[0:03] The town of Hinton respectfully
[0:05] acknowledges that it is located on the
[0:08] first people's traditional lands. We
[0:11] recognize this traditional territory to
[0:13] show respect and understanding to those
[0:16] who walked through times since time
[0:19] immemorial. [clears throat]
[0:21] Today we uphold our ongoing
[0:23] responsibility to work together in the
[0:25] spirit of the intent of the treaties
[0:28] with all the first peoples and nations
[0:31] that call this place home. The town
[0:33] expresses gratitude for the opportunity
[0:36] to build a better community on these
[0:39] sacred lands for generations to come. I
[0:42] now call this meeting to order at 4 p.m.
[0:50] any additions or amendments to the
[0:53] agenda.
[1:09] » No changes.
[1:11] Thank you.
[1:14] Um, and I don't believe we have minute
[1:17] council.
[1:20] » Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Uh, adoption of
[1:23] agenda that committee adopt the agenda
[1:25] as presented. If you could please vote
[1:27] now.
[1:41] Thank you. And
[1:43] » Hearing from MD Campbell, there is
[1:46] nobody on the line for a minute with
[1:48] council. So we can move on to reports
[1:52] from administration 4.1
[1:55] council action pending list review.
[2:01] » Thank you chair to the rest of
[2:02] committee. So after last meeting where
[2:06] we approved the strategic and the
[2:10] tactical plan, we've taken another look
[2:12] at the council action pending list and
[2:15] we wanted to make sure that everything
[2:16] was updated and everything was aligned
[2:18] to ensure that administration was
[2:20] working on the most or the latest
[2:24] direction provided by council through
[2:26] those strategic and tactical plans.
[2:29] We've there are a number of of these
[2:33] items that aren't in alignment or a
[2:36] little bit duplicative of what we had in
[2:38] our tactical plan. So, we wanted to just
[2:40] clean this list up. We wanted to
[2:43] eliminate all of the ones that you see
[2:45] are highlighted on page five and six. uh
[2:50] we are recommending for those to be
[2:52] rescended as we have
[2:55] we have direction on those items that
[2:58] are that is slightly different through
[3:00] our tactical guid that was all we've
[3:03] talked about most recently with this
[3:05] council and that's what we should be
[3:07] working with um but if there's any other
[3:09] questions on uh on this list I'd be
[3:13] happy to answer
[3:17] any and council chambers.
[3:20] » So, a lot of these I mean they're pretty
[3:22] straightforward. I think they make good
[3:24] sense based on the work that we've done.
[3:26] for the one that is
[3:29] um
[3:30] MV 3830
[3:33] which talks about the proposed
[3:34] conditions of sale report to a committee
[3:36] at the whole meeting for that one
[3:40] I guess is it just kind of assumed
[3:42] through the process of the fact that we
[3:44] would be looking at the you know sale of
[3:47] other lands that we would naturally be
[3:49] looking at um conditions of sale like is
[3:52] that still something that's going to
[3:53] come to council with the remainder of
[3:55] the lands that are that are not for sale
[3:59] » Through the chair, members of the
[4:00] committee. So 3830. Yes, this one is
[4:02] still this one is one that is still
[4:05] relevant. It's just the timeline has
[4:06] changed a little bit. Uh we did put the
[4:09] infill uh the infill lands on hold.
[4:12] We've kind of held that until we had a
[4:14] new direction from the tactical plan.
[4:16] So, we just have a different timeline
[4:17] essentially, but that is something that
[4:19] is going to come uh within the next
[4:23] a little less than 3 months. Council
[4:26] should be seeing that relatively soon,
[4:27] but we have that uh dictated by the
[4:29] timelines in our tactical plan.
[4:31] » Okay. Yeah, that's good because I I just
[4:32] think that's important when we think
[4:34] about, you know, potential ways to
[4:36] attract faster faster builds or, you
[4:41] know, maybe it's affordable prices or
[4:43] whatever whatever looks like that we
[4:44] have we can have that conversation so
[4:46] that
[4:47] » So that no other motion needs to be made
[4:50] in order for that to come back. It's
[4:51] coming back as part of the tactical plan
[4:53] to a committee meeting for discussion.
[4:55] But in probably maybe a bit more of a
[4:57] broader sense too with Slenderlands
[4:59] » Or just based on those ones with a
[5:00] different timeline.
[5:01] » Uh yeah um infill lands as well as boot
[5:05] uh when we're talking about conditions
[5:06] and so we are I'm going to package them
[5:08] kind of together when we bring it
[5:10] forward but by the end of this quarter
[5:12] uh those reports will be here and we'll
[5:14] have set those uh is is our timelines
[5:17] that we have through the tactical plan.
[5:19] » Okay, perfect. I just wanted to make
[5:20] sure we didn't have to replace that or
[5:21] clarify that motion at all. I'm good.
[5:23] Thanks, Mayor Le.
[5:25] » Um
[5:27] 3584.
[5:29] The second part of that where it says uh
[5:31] committee seeks consensus to requesting
[5:33] administration bring back a draft
[5:36] outline of the land acquisition
[5:38] management policy. Um
[5:41] that's not going to be in our tactical
[5:43] plan. I don't even know what
[5:47] that is, but I know we're now talking
[5:50] about doing potentially some land
[5:52] acquisition. Is that something that we
[5:54] should sort of stay on top of
[6:06] through the chair to members of
[6:08] committee? Uh certainly can be. We we've
[6:11] kind of
[6:13] this is one that's a little bit
[6:14] different because we've kind of pecked
[6:15] around the issue. Um I don't know if
[6:17] we've accomplished it, but um we have
[6:20] included
[6:22] um
[6:24] we have had this discussion, but we
[6:26] haven't actually brought forward a
[6:28] policy when it comes to land acquisition
[6:30] or management. Um I I think part of the
[6:32] hesitancy of bringing it forward is that
[6:35] we're hoping to get a little bit more
[6:36] information about what the intent behind
[6:38] that was and what we're looking to
[6:40] accomplish uh throughout the process of
[6:42] the infill and more discussions but um
[6:46] but we haven't included that I don't
[6:49] have we included that uh Miss Borvo in
[6:51] our
[6:53] uh reserve strategy for land acquisition
[6:57] » Uh through to all of committee there is
[6:59] a mention of it I I know that we had
[7:01] made uh
[7:03] direct correlation for land but I don't
[7:07] recall the exact wording in the policy.
[7:13] So I I don't know if that answers the
[7:14] question, but we haven't really uh you
[7:18] know got to the heart of this issue, but
[7:20] if this is something that is still
[7:22] relevant in council's mind to talk about
[7:25] land acquisition and the policy that is
[7:28] going to dictate how we do that, how we
[7:31] manage those lands and on what basis do
[7:34] we acquire new lands for example, then I
[7:37] would say that this should
[7:39] likely stay on or at least be
[7:43] possibly rescended and rewarded, but to
[7:45] keep that part of the the motion
[7:47] included. But I can just follow up. I
[7:50] guess from my perspective, I I don't
[7:52] know that
[7:55] we necessarily
[7:56] um made one for as often as it happens,
[8:00] but the um I know we have some potential
[8:05] acquisition coming up or so we should,
[8:08] you know, what governs that
[8:12] is my question
[8:15] through the chair. um really don't have
[8:18] a it's really not governed by policy.
