[0:00] Okay, good evening everybody. Uh we'll
bring the regional council meeting to
[0:04] order for September the 9th.
Uh before we start, I would like to uh
[0:10] acknowledge that this meeting is being
held in the traditional territory of our
[0:13] friends, neighbors, and treaty partners
of the Fort Nelson First Nation as well
[0:17] as the Profit River First Nation. We
recognize our treaty. We recognize the
[0:21] rights within that treaty. Uh we also
recognize the uh enduring presence and
[0:26] uh contributions made by the matey
people in our region. Uh please be
[0:30] advised that tonight's meeting is
available to the public to attend
[0:33] virtually and is being streamed and
recorded.
[0:37] Our neighbors uh the Ford Council First
Nation is exciting day for them. That's
[0:40] their election day. So it'll be very
interested to see uh the results of of
[0:45] their election and and how we can work
with the with our neighbors in the
[0:49] future. I would also like to introduce
our new CEO,
[0:54] Russell Brewer, is here. Uh we're
extremely lucky to uh to have had a
[1:00] candidate like Russell uh apply to the
community. Uh Russell comes to us uh
[1:07] from the Talman Talman First Nation
where he was the uh CEO there and prior
[1:14] to being CEO there, he was the chief
operating officer there. Prior to that
[1:19] he has experience as the CEO in power.
He has experience with um with the um
[1:28] well the the matey nation as the
communication director and uh he's a
[1:33] registered professional forester as
well. So, we're looking forward to uh to
[1:38] his experience, to the work uh that he
will he will do in in building the team,
[1:44] and uh we look forward to working with
them and and welcome to the community.
[1:49] » You're welcome.
Okay. Are there any uh council additions
[1:55] to tonight's agenda?
Staff, are there any additions?
[2:00] » No,
>> only the Yes, there is an addition. Uh
[2:04] we wanted to add at new business. We
wanted to add um
[2:10] a communication for the primary care
[2:18] committee.
So that'll be at 10.1.
[2:26] Thank you for reminding me.
[2:30] Okay. Okay, this is an opportunity for
the public to comment on anything on
[2:34] tonight's agenda. Is there any members
of the public present who would like to
[2:37] comment on the agenda? Is there any
online? Any in the gallery?
[2:43] Seeing none, adoption of the agenda is
order, please. Moved by councelor
[2:47] Andrew, second by Deputy Mayor Growing.
All in favor? That's carried. There are
[2:53] five sets of minutes for adoption.
Committee the whole of July 17th.
[2:58] Committee the whole August 10th.
committee the whole August 10th in the
[3:01] evening. A regional council meeting of
August 10th and the special regional
[3:05] council meeting of August 20th for
adoption.
[3:09] Move for adoption by councel Andrews. Do
I have a second? Councelor Souls. Are
[3:13] there any errors or emissions in any of
those minutes? Staff? No. Council? No.
[3:21] All in favor of adoption? Are there any
opposed? Those are carried.
[3:29] Is there any business arising from any
of those minutes? Council, no staff,
[3:35] » if I may.
>> Okay, go ahead.
[3:39] » Thank you, mayor and council. Um, I just
wanted to update council on uh
[3:46] information from the administration
report 4826
[3:51] that was presented and um reviewed by
council on August 10th regarding the
[3:58] three uh it presented three options for
the government transfer budget formula
[4:05] and uh the report indicated there were
three options. um and all of the values
[4:12] attached to them. Discussion by council
um indicated that a hybrid formula um
[4:19] would be adopted. So rather than
utilizing the current year's total
[4:25] operating expense budget,
um the previous year's total actual
[4:32] operating expenses would be used and a
factor of 4% would be used. So when I
[4:38] took that back to my desk and took a
look at what that means in calculating
[4:42] the funding envelope for 2027,
the government transfer funding envelope
[4:50] for 2026 was a million
and it will drop to $99,913.
[4:59] So, we're going to see a reduction of
the funding available based on that
[5:06] formula of 90 basically $90,000 or 9%.
Um, and if I just take a look at the
[5:14] committee of the whole report that you
received, um, you reviewed in your
[5:19] previous meeting, our million dollar so
far, we've spent just over $917,000.
[5:26] And we do know that we'll have fee
subsidy taken up for um, September
[5:31] through till December. So um we won't
overspend uh but we certainly will be
[5:39] over what our allocation for 2027
uh will be.
[5:47] And just in terms of the difference
between the uh calculation that we
[5:54] provided and the information we
provided, we were looking at using an
[5:58] option that had uh addressed the formula
by using a budgeted number. So council's
[6:06] 2026 budgeted total expenses would be
utilized for planning for 2027
[6:13] uh government transfer envelope and it
would provide the ability to um if the
[6:20] municipality determined that there would
be a need for reduction in operating
[6:25] expenses that it would translate in the
next year to those groups.
