[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

Committee of the Whole - 28 Apr 2026

Transcript