[8:21] It's really, you know, we've looked at
[8:23] these things on kind of a one-off basis
[8:26] just to due to the fact that we really
[8:28] don't do it very often. Um you know, we
[8:31] don't carry a lot of land. um the land
[8:34] we do have, we've taken a stance or
[8:37] we've decided on a strategy that we're
[8:39] going to try and you know sell or tried
[8:42] to use that for uh you know for possible
[8:45] development. So we haven't
[8:49] yet we really haven't looked at this
[8:51] from regulating it or putting it into
[8:53] policy
[8:54] » And obviously from a go farmer's
[8:56] perspective is always going to come to
[8:57] council anyhow. So
[8:58] » Always I don't I don't see a big need
[9:01] for it. I just it being in there. I
[9:03] didn't know if that was something that
[9:05] was 75% of the way being complete, but
[9:08] what you're saying is it hasn't been
[9:09] started.
[9:16] » Yes. A couple questions. First one is on
[9:18] the 4018, the very first item. The due
[9:21] date is April 28th. That's the advocacy
[9:24] document.
[9:26] Is that done? I don't remember seeing
[9:28] it.
[9:30] » Yeah, I did. the
[9:32] » Document.
[9:35] » Okay.
[9:38] » Uh through the chair to members of the
[9:41] committee. So uh well council does have
[9:44] the advocacy document but we are
[9:46] planning on bringing that to a committee
[9:47] of the whole meeting but it was bunked
[9:49] from this meeting to the next committee
[9:51] of the whole meeting.
[9:52] » Okay. Thank you. And just for my own
[9:54] benefit, with the due dates like May 5th
[9:56] and then May 12th, does that
[9:58] automatically put it on the agenda if
[10:00] it's complete or does it just get
[10:02] written complete on here?
[10:06] » Sorry, return to the chair. Um,
[10:08] » So like the next one like May 5th, that
[10:10] committee refers the Alberta
[10:12] municipalities resolution on balancing
[10:13] incentives. So that's due on May 5th.
[10:16] Does that automatically put it on the
[10:17] agenda to be discussed or would it just
[10:20] say complete?
[10:23] if our
[10:26] we're using that one as example because
[10:28] really how it how it works is we have
[10:30] these due dates and we keep track of
[10:32] them by it automatically populates it in
[10:34] the agenda. Okay. Um, and then when we
[10:37] go to the agenda prep meetings with the
[10:39] mayor and deputy, we'll talk about those
[10:41] items and if for some reason it's not
[10:43] done or, you know, we're waiting on a
[10:45] piece of information, for example, we'll
[10:47] we'll bump those out, but they're always
[10:49] tracked through uh through those agendas
[10:51] and then we'll just place it when it's
[10:53] ready to go,
[10:54] » Right?
[10:54] » Yeah. But we always have those on the
[10:56] agenda
[10:57] as really a placeholder to make sure
[10:59] that, you know, top of mind when these
[11:02] things can do.
[11:04] » Thank you. And then the last one is
[11:05] 3448. I think we commented on this
[11:08] before, but this was originally came up
[11:10] in October 22, 2024. It was the FCSS
[11:13] strategic plan,
[11:15] » And [clears throat] I see now the due
[11:16] date May 26 with Chris.
[11:19] Is that going to be changed to an
[11:22] » It will. Yes.
[11:24] » Okay, that's it. Thank you, Councelor
[11:27] Nelson.
[11:28] » Yeah. Um for me, I just wanted to build
[11:29] off of um what the mayor talked about
[11:32] with 354 and land acquisition policy. I
[11:35] would be really concerned at this point
[11:36] to to build one because although it
[11:39] should come to council, if it's also the
[11:41] spoke scope of the policy, then it
[11:44] really shouldn't come to council. And I
[11:47] think um I think admin if there's
[11:50] opportunity to have a acquisition to
[11:53] support whatever the initiative is
[11:55] whether it's housing whether it's rec
[11:56] center I I would want the administration
[11:59] have a pretty wide birth or scope to to
[12:03] bring back a lot of things even if they
[12:05] might fall might be different than what
[12:07] will fall under a policy I
[12:09] [clears throat] think to until Hinton
[12:11] shows a sustained year-over-year growth
[12:14] um I don't know that a land acquisition
[12:17] policy at this point would really it,
[12:20] you know, it's kind of having a area
[12:23] structure plan for 40,000 people. It it
[12:26] doesn't really do a whole bunch until
[12:28] you're you know, you're getting there.
[12:30] So, um I'm very happy to see this go.
[12:32] We've got a lot of the land acquisition
[12:34] conversations happening right now and a
[12:37] pretty aggressive strategic plan around
[12:38] housing and rec center and um I I want
[12:41] to see what what can come back even if
[12:43] it you know it's it's hard to know what
[12:45] would fall within or without or outside
[12:47] of scope for a land acquisition
[12:49] policies. Happy to see that one go.
[12:51] Thank you.
[12:56] Um, I am going to make a motion that
[12:59] council refer the council action pending
[13:02] list report to the next regular council
[13:05] meeting.
[13:11] » Committee refer the council action
[13:13] pending list report the next regular
[13:16] council meeting.
[13:20] The chair just one question. Is that as
[13:22] presented?
[13:24] » Uh as presented.
[13:26] » Thank you.
[13:29] » Do the committee need to redo the
[13:36] [clears throat]
[13:42] that committee refer the council action
[13:45] pending list report to the next regular
[13:47] council meeting as presented.
[14:04] And that is
[14:07] thank you.
[14:12] So now we will move on to doing
[14:15] municipal support for health care
[14:19] administration.
[14:21] » Thank you chair.
[14:24] So the
[14:26] this conversation is coming back to
[14:28] committee. uh we did bring it forward um
[14:32] earlier this year to really just talk
[14:34] about what do we want the go forward
[14:37] plan to be when it comes to municipal
[14:39] support for our healthcare industry if
[14:42] if any. Um at that point in time,
[14:45] council had directed us to go back to a
[14:48] um
[14:50] to just reignite some
[14:54] input from the local physician. So we've
[14:56] included that as an attachment. We've
[14:58] also included the uh the summary of the
[15:03] engagement process that we had started
[15:06] last year.
[15:09] The so really what this is this is in
[15:13] front of committee to decide on what
[15:16] options do we want to entertain when it
[15:18] comes to supported healthcare again if
[15:20] any. Uh the one big thing that has
[15:23] shifted and we've included that this as
[15:25] attachment three is that the Hinton
[15:28] Healthcare Foundation has provided a
[15:31] letter to us to look to
[15:36] propose maybe an alternative arrangement
[15:39] or maybe an we'll call it an execution
[15:42] arm when it comes to supporting
[15:44] healthcare and using the healthcare
[15:46] foundation to be able to provide that. I
[15:49] think that there's still say from
[15:52] council and committee in what options
[15:54] we're willing to support as a council.
[15:57] Um but I think that the Hinton
[15:59] Healthcare Foundation coming forward and
[16:03] uh indicating their intent to become a
[16:06] civic agency for the purpose of
[16:08] implementing this is an option on how we
[16:10] actually put these programs into place
[16:13] and how do we do it. Um, you know,
[16:16] again, council still has the ultimate
[16:19] say of what options or how do we want to
[16:23] support healthcare. Uh, we have broken
[16:26] it out into a couple different
[16:28] categories on how we could do that.
[16:31] We've
[16:32] separated between individual incentives,
[16:35] so we incentivize the physicians
[16:37] themselves. We've broken it out into
[16:40] corporate level incentives. Uh, and
[16:43] there's a number of other options that
[16:44] we haven't looked into in a in a lot of
[16:48] detail, but they are there and we could
[16:49] look at investigating those if council
[16:52] so chooses. So, it's here for council to
[16:56] to discuss and uh we're here for any
[16:58] questions.
[17:01] » Okay.
[17:08] So,
[17:12] so there was the 1 million
[17:16] funding contribution
[17:18] uh originally set out for July 2024 to
[17:22] 2025 is 500,000 and then 2025 to 2026
[17:26] 500,000.