[6:31] um by using the actual total operating
expenses from the previous year. So we
[6:37] would we're looking at utilizing the
2027 values. It's it might be driven
[6:44] over the years by unplanned events. So I
think back and and we were required to
[6:49] overspend when we had the evacuation,
when we had the our emergency response,
[6:55] uh potentially when there's spikes in
supply costs. or it might be the
[7:00] opposite and we would be under spending
based on um the inability perhaps to
[7:06] reserve uh secure resources during that
year, supply chain issues,
[7:12] those sorts of things. So, uh it's just
to outline the difference between the
[7:19] two. Um and as an update, the government
transfer submissions are due the last
[7:24] Friday in September for next year's
budget. And I just want to let you know
[7:29] that we'll be cognizant of the uh
reduction in the funding envelope um as
[7:36] our report is prepared for council's
deliberation and approval of the
[7:41] submissions.
[7:48] » Okay.
Um, so have you got a recommendation for
[7:53] us or are you just bringing it to our
attention that the the
[7:58] uh the funding formula that we chose
uh didn't work out to get us to the
[8:04] million dollars this year?
>> At at this point it's I'm providing
[8:09] statements of fact based on decision of
council. Um we can certainly uh review
[8:17] uh options but at this point uh I'm
providing the statements of fact based
[8:24] on the decision of council at the august
10th meeting.
[8:29] » Yeah. So um
we knew that I mean this is a brand new
[8:35] policy. We knew that there was going to
have to be some flexibility to start
[8:38] with it. We we hadn't chosen what the
long-term funding formula would look
[8:43] like. We you know when we went through
the budget process, we were looking at
[8:48] um what what we needed to raise this
year uh based on the submissions by the
[8:55] nonprofit organizations
uh that put applications in this year.
[9:00] So, and we settled in our budget on the
$1 million mark or something like that.
[9:05] Then we went on to to decide what that
would look like in the future. Trying to
[9:09] figure out how we could fund this
program year after year after year after
[9:12] year, right? By figuring out what part
of our attaching it to our budget
[9:18] somehow. It could be either or sorry our
our um our budget or our expenditures,
[9:23] one or the other. And so we chose, you
put a number there that was 3.98 and I
[9:29] think I I rounded it to to four 4% of
the of the uh the operating budget or
[9:37] yeah the the operating expendit the
actual expenditures.
[9:43] So for 2025 we look at the actual
expenditures you apply that number uh
[9:50] that percentage to it
then that would tell the nonprofits that
[9:56] in 2027 the funding envelope is and I'll
just use 4% because it's easy to round
[10:02] up 4% of the actual
operating costs of 2025 of the
[10:10] municipality because it because it was
very clear when the council had decided
[10:15] to hold the nonprofit
um expenditures,
[10:22] the nonprofits responded to us that
that's not fair because you didn't take
[10:27] any kind of a cut as a municipality
yourself. You just put it on us. And I
[10:32] heard that very clearly. And so seems to
me that a budget number is something
[10:38] that you hope will happen. the actuals
is what actually happens. So if we if we
[10:44] are looking at
uh the actuals and we are cutting or our
[10:52] staff are seeing
reductions because they're trying to do
[10:56] their best at being efficient to try to
reduce what our actual operating
[11:01] expenses. That's what we're asking the
nonprofits to do
[11:06] » is to be very calculated and uh what's
the word I'm looking for where they're
[11:12] you know very um it's not measured
intent. They're very they have they're
[11:18] they're operating with intent. They're
not just asking for money. They're
[11:22] operating with with with an intent to
spend so much money and to try to keep
[11:27] those provide the service but provide
the service uh in a way that's um
[11:33] sustainable
for the municipality in these years
[11:37] where we're where we're seeing our tax
base wither.
[11:41] » So that's why I thought tying it to the
actuals was better than trying to tie it
[11:47] to the budget. though I see the budget
numbers tend to be more consistent.
[11:54] I get that our actuals go up and down
based on the projects that you get done,
[11:58] based on uh you know costs that go up. I
I understand that that but eventually
[12:05] what will happen is we will end up with
a with a the intent anyway is to have a
[12:11] reserve
a reserve in that
[12:15] um
in that program to help to to help
[12:22] smooth out
that when the actuals go up and down.
[12:27] » Yeah.
>> So it gives us that ability. It never it
[12:30] was never to say we always want to make
sure we we gather a million dollars
[12:35] because we might not be able to afford a
million dollars.
[12:38] » But at least we're giving certainty to
the nonprofits a year in advance.
