users you really should take that up with someone who uses the facility … I have no opinion.
As for ACAP funding, you asked a question and I answered it, although you evidently have detailed knowledge of YPR’s costs and revenues … which makes me wonder why you bothered asking the question in the first place.
Nor do I seriously expect YPR to thank the city taxpayers for heavily subsidizing the ferry … my comment was avowedly rhetorical … no organization is going to say ‘thanks a lot eh’ to the taxpayers.
I doubt that increasing the ferry fare would be particularly controversial since no one seems to bother telling passengers how much it costs … it’s just rolled into the air ticket. In that respect it is best that YPR not post the passenger fare on their site.
My main point is that the roughly $1 million annual taxpayer subsidy of the airport ferry takes away from other services such as the SPCA … but for some reason the subsidy seems to be treated like a state secret … hidden away in the city’s annual financial plan and otherwise not discussed.
Absolutely … but for the city to make that proposal they first need to acknowledge that the airport ferry takes money away from other services and that alternatives to a taxpayer subsidy should be discussed … for some reason that discussion doesn’t happen.
What happens if the SPCA does in fact have to close because of financial issues? The services they provide will still be needed by the community. Seems to me that the SPCA is a more economic solution to a city run pound or other options short of issuing sidearms to the bylaw officers with instructions to shoot stray animals on sight.
Or… you could make a donation to the local branch of the SPCA…
Personally I think they should limit the amount of taxes the shelter pays, and maybe somehow allow the staff there to do the animal control. Which would mean the bylaw officer can just do traffic and they can somehow allot the shelter a portion of their fines (which are terribly high!) 
However, Im not sure if that could work, but just something like that so the shelter does not have to ask for so much and isnt paying the city thousands of dollars…