[17:27] Um so on
[17:31] the direction request form it says in
[17:33] 2024 council authorized 7500 towards
[17:36] creation from the traction retention
[17:37] committee. Was that 7500 pardon part of
[17:40] the 500,000?
[17:41] » No that was separate that was separate
[17:42] » That that decision was made before the
[17:45] agreement for the million.
[17:47] » Oh okay. I believe. Yeah.
[17:49] » Okay. And then the the money that is in
[17:53] the letter where it talks about in 2025
[17:56] alone we contributed over 100,000 to
[17:58] position attraction and retention. This
[18:00] is the uh civic agency support letter.
[18:03] Does that money have anything to do with
[18:05] the 500,000 over the the million over
[18:09] the two years
[18:10] » Through the chair note? My understanding
[18:11] is this is what the Hinton Healthcare
[18:14] Foundation has been spending to support
[18:17] physicians um
[18:19] last year.
[18:20] » Okay. So they're they're requiring that
[18:22] through fundraising.
[18:24] [clears throat]
[18:24] » Yeah. Through fundraising or there other
[18:26] u their other methods, but that wasn't
[18:28] included as part of our contributions.
[18:32] » Okay.
[18:33] » Just a comment. Um and correct me if I'm
[18:36] wrong. Under on the page nine of 21, it
[18:39] says relevant details for council's
[18:41] knowledge related provincial programs
[18:42] and position compensation funding
[18:44] included
[18:46] positions and hinting part of the rural
[18:48] remote northern program which enables
[18:50] positions to build to help additional
[18:51] 12.1%.
[18:53] From what I read that hasn't been
[18:54] updated since 2020 has a Has anyone
[18:57] heard anything about maybe that being
[19:00] looked at or reviewed?
[19:02] That's how I read it wasn't updated
[19:04] since 2020. on page nine of 29
[19:11] in the middle there where it talks about
[19:13] 12.1% too.
[19:17] » I'm just asking a question because I
[19:18] thought that was interesting to read
[19:19] that
[19:22] » And the you mean the physician
[19:24] compensation
[19:25] » Framework? Yes, the rural remote
[19:28] program.
[19:29] » I'm not aware of any changes to that
[19:31] program.
[19:32] » Okay. And then number two and three from
[19:35] what I could see they're they're no
[19:37] longer current or existing
[19:39] from what I could find. I just let
[19:43] » Yeah.
[19:44] » So the rural teen recruitment grant
[19:46] program was the deadline was October
[19:48] 2025 and I didn't see any renewal on
[19:50] that and the rural remote family
[19:54] medicine resident position bary was
[19:56] closed December 2025 and I didn't see
[19:58] anything on that either. So just saying
[20:00] there might be other funding out there,
[20:01] but from what I can tell these are done.
[20:05] » Yeah, through the through the chair. I'm
[20:08] not sure if these I know all of these
[20:10] programs existed as of last year. I
[20:12] don't know if they've even announced the
[20:14] funding on these. Um whether they
[20:16] continue with new intakes. I really
[20:19] don't know. Um I believe that the rural
[20:21] and family medicine uh physician bery,
[20:24] that's a longstanding program that's
[20:26] existed for a long time. I would imagine
[20:28] that that would likely to continue. The
[20:32] rural team recruitment grant, um I think
[20:35] that one is maybe less likely because
[20:37] that one never existed up until 2025, I
[20:41] believe. So, that one was something that
[20:43] the province came out with that was
[20:45] relatively new. So, but again, I you
[20:49] know, we don't uh stay on top of these
[20:52] programs uh very often. So,
[20:55] » Okay. Thanks. So I just noticed that.
[20:57] » Y
[21:00] » Um so some of the at the end of May uh
[21:04] we're actually going to lose um
[21:05] provincial funding, additional funding
[21:07] that we had for um anesthesiologists.
[21:11] So I don't know what kind of an impact
[21:13] that's going to have on Hinton. Um now
[21:18] I put it out there. I mean I have some
[21:20] background as it relates to the Hinton
[21:22] Healthcare Foundation. I mean, is it
[21:24] appropriate for me to share that?
[21:28] [clears throat]
[21:30] So, the 500,000 or sorry, the million
[21:32] dollars was to stabilize the operation
[21:34] of the clinic. That's done now. And
[21:38] [clears throat] the healthcare
[21:39] foundation is pretty comfortable that
[21:42] we're going to now be able to operate
[21:44] that clinic without additional support.
[21:48] But table stakes for doctors to come to
[21:52] him and all that other funding
[21:54] consideration aside is that they get six
[21:57] months free accommodation
[22:00] and that's pretty much every community
[22:02] [clears throat] every rural community in
[22:03] Alberta is offering that. So we have
[22:07] potentially five new doctors coming to
[22:10] Hinton over the next
[22:12] months.
[22:14] So, their overhead at the clinic's
[22:17] $4,500 a month. If you build $2,500 a
[22:21] month in rent, $6,000
[22:24] six-month period is 36 grand to bring in
[22:27] docking in.
[22:29] So, whether that um all of that funding
[22:32] is in place or not,
[22:35] physicians come to our community with an
[22:37] expectation that those things get
[22:39] covered off. So last year the healthc
[22:42] care foundation spent about $138,000
[22:45] to um to fund those sorts of things and
[22:48] that did come from you know
[22:52] uh money on hand fundraising.
[22:55] Um but if we have five new doctors
[22:57] coming to town that budget's going to
[23:00] bump up to be
[23:03] a lot. And so, um,
[23:08] the intent of the civic agency letter is
[23:10] not that the town of Hint would
[23:12] necessarily cover all of that, but to
[23:15] partner with the healthcare foundation
[23:18] for a portion of that because there's
[23:19] going to be a push with industry as well
[23:21] to get some support there.
[23:23] » But those costs are real costs. Those
[23:25] doctors are coming and one way or
[23:28] another, the community needs to figure
[23:29] out how to cover that off. So,
[23:32] Council
[23:35] Ch.
[23:36] » Thank you through the chair. So I I
[23:38] think kind of reviewing all of this and
[23:40] going through from being part of the
[23:42] original
[23:44] million dollar first ask and and the
[23:46] concerns from the community that you
[23:48] know, well, they're going to ask for
[23:50] this $500,000 a year and it's never
[23:51] going to end and we shouldn't be doing
[23:52] that. I think it's encouraging to see
[23:54] that that did the job it was supposed to
[23:56] do. Um, I'm [clears throat] I I like
[24:00] that and I quite frankly
[24:05] I I do like the thought of a civic
[24:08] agency agreement with the healthcare
[24:10] foundation because it has it provides
[24:14] within itself that ability that this is
[24:15] still coming back every year for a
[24:17] decision from council and and although
[24:21] the healthcare foundation does a good
[24:23] job of their other means of getting
[24:25] funding through industry and through
[24:27] fundraisers and through different
[24:28] things, you know, it disproportionately
[24:32] it's not everybody kind of chipping in
[24:33] with the same amount towards something
[24:35] like it would be as a civic agency. It
[24:37] kind of disproportionately comes from
[24:38] these these different avenues. So I I
[24:42] don't know that I'm ready to necessarily
[24:44] make a consensus on it, but I I do like
[24:47] that in theory because
[24:49] just from my very small term in council,
[24:53] I have seen quite a big evolution of,
[24:55] you know, when I was first elected in
[24:57] the bi-election to where we're sitting
[24:58] today. So I think that civic agency
[25:00] piece gives us that ability to
[25:02] continually pivot as we grow out of this
[25:05] problem. Um, I I agree with Mayor Le
[25:09] that I I don't think it's should be all
[25:11] of our, you know, all on council or all
[25:15] of the taxpayers to be doing this, but I
[25:16] I think it is a a realistic expectation
[25:19] of what's going on within the community.