[12:43] This is what we did. This is the
percentage that's applied 3.98. Here's
[12:48] the funding envelope for all the
nonprofits or for that program in 2027.
[12:53] there's a year with intent they can they
can look at whether they need to make
[12:58] cuts or whether they can move forward
with with any um uh program enhancements
[13:03] that they like. The more money we have,
the more money we're able to spend than
[13:07] the more money the nonprofits. That was
the intent of my thought of of tying it
[13:12] to the actual expenditures.
So in 2026,
[13:19] we know what 2025's
actual expenditures were. That would
[13:25] apply to the 2027 amount that the
So if in 2026 we had to take a big cut,
[13:34] we've already committed to the
nonprofits that there's they're getting
[13:38] that amount of money. We have to figure
out how to how to fund that in 2027. But
[13:43] that becomes static. So there's some
sustainability at least because if we're
[13:48] taking a huge big cut where we're really
cutting a lot of services in the
[13:51] municipality or raising taxes because
that's the only two things we can do.
[13:55] Raise taxes or cut services because we
we're not allowed to go in in the hole.
[14:01] So
if we if something big happens that
[14:07] eventually is going to get to the
nonprofits as well, right? So they need
[14:12] at least then they have the 2026 budget,
the 2027 budget, and then obviously in
[14:18] 2028 there's going to be a significant
cut because we had to take a significant
[14:23] cut. So that's how I that's the strategy
or the logic that I was using when I put
[14:29] my um thoughts forward on that. But I'm
I'm interested in in your thoughts as
[14:34] well.
So with that formula that gives that
[14:39] give the nonprofits a year in advance to
plan for a budget cut for the next
[14:44] season
>> if we knew if we saw a significant and
[14:48] » and over time we said that any extra
money each year would not get absorbed
[14:53] back into the main budget. It would stay
in that in that uh transfers to
[14:59] community groups or governmental
transfers. it would stay there to and
[15:04] eventually we'd end up with a surplus
there which would help to smooth out
[15:08] those those years when we see these
swings in the uh we could add some uh so
[15:14] that there's not a big hit uh a year
out.
[15:18] » I think it's a great place to start like
it gives some warning. It gives us some
[15:22] certainty. It gives I guess some some
advanced notice on what the funding pool
[15:27] will be to the nonforprofits.
Like I'm sure there'll be growing pains
[15:31] like anything, but it's it's a logical
place to start. It can always be
[15:35] modified as we move if needed, but I
think it's a good spot.
[15:41] » Okay, I defer. Um I just want to address
where you said that reductions were not
[15:48] achieved in that budget year. Um
while we went through each of the
[15:53] departments while we were um going
through our budget process um some
[15:59] departments were under some departments
were over. So overall
[16:03] » the budget was not less than but many
departments had trimmed their costs. So
[16:10] um I just wanted to clarify that that
that there were reductions made that
[16:15] year. Um, and I think like if we come up
with a 3.9 or 4% of an operating budget
[16:25] or actuals,
um, I personally would go with the
[16:30] budget figure because there's more
certainty, there's more stability and
[16:34] there's more consistency using the
budget as opposed to actuals that are 2
[16:42] years old. like we have experienced
great change in our community within two
[16:47] years. Um and I think we would still get
that consistency and our ability to
[16:53] pivot because if we do have to make huge
um reductions, it's going to be
[16:59] reflected in a budget. Um and we're
still working a year out. So they would
[17:05] still have that ability. And then um
like we were talking about earlier is um
[17:12] not forprofits
that receive larger amounts of funding
[17:18] from the NRM have a threemonth
contingency plan. So I think we're
[17:25] saying the same thing like I think we
want to provide consistency to the not
[17:30] for profofits that we fund. Um, and I
agree with um, setting a percentage, but
[17:36] I think that there's discussion around
whether that would be on actuals amounts
[17:41] or whether that would be on budget. And
then just to recap, I think budget would
[17:45] be more um, it works better for my brain
because it's more consistent. It's more
[17:52] stable. So that's my thought on it.
>> Yeah. My thought with budgets because
[17:57] I've experienced it before and and not
here, but budgets can be padded,
[18:04] right? And and and budgets are are
I don't want to say they're imaginary,
[18:12] but they're they're what we want to
achieve. And there's risk built into it.
[18:20] And so it's usually higher because you
don't know if you're going to get a big
[18:23] snow year or you know so or a low snow
year. Um to me the actuals more reflect
[18:30] what what the nonprofits were telling us
if if you're it should be tied to what
[18:34] you guys are doing what you're doing not
what you hope to do that. So that's my
[18:39] thought.