[25:21] And I I think I I would support some
[25:24] type of civic agency agreement because
[25:26] of that ability for us to continue to
[25:28] pivot annually, up, down, wherever we
[25:30] feel we need to be as council going
[25:32] forward. So
[25:34] that's all council done.
[25:37] » Just a clarifying question for me. So
[25:40] did you say $4,500
[25:42] overhead for each physician each month?
[25:48] » Now that's that's so they pay a
[25:51] percentage of their billings to a
[25:52] maximum month. Okay.
[25:55] » That's how that's how the clinic runs.
[25:57] That's that's how we're going to be able
[25:59] to operate the place
[26:02] uh without additional input. The doctors
[26:04] are going to pay. So what the healthcare
[26:08] foundation has done is formed a separate
[26:11] nonprofit which will have a separate
[26:13] board. So it's going to have um not a
[26:16] board of volunteers but a board of
[26:18] professionals. So we want to have an HR
[26:20] person and have a finance person. We can
[26:21] have a marketing person and have a so
[26:25] to try and get a professional board put
[26:27] together so that it's actually a selling
[26:30] feature coming in. We have a clinic
[26:32] where you can go there as a physician
[26:34] and make money and um uh you know
[26:37] professional manager to come in and run
[26:39] the place. Um and again that's all going
[26:43] to be um uh provided as part of the
[26:47] package from the from the healthcare
[26:50] foundation.
[26:52] » Just a followup question.
[26:55] » That was something that I I I was
[26:57] questioning I guess with the civic um
[26:59] agency piece. So this would be the same
[27:02] group of people like the um mountain
[27:05] bike club and the disc golf and that
[27:07] list right? And so do we have I know it
[27:11] says like with the so the action was the
[27:15] recommend action committee direct
[27:16] administration to draft a civic agency
[27:18] agreement with the hint healthcare
[27:20] foundation that includes the options of
[27:21] direct assens of incentives
[27:23] accommodation support and clinic
[27:24] overhead subsidy and return to future
[27:26] comms
[27:28] there's no direction where the money is
[27:30] going from that end. Could we not just
[27:32] or consider just doing a civic agency
[27:35] agreement and allowing the healthcare
[27:37] foundation to decide where the funding
[27:39] goes
[27:41] » Through the chair and members of the
[27:43] committee certainly can. You know, we do
[27:46] we we do have with different groups who
[27:49] have different arrangements, but there
[27:50] are lots of groups that we just say, you
[27:52] know, we're just providing this as uh
[27:55] operating funding, right? this is to
[27:57] support your operations for the work
[27:59] you're doing and uh and we leave it at
[28:01] that. So we certainly could look at that
[28:03] arrangement as well.
[28:04] » Um but we still do have some
[28:06] accountability mechanisms built in for
[28:08] the civic agencies. They they do come
[28:11] forward every year and they talk about
[28:12] what they've done. They talk about where
[28:14] they they've used um our funding for
[28:18] example. So
[28:22] » Councelor Nelson.
[28:24] » Yeah. For for me I And and oddly hearing
[28:28] others talk about why civic agencies
[28:30] might be the way to go makes me even
[28:32] even less likely to support one. You
[28:35] know, we've talked about this year we
[28:36] have five doctors coming. Next we might
[28:38] have one, we might have 20, which the
[28:40] civic agency meant to really levelize
[28:42] and build a consistent um kind of amount
[28:46] of funding. And so if there's been a big
[28:49] evolution over the last two years, well,
[28:51] there's probably going to be a big
[28:52] evolution over the next two years as
[28:55] well. And so to me, if the civic agency
[28:59] process isn't to a point where it's
[29:02] going to be quite consistent
[29:03] year-over-year yet, um I would much
[29:06] rather it come forward through OBC's. Um
[29:10] there's a couple things that happen when
[29:12] when a council says, "Here's here's what
[29:15] we want to support the Hinton Healthcare
[29:16] Foundation with um
[29:20] on an ongoing basis." Uh, and I've seen
[29:23] it happen with every other civic agency
[29:25] when they come back to council and say,
[29:26] "Hey, we want to do this or take on this
[29:28] initiative." The first thing is like,
[29:29] "Well, we already we like you're already
[29:31] taken care of." Um, the other part is if
[29:36] we make uh healthcare a civic agency, at
[29:40] some point if we want offramp, a council
[29:44] needs to vote to get rid of supporting
[29:48] health care in their community. And I
[29:50] never want to that. We
[29:53] six, seven years ago, we tried to
[29:55] offramp from the museum um and and
[29:58] [clears throat] kind of push it to to
[30:00] operate as its own and do fundraisers
[30:02] and do all of those things because taxes
[30:04] were uh were tough and we were looking
[30:07] at ways to save uh and seeing how
[30:09] challenging that was. And that's for uh
[30:12] a museum which is extremely I really
[30:14] enjoy our museum and spend an amazing
[30:16] chunk of time there but I couldn't
[30:18] imagine what that would look like um if
[30:21] if that was for uh healthc care support
[30:24] in our community. [clears throat] It's
[30:26] also something that's not our
[30:27] jurisdiction. We don't have experts at
[30:29] our table. um which
[30:32] I I I want to see communities offramp
[30:35] from
[30:36] doing healthcare because it's a
[30:38] different level of government's
[30:39] responsibility and to me the moment we
[30:41] say this is an annual year over thing
[30:42] that we're accepting that it's just a
[30:45] part of our thing forever. Um I I think
[30:47] we let other levels of government off
[30:49] off the hook. So I I would have to come
[30:52] a long ways in my in in my thinking and
[30:54] and a lot of people I talked to during
[30:56] the election process about basically
[30:57] committing beyond OBC's for um for
[31:01] healthcare moving forward. Thank you.
[31:07] Um, strategically I completely agree
[31:09] with what councelor Nelson uh just said
[31:14] that strategically this letter was put
[31:16] in to to to put in front of council this
[31:20] real problem challenge that exists right
[31:23] now. And if we get the doctors that we
[31:28] think we're going to get, we're nearly
[31:30] going to be done. And you're right, it's
[31:34] probably a this year funding issue. And
[31:38] [clears throat]
[31:38] um to follow up on what councelor Dunn
[31:42] said is uh the reason that support for
[31:47] doctor accommodation was put in there
[31:49] because there's no desire to go beyond
[31:52] that. It's there's this real challenge
[31:56] that's coming to the healthcare
[31:59] foundation. if we don't figure it out,
[32:02] it's it's it's going to be an issue. And
[32:06] um so the letters there so that's front
[32:09] in front of council. We knew that this
[32:12] topic was coming and we wanted to get
[32:15] something in front of council so that
[32:19] the healthc care foundation wanted to
[32:21] get something in front of council
[32:23] because it's a it's a real honest to
[32:25] goodness issue.
[32:30] you. So, for myself personally, I I
[32:33] appreciate
[32:35] quite a bit because I hadn't really
[32:36] thought about that, but is it something
[32:38] and I guess to counselor Denny's point,
[32:40] I'm I'm more comfortable leaving the
[32:43] accommodation support and clinic
[32:45] overhead. that that would be important
[32:46] to me in the motion um to be supporting
[32:49] it because I I I believe from what I've
[32:52] heard from the public when we made the
[32:54] other motions years prior
[32:55] [clears throat] that it does need to be
[32:57] specific because it's a specific
[32:58] short-term problem. But to
[33:00] administration, you know, can you put
[33:03] something forward? So, if you did a
[33:05] variation of option one that said um to
[33:09] draft a maximum two-year civic agency
[33:12] agreement, like is that something that
[33:14] we have within our there's nothing in
[33:16] the civic agency agreement that would
[33:17] prevent us from having it now? So, a
[33:20] decision doesn't have to be made. it
[33:21] just would end at 2 years and if they
[33:23] wanted to reapply as a civic agency they
[33:25] would have to do so with some
[33:28] information at that point because then I
[33:29] think it's kind of maybe capturing I
[33:32] can't speak for you but kind of
[33:34] capturing that okay this just like when
[33:36] we did the million dollars this is not a
[33:38] year-over-year overyear thing it's
[33:40] accomplishing a goal um for a specific
[33:44] overhead subsidy and whatever it was
[33:47] accommodation support um but sort of
[33:49] outlining that ahead of time that again
[33:52] we see this as a very important but
[33:54] temporary motion and I mean I know BC is
[33:58] also possible but I I still don't mind
[34:00] the civic agency
[34:04] » To the chair members of the committee u
[34:05] I I believe that's actually standard in
[34:07] our um
[34:10] our civic agency agreements is they're
[34:12] typically two to three years um but
[34:15] certainly if we want to look at a
[34:16] timeline uh I would include it in the
[34:19] motion and I think that's really just
[34:21] part of our job of managing expectation,
[34:23] right? If if the intent is that this is
[34:25] a two-year thing, we'll reassess at the
[34:28] end of two years and we'll see where
[34:29] we're at. I I think we just need to
[34:31] have, you know, a forthright
[34:33] conversation with our partners to say,
[34:36] you know, don't expect this to be
[34:37] ongoing. We, you know, we want to find
[34:40] that offramp and uh, you know, we can't
[34:42] continue to fund this forever, but we
[34:44] understand the short-term challenges.
[34:46] We're willing to support you for this
[34:47] period of time. So I would say that if
[34:49] we're interested in funding for a a
[34:53] defined period of time, I would include
[34:54] that in the motion and that would just
[34:56] provide us more direction when it comes
[34:58] to
[34:59] if this is how council wants to proceed
[35:02] with working with the healthcare
[35:03] foundation to come up with an agreement.
[35:07] » Nelson, before I put you in the queue,
[35:09] can I just do a followup question? Um,
[35:14] why does it have to be a civic agency
[35:17] commitment? Could it is there no other
[35:20] option that we could take this? Just
[35:23] following up on councelor Nelson's
[35:25] comment about discontinuing a civic
[35:28] agency once it's been established. Is
[35:30] there no other option that we have where
[35:33] we could still support the the the
[35:37] funding that's necessary without it
[35:40] going through a civic agency
[35:43] » Through the chair? Um certainly, but
[35:46] civic agency isn't really a program,
[35:48] right? Civic agency is just a term that
[35:50] we use to define. We have nonprofits
[35:53] that we financially support and then we
[35:56] just keep that separate as a category
[35:58] and we look at it as as such. But really
[36:00] all it is is uh we have a contract with
[36:04] these nonprofit groups um that they
[36:07] provide a service here in town and we
[36:10] financially contribute towards that. So
[36:12] but really it's just the contractual
[36:14] relationship if you really just boil it
[36:16] down. Now, I think that, you know, there
[36:19] may to to council's point, there may be
[36:22] some,
[36:23] you know, some
[36:27] behind the scenes, people anticipate
[36:28] that these are going to be long-term
[36:30] relationships because you're a civic
[36:32] agency and many of our civic agencies
[36:35] have been have been so for a long time.
[36:38] Um, but I think we're I think that the
[36:41] challenge maybe is just making sure that
[36:43] we're we're managing expectations on
[36:46] those guidelines, but you know, we do
[36:48] something very similar. I would use
[36:50] STARS as a good example where we we
[36:53] provide a pledge for a certain amount of
[36:55] time, right? Um, we don't commit further
[36:58] to that, but we say, you know, we're
[37:00] we've made a pledge that, you know,
[37:02] we're going to provide funding for x
[37:03] amount of years. Um, but every year when
[37:06] it comes to budget, council still has to
[37:08] approve that with the the funding
[37:10] included.
[37:12] Very similar to how we deal with civic
[37:14] agencies.
[37:16] » Excellent.
[37:18] » Yeah. I I
[37:21] the other thing that that can get lost
[37:22] if we talk about operational funding. I
[37:25] I want the public to know exactly what
[37:28] every dollar of healthcare spending goes
[37:29] to. I would much rather see it a two to
[37:32] threeyear budget proposal from hidden
[37:35] healthcare that that council adopts.
[37:37] Obviously, if it's multiple years, we we
[37:39] have that opportunity to but if if it is
[37:42] $36,000 per doctor times five and that
[37:46] is what comes to council, then it's a
[37:48] very clear
[37:50] line of sight from where the tax dollars
[37:52] are going to what it's being used for
[37:54] versus civic agency getting $150,000 of
[37:56] operational funding for the next two
[37:58] years. And now we've got, you know, a a
[38:02] professional board and then the healthc
[38:04] care foundation board and councils. Now
[38:06] there's three different boards. And like
[38:08] it just gets it gets messy really quick.
[38:11] And I I believe we need to spend money
[38:13] on healthcare. I don't like it, but we
[38:15] we need to, but I also think our our
[38:17] citizens need to know exactly what it
[38:19] is, exactly where it's going. And um and
[38:23] I and if you're now it's a civic agency
[38:26] policy with this group and then a
[38:29] contractual agree like we're also adding
[38:31] more layers of administration into
[38:35] um into what's ultimately going to
[38:36] become a budget decision based on facts
[38:38] that are in front of council anyways. Um
[38:41] and and I would love the public to weigh
[38:43] in on some of these things and and have
[38:45] that discourse that that says yeah this
[38:47] is this is why we have to spend that
[38:49] money. um versus it it being, you know,
[38:52] they they come they do their report.
[38:54] It's like we hear what the museum's
[38:55] done, but it's a it's a it's a very
[38:57] broad thing. It's, you know, we do did
[38:59] this program or like if they need money
[39:02] to solve a problem to bring doctors, I
[39:04] want to know exactly what it is and and
[39:06] where it's where it's going and dollar
[39:08] for dollar. That's just my uh my
[39:11] reference when it comes to getting
[39:13] people. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. burnt.
[39:16] » So two comments I think that fall along
[39:19] that line, councelor Nelson is the first
[39:21] thing is a budget
[39:23] budget
[39:24] » Is putting a budget together and it's a
[39:26] preference is the healthcare foundation
[39:28] that be linked
[39:31] to doctor combination. That's why it was
[39:34] put specifically in the letter. I think
[39:35] the other thing that's important from
[39:37] council's for council's consideration is
[39:40] this is noncl clinic specific. That's if
[39:43] a doctor comes to him regardless of
[39:45] where they're going. This is something
[39:48] that doctors expect. And part of it is
[39:50] it's going to give us six months to get
[39:52] our feet in the ground and find a house
[39:54] and they're going to be busy when they
[39:56] get there. Hopefully they got, you know,
[39:58] 2,000 patients and they don't have any
[40:01] time to look for a house for 6 months.
[40:04] Um, so that's that's part of it, but I
[40:06] think it's important that um that it be
[40:09] tied specifically this accommodation.
[40:11] That's why it's in the letter. And the
[40:13] second thing is that this is not
[40:18] » Council.
[40:23] » So if
[40:25] I just I'm curious on page nine of 21
[40:29] um under the direct incentives
[40:35] clinic overhead subsy because I'm just
[40:36] wondering how that would work. uh the
[40:39] clinical overhead subsidy number two
[40:40] recommend a framework set financial
[40:42] support for new physicians with
[40:44] medically necessary clinical practice.
[40:47] What did that mean to you?
[40:50] » So really all that means is you know we
[40:52] know that physicians pay a percentage
[40:54] into the overhead of whatever clinic
[40:56] they're going to be a part of. Um and
[40:58] this would just be to
[41:02] to offset that to whatever degree we
[41:05] decide is necessary. But we do that for
[41:08] medically necessary services.
[41:10] » Okay. Does that mean like Alberta
[41:11] healthc care services like we did with
[41:13] the tax incentives?
[41:15] » Correct. Yep. Same thing.
[41:16] » Okay.
[41:18] Thank you.
[41:20] Okay.
[41:23] Maybe any other questions, comments?
[41:31] Do they want to respond to this?
[41:41] I'll see consensus that
[41:45] um committee direct administration to
[41:49] uh advise the healthcare foundation to
[41:53] bring any budgetary requests as part of
[41:56] the budget process.
[42:01] And I [clears throat] think I've spoken
[42:02] to it and I'm I'm trying to put
[42:04] something out there. Uh I'm not super
[42:06] married to it, but
[42:10] » So
[42:16] would you expect in something like that
[42:18] then council Nelson to see a budget for
[42:23] probably not going to happen but a
[42:25] budget for a potential accommodation and
[42:27] what the overhead the clinic overhead
[42:30] subsidy will may look like. Would you
[42:33] expect some of that in the budget?
[42:36] » I can speak to it. It would be the same
[42:38] as any other OBC that that comes to us.
[42:41] It says, "Hey, we need $275,000
[42:44] and it's broken up to an AC
[42:46] accommodation of 36,000 times five
[42:48] people and 4500 times this and
[42:52] highlighters and Sharpies in a race like
[42:54] general like I I would expect it to
[42:56] come. Um, and and honestly probably in a
[42:59] similar way that if it was a civic
[43:01] agency, it would be part of that
[43:03] anyways. Like I don't actually think
[43:04] what we would see would be any different
[43:06] than a civic agency. We're just taking
[43:08] out that creation of a of of a civic
[43:11] agency piece from it. Um, that's kind of
[43:16] how I would see it.
[43:18] » Har and I'll speak in favor. Um I don't
[43:22] I don't think there's I mean the way
[43:25] things have gone I I don't know that
[43:27] there's a longterm
[43:29] requirement. I think this is a
[43:32] short-term issue that needs resolution
[43:35] and um I think to to have that
[43:39] discussion is is meets the needs.
[43:45] » Okay.
[43:47] Any other comments?
[43:50] I will just give Jen a chance to get the
[43:54] consensus now. Oh, council.
[43:56] » Yeah, just while she's putting that up,
[43:58] I I'll speak in favor of this too. I I'm
[44:01] whatever that looks like, how we call it
[44:03] or how we budget for it or what we do,
[44:05] I'm I'm in support of the concept for
[44:07] sure. Um, but I I guess my question is
[44:11] like is this something that then is
[44:13] coming out of
[44:15] where like where would we be expecting
[44:17] to fund this from like through reserve
[44:19] funding or through future budget or when
[44:21] to
[44:24] » Through the chair and just to just make
[44:27] sure I'm clear on what I'm answering,
[44:29] but
[44:31] the the intent of the motion is that the
[44:33] Hinton Healthcare Foundation would come
[44:35] forward with really a budget amendment
[44:36] for this year. Correct. Or is this when
[44:39] we say bring it forward to budget was
[44:42] the intent that it would come forward
[44:43] for the 27 budget with an OBC?
[44:48] I I guess my thought was it would be for
[44:52] the future years which would be the same
[44:54] as the civic agency. So to me it's more
[44:56] for the budget process because my
[44:59] assumption is that's where the civic
[45:00] agency would have come. If
[45:02] [clears throat] there's a separate
[45:03] request or adjustment or something for
[45:06] 2025 or 2026 then that that to me is a
[45:10] separate thing. Okay. Because with like
[45:13] if the intent was to create a civic
[45:15] agency like in the very very short term
[45:17] and fund it within 2026 then that that's
[45:21] I think a different opportation.
[45:24] I'm not
[45:30] » I I expect that the healthcare
[45:33] foundation would like to hear [snorts]
[45:36] that discussion because these costs are
[45:38] going to come shortly
[45:42] and um so um if if there's
[45:47] [clears throat] an expectation
[45:49] that maybe there's some support coming
[45:53] just over the
[45:54] uh that's one reality
[45:57] or it's you know who knows that's
[46:00] another reality. So I think that's the
[46:04] um that's the reality as it as it
[46:07] relates to this group of of volunteers
[46:10] here.
[46:13] » So I I guess we're looking for for
[46:15] clarity and if they're looking for
[46:17] funding in the very short term then it
[46:18] almost even makes me more want to not
[46:20] have the inter agency process. Why don't
[46:22] we wait for the budget? That's my that
[46:24] be my recommendation. I think it's I
[46:27] think it's readyish
[46:30] or should be in short in a short period
[46:33] of time. Um and so maybe if this comes
[46:37] back to another future committee, the
[46:39] whole meeting, then the the the
[46:42] immediacy question will be better
[46:44] answered at that point.
[46:48] » Good.
[46:50] » And I have a question. Yeah, that with
[46:52] that in mind, I wonder if it's better
[46:53] just to accept it for information.
[46:57] Like I'm not
[47:00] » I'd like to have come back to the
[47:01] committee the whole meeting,
[47:03] » But specific for short-term like I just
[47:06] wanted the motion like what are we what
[47:09] do we want the motion to say, hey, bring
[47:11] bring us your your budget for um for any
[47:16] requirements within 2026.
[47:19] and then through the budget process for
[47:20] 2027. Like I I almost feel like there's
[47:22] two separate conversations. I don't know
[47:24] how to do that in a motion, but it if
[47:26] there's a need in the short term, I I'm
[47:28] sure I could word something, but if
[47:30] that's what council is thinking is um my
[47:33] motion was tied to the 2027 budget.
[47:34] Let's not do a civic agency. Let's just
[47:36] see there's no VC and and that and
[47:42] what we do for a media be a different
[47:45] agenda. I I just I I wanted kind of a
[47:48] question as well maybe to Marge.
[47:52] Is there um a timeline that they need to
[47:59] be able to have the confidence to know
[48:01] that this is potentially moving forward?
[48:05] Like when you say there's five doctors
[48:06] coming and they're going to need 36,000
[48:11] times five,
[48:13] » It'll be over the course of the of the
[48:17] year. That's why I said I'm comfortable
[48:20] um supporting either way accepting this
[48:24] as information and waiting for a budget.
[48:26] Um just I guess from the perspective of
[48:30] the health healthc care foundation was
[48:32] it was important to put it in front of
[48:34] council to say this train's coming down
[48:37] the track and and it's hard to say
[48:39] exactly
[48:41] when doctors are coming because there's
[48:43] you know there's certification issues
[48:45] there's there's in some instances visa
[48:49] issues and so um
[48:53] I think from the perspective of the
[48:54] healthcare foundation it is just hey
[48:57] guys
[48:59] this is a this is a a reality and and
[49:03] you know the organization's concerned
[49:04] about it
[49:06] » Chambers
[49:08] and I think we're kind of overthinking
[49:09] because I think I like this motion
[49:12] because we really don't know what
[49:14] they're going to bring us until they
[49:15] bring it to us and it's coming back to
[49:16] another committee meeting and I don't
[49:18] disagree that maybe those need to be two
[49:20] different decisions but that can be two
[49:21] different motions at the time of next
[49:23] committee so I think the way that this
[49:25] is laid out. That's their job to come
[49:28] and tell us they want something in 2026,
[49:30] 27,28. What does that look like? Maybe
[49:32] they're okay to bump it through until
[49:34] 2027, but they'll have a bigger ask for
[49:36] that year. I don't know, whatever that
[49:37] is. But that's their baby to deal with.
[49:40] We take the budget, we can break it into
[49:42] 10 pieces, I think later, but at least
[49:44] this is putting a bit of the
[49:46] accountability back with the healthcare
[49:47] foundation to proof it out to us what
[49:50] they need when they need it more so than
[49:52] what they did in a letter. and then we
[49:53] can pick it all apart when we have more
[49:55] facts. That's kind of how I see it.
[49:58] » Okay.
[50:00] » Maybe any further comments before
[50:03] this.
[50:10] » I think what's up there is good. I I
[50:13] think what came out of my mouth in
[50:14] between what you did and what Kristen
[50:16] said actually quite good. [laughter]
[50:30] Okay.
[50:31] » Uh that committee seek consensus to
[50:33] advise the Hampton Healthcare Foundation
[50:36] to bring a budget request to a future
[50:39] committee of the whole meeting.
[50:42] Please vote now.
[50:58] Thank you. So, I have a question.
[51:02] I don't know who it's for. Probably CEO.
[51:06] So because I was in that meeting with
[51:08] the doctors originally, um
[51:12] probably one of the most consistently
[51:16] I mean whatever despite all the other
[51:17] things
[51:20] palatable things that the doctors really
[51:21] like was that return service bery and
[51:24] you know I think we're talking a lot now
[51:26] getting doctors we've got doctors
[51:28] they're coming in blah blah blah we
[51:30] still have to think about how do we
[51:32] continue to attract doctors to our
[51:34] community through long-term
[51:36] methodologies and I think that that
[51:38] return of service bery is it was spoken
[51:42] I mean many of our doctors in for that
[51:44] are longtime hintonites now had a
[51:47] variety of some type of incentive that
[51:50] was was coming in so
[51:53] I still you know I don't want to say
[51:56] that okay now we're going to get five
[51:57] more doctors or 10 doctors or 15 doctors
[51:59] and then our problem's over because I
[52:01] think this is just going to continue
[52:02] [clears throat]
[52:03] onward and so in order to see something
[52:06] coming forward where we can I think
[52:10] there needs to be more conversation what
[52:12] that really looks like in financial
[52:13] impact and how it would look but would
[52:16] that be a motion where I would ask that
[52:19] we bring a discussion on the return of
[52:21] service ber to a future committee and
[52:23] football meeting because it's it just
[52:25] seemed to be a really
[52:28] a a really well respected idea from the
[52:32] doctors but something they really wanted
[52:33] to see and they felt that it was, you
[52:36] know, in those those early times of, you
[52:38] know, when they're finishing their
[52:40] they're kind of getting them when
[52:41] they're they're young and they're there
[52:43] and they're looking at different things.
[52:44] And I I think we need to continue to
[52:46] find ways that hopefully we can find
[52:48] things we can do in an incremental state
[52:50] that doesn't that helps us to continue
[52:52] to be moving ahead instead of putting
[52:54] oursel back into crisis. Well, we have,
[52:56] you know, three of our five doctors who
[52:58] did. So, I don't know what your thoughts
[53:00] are on that.
[53:02] » Do you want to respond? Sure. Um
[53:07] yeah, through through the chair, members
[53:08] of the committee, uh certainly can if we
[53:10] want to look a little bit closer at the
[53:12] return of service bery. One of the
[53:14] reason that it wasn't recommended um was
[53:17] because there currently is that return
[53:19] of service bery um and one thing that
[53:23] will make you ineligible is signing a
[53:26] any other return of service bary. So
[53:29] even a municipal one would make you
[53:30] ineligible for the provincial program.
[53:33] And for ours,
[53:35] um, for Hinton, uh, you can get up to
[53:38] 125,000. So it's a relatively sizable
[53:40] one. Um,
[53:43] so for those reasons, there was already
[53:45] one out there. Um, I think it's I think
[53:49] the spots are relatively limited uh, to
[53:52] get in, but just having those two
[53:55] competing priorities. And, you know, how
[53:58] easy would it be to get ours? And would
[54:00] we have people apply for ours and not
[54:01] the other one? just because they saw it
[54:03] as a little maybe a little bit easier
[54:05] and more accessible and we didn't want
[54:06] to shut the door on that program. Um
[54:10] that was the one issue that we saw that
[54:12] there's ways around it. Um but if they
[54:14] do sign a return service bery uh they
[54:18] would become ineligible for the
[54:19] provincial program
[54:21] » And when do we know when like that
[54:23] provincial one is ending the funding for
[54:25] that one? Is that one of the ones?
[54:27] » Yeah, it is. It end it closed December
[54:29] 31, 2025. whether or not there's a new
[54:31] one open that closes 2026. It did not
[54:34] say
[54:35] » Yeah, I could take a look, but this is
[54:40] this is something that has been
[54:42] longstanding uh that they have these
[54:44] intakes every year. So, I don't imagine
[54:46] that,
[54:48] you know, I I'll have to look and and
[54:50] confirm that fact, but I I would imagine
[54:53] that this is something that
[54:57] is likely to continue. Um,
[55:04] but I could look it up quickly even
[55:05] while we're talking and see if I could
[55:07] find anything.
[55:10] » I think my question is answered. Oh,
[55:12] thank you.
[55:13] Uh I was going to make the same point as
[55:15] CEO and ask and it is my understanding
[55:18] that um student doctors are operating
[55:22] currently under the expectation that
[55:24] it's back in place that those and and
[55:27] for anybody who's listening who doesn't
[55:29] really understand that's a student
[55:32] actually gets that money while they're
[55:34] in school and they can actually use the
[55:36] money and then what they do is they sign
[55:39] for some period of time to return to
[55:43] community. The provincial program is you
[55:46] need to agree to go to a rural location
[55:49] without that being defined. One of the
[55:51] big challenges has been that a lot of
[55:53] people end up in Strath going and
[55:55] working in St.
[55:58] » And so it's non-defined. That's the
[56:00] that's the challenge as it relates to to
[56:04] that program particularly because there
[56:06] is no there's no guards on where they
[56:09] end up. just it cannot be head within
[56:12] their gallery.
[56:15] » Uh through the chair, I believe the
[56:19] we're just looking it up here, but uh
[56:21] you do have to be an eligible community
[56:23] and they they'll classify you as rural
[56:27] rural or rural and remote. I believe we
[56:30] are considered uh rural which gives you
[56:32] the 125. So the lower amount of the the
[56:36] higher one, but eligible communities
[56:38] have a population of less than 15,000
[56:41] located at least 50 kilometers from a
[56:44] major urban center,
[56:46] which I imagine a major urban center is
[56:49] likely in the Calgary and possibly the
[56:51] corridor
[56:56] » Switch.
[57:00] So um moving along um I think we are on
[57:06] the reporting
[57:09] 5.1 council reports boards and
[57:11] committees of councelor
[57:14] counselor.
[57:15] » Yes thank you. I have not uh attended a
[57:18] committee meeting but I did attend a
[57:20] volunteer fair that already coaching
[57:23] hosted. Had lots of uh booth there had
[57:27] an opportunity to talk to some people
[57:29] who were at the booth and lots of people
[57:32] walking around which was really good to
[57:34] see. I attended one a couple years ago
[57:36] and it was really well attended as well
[57:38] and it's just so nice people were
[57:40] actually looking to volunteer their
[57:42] time.
[57:43] » Yes. Thank you.
[57:46] I'm happy to report.
[57:49] » Yeah. Last uh week at Community Futures
[57:52] in um Wildwood. Um a lot of time spent
[57:57] um community pictures west Yellowhead.
[58:00] Uh did a pretty major pilot project on
[58:03] kind of emergency
[58:05] planning and preparedness and uh how how
[58:08] community futures office can operate uh
[58:11] under those conditions. Um it's
[58:13] something that is u basically complete
[58:15] now and uh is is now accessible to the
[58:18] entire network and uh already um an
[58:22] example from very recent is the Beast
[58:25] River um office reached out and said hey
[58:27] can we have your toolkit because we
[58:29] might have this flooding it's going to
[58:30] displace people and businesses and so
[58:35] major major congrats to the community
[58:38] features west team for for developing
[58:40] that and and having it be something that
[58:41] can be shared for a lot of communities.
[58:44] So, a lot that you don't think about um
[58:45] within the business community um when
[58:48] there are dis displacements that happen
[58:50] and emergencies that happen. So, uh
[58:52] super super interesting. Uh and then um
[58:55] a lot of stuff around uh around
[58:57] policies. Uh and then uh later that day
[59:01] had uh Alberta municipalities finance
[59:03] and economy committee meeting um a lot
[59:07] more on on the viability of of
[59:09] communities. a lot of talk about the uh
[59:12] fairness and equitability between uh
[59:15] municipal districts and municipalities
[59:18] uh and and there's a lot around kind of
[59:19] budget signals and and a lot of things
[59:21] happening. So um yeah, it's it's been a
[59:24] great committee to be on so far and uh
[59:26] we have an inerson.
[59:29] » Thank you.
[59:31] » Uh so not a board meeting but I did
[59:34] attend Evergreen Foundation's uh service
[59:37] awards night on Friday. Uh well done. Um
[59:42] and you know those are people that take
[59:44] care of vulner vulnerable and senior
[59:46] people who sort of like things to be the
[59:51] same way and and long-term employees are
[59:53] important and recognizing them was part
[59:56] of that and it was great night well
[59:58] attended. Uh so hats off to the
[1:00:01] organization. The food was fantastic at
[1:00:03] the golf course. Uh, and then I would
[1:00:06] like to do a hats off congrats to Wild
[1:00:09] Mountain for the Battle of the Bands
[1:00:11] event that they had on Saturday night.
[1:00:12] Um, it's a great community night. Um, I
[1:00:16] don't know exactly how many people were
[1:00:17] there, but you know, north just over
[1:00:20] 250.
[1:00:20] » I was going to say north 250. Uh the the
[1:00:23] talent was fantastic, but um we had old
[1:00:28] young cowboys, rockers, and then the
[1:00:32] bands sort of kept up with that.
[1:00:34] [clears throat]
[1:00:35] We had some well Jade Madson showed up.
[1:00:39] They all had their ties on and three of
[1:00:41] them and they had this new band. So I
[1:00:44] was thinking maybe jazz, but no, it was
[1:00:46] death metal. So it was [laughter]
[1:00:49] it was fantastic. But a really good
[1:00:51] night of music and it was just fantastic
[1:00:54] to see the um the community come out the
[1:00:57] way it did with my hats off to Wild
[1:00:58] Mountain.
[1:01:04] » Okay. Uh I as well attended the
[1:01:07] volunteer fair and uh it was great to
[1:01:10] see the turnout and the uh amount of
[1:01:14] boots that were cables. I went around
[1:01:16] and spoke to each individual on the
[1:01:18] table and it was very informative. I
[1:01:21] want to talk. Thank councelor D for the
[1:01:24] opening greetings on behalf of mayor and
[1:01:27] council. Uh also volunteer appreciation
[1:01:31] night at the venue on Saturday night for
[1:01:35] option bridges and help. Uh very well
[1:01:38] put together. The entertainment was
[1:01:40] great. And also on the final thing is
[1:01:43] the uh council communication
[1:01:46] [clears throat] workshop yesterday. Uh
[1:01:49] very very well uh put together. The
[1:01:52] presenter was just awesome and uh great
[1:01:56] learning experience for me.
[1:01:57] [clears throat]
[1:01:58] want to thank whoever Mr. Chair put that
[1:02:01] together.
[1:02:05] » I did not attend any committee meetings
[1:02:08] but I will echo what you said and
[1:02:11] council mine. I thought the
[1:02:13] communications
[1:02:14] um education piece was fantastic. Um and
[1:02:19] I did have an opportunity to pop into
[1:02:21] the roots health summit this weekend
[1:02:24] which I thought was very well organized.
[1:02:27] It was nice to see a lot of people out
[1:02:30] and it was nice to see FCSS on the main
[1:02:33] stage talking about their um mental
[1:02:37] health first aid kit. Um and that's
[1:02:42] going to be coming up on May 2nd. So
[1:02:44] that's everything for um
[1:02:50] » Thank you chair. I don't have anything
[1:02:51] to report, but I do have the council
[1:02:53] action pending list that we we spoke
[1:02:55] about earlier in the meeting, but a
[1:02:57] little bit um more wholesome with the
[1:02:58] completed items as well.
[1:03:02] » Councelor Nelson,
[1:03:04] » Um the junior hoppy one shows us
[1:03:07] completed. Um but nothing's come um back
[1:03:11] to council
[1:03:13] like just curious what the next steps
[1:03:15] are with it.
[1:03:18] » Uh thank you through the chair. So we
[1:03:22] we've decided uh not to move forward
[1:03:25] with the RSC process, but it essentially
[1:03:27] is the uh the RFP. So we'll ensure that
[1:03:30] that's um uh sent out to everybody so
[1:03:33] you're aware, but that has been posted.
[1:03:35] Um you know, we have the structure of an
[1:03:38] RFP just but we are continuing to
[1:03:41] solicit proposals. We'll uh we'll send
[1:03:43] that link out. That is that is out
[1:03:45] there. We have it posted on our website.
[1:03:47] We've also sent that to uh a number of
[1:03:50] different leagues around the province to
[1:03:52] solicit these proposals and we'll make
[1:03:54] sure that uh I send that send those to
[1:03:57] you maybe by email.
[1:04:00] And then what um what is kind of that
[1:04:02] the closing date on it and then what are
[1:04:04] the the next steps that is it RFP that
[1:04:09] council is is a part of determining if
[1:04:13] and who or is it something that is uh
[1:04:16] completely administratively determined.
[1:04:20] » Uh thank you to the chair. So the
[1:04:23] selection of who will be done
[1:04:25] administratively um certainly on this
[1:04:28] case this one's a little bit of a unique
[1:04:30] one but council will be aware um as we
[1:04:33] move through the process as well. So,
[1:04:36] um, but as we're evaluating proposals,
[1:04:39] there's likely to be something in the
[1:04:41] proposal that probably would necessitate
[1:04:43] counsel. Uh, depending on how,
[1:04:46] you know, there's a good chance that
[1:04:48] there's going to be, you know, some
[1:04:51] requests that would be outside of what
[1:04:54] we offer. Um, so all of those types of
[1:04:57] things would be uh dictated through
[1:05:01] u dictated through council. Um we do
[1:05:04] have as a part of our proposals um the
[1:05:07] input that council has provided already
[1:05:10] um mainly surrounding more of the
[1:05:12] community end of things.
[1:05:14] » Perfect. Thank you.
[1:05:17] » Um committee any further questions
[1:05:19] concerning the council action list or
[1:05:23] council
[1:05:25] list.
[1:05:28] I'll just make a motion to close session
[1:05:30] at 5:05 p.m.
[1:05:40] 5:05 p.m. Please