>> Okay. But if we have a year where um
[18:47] we like the example I think that like
there needs to be more discussion and
[18:52] there needs to be the numbers put out
there because the example about when we
[18:56] are budgeted for x amount of dollars for
the airport and there's no deicing or
[19:02] whatever needed and so that amount of
money the actual is down by I don't know
[19:09] $200,000 call it whatever um that
reduced is that actual amount which then
[19:14] if we are holding true to this formula
that is going to reduce the amount of
[19:19] money that's available in that large
pool for not for profits to apply for.
[19:24] So my hope is that we can come up with
some sort of a process that allows a
[19:31] consistent amount of money unless you
know I mean something untold happens or
[19:37] unforeseen happens. But I I just think
this up and down is not good for
[19:43] anybody. There needs to be a more
consistent approach to that.
[19:51] » Okay. So, we're at impass, I think.
Oh, go on ahead, Tony.
[19:57] » If I may. Um from a finance perspective,
uh certainly when we prepare a budget
[20:06] and we ask council to deliberate on it,
we recognize that the budget contains
[20:12] uh values for risk. We we try to
estimate how many times we're going to
[20:20] plow
Canyon Hill. We estimate how many loads
[20:26] of deicer we need at the airport. We
estimate that we're not going to have to
[20:33] evacuate the community to $1.8 to$2
million of our operating expenses. So
[20:40] when I take a look at the things that
can impact the actual, there are
[20:47] multiple things that can spike it one
way or the other. When I look at our
[20:52] budget being our consistent plan,
I I feel that that provides a more level
[20:59] playing field for the type of
calculation we're looking for.
[21:05] And it does provide if we determine that
we need to expand services for 2027 in
[21:12] the community because it's expanding, it
will set the 2028
[21:19] envelope for government transfers. If we
determine that we have to shrink our own
[21:26] operations in 2027,
that will be the message for government
[21:31] transfers in 28. And it's a planned
event. It is. And so from a finance
[21:38] perspective,
um I I do believe that the budget
[21:44] provides a more consistent
um
[21:48] number because we're looking at factors,
right? We're looking at what number are
[21:54] we going to multiply
a percentage by to get a value for the
[21:58] budget. So, it's about can we provide a
consistency within that number um that
[22:04] doesn't fluctuate based on um things
that we can't control.
[22:10] We can control our plans.
[22:17] » Okay. Well, let's I think more
information is is necessary. So, for
[22:22] this year, we can leave it the way it
is. You know, we budgeted the million
[22:25] dollars. We we don't have to apply the
percentage to the 2025. we can just
[22:29] leave it. We knew that we were we were
gonna we had to start somewhere, so we
[22:33] started it. But can you bring us back a
report then that shows us the difference
[22:39] between the actuals and the budgets for
the last five years? We can do a
[22:45] calculation on that and see what it
looks like. See what would have
[22:48] happened. see what would have happened
uh in the last 5 years based on our
[22:53] budget and our actuals and how that if
that if this policy had have been in
[22:57] place then how it would have impacted
the nonprofits uh for the five years
[23:01] leading forward and and that'll that'll
give us more information I think and uh
[23:05] that that will probably sway my mind I
get the consistency argument
[23:11] I'm just feel more more adamant I guess
that the nonprofits told us that it
[23:17] should be tied to what we're on and not
what we're planning. Well, they didn't
[23:21] we didn't have a discussion about
whether it was planning or what we're
[23:23] doing, but they definitely said if if
you know if we're taking a cut, you guys
[23:27] should be taking a cut. So, the reverse
is true. If if we're efficient, so too
[23:32] need to be efficient.
But, uh, can we do that before you
[23:37] leave?
>> Absolutely.
[23:40] » Um, councelor Souls, are you all right
with that? I'm sorry I didn't see your
[23:44] hand up at all during that discussion.
[23:49] Good discussion. That's all. I'm fine
with it.
[23:52] » Okay. Okay. Thanks.
>> Uh thanks Tony for your uh for your
[23:57] report.
>> Thank you.
[23:58] » Did you get did you get the information
you're looking for or at least some
[24:02] direction?
>> Absolutely. Thank you.
[24:04] » Yeah. You're welcome.
Okay. That was business from arising
[24:08] from minutes. Uh moving on. Uh seven is
petitions and delegations. Uh, we have a
[24:14] petition here for delegation, sorry,
from Northpaw Animal Rescue, Bruce
[24:18] Dinstead from the board of directors,
>> Lori. Okay.
[24:23] » Thank you.
>> Did somebody give you some instruction,
[24:26] Lori? And you can sit up any of these
mics? And
[24:29] » yeah, as long as the red lights on,
you're good to go. Then everybody can
[24:33] hear you.
[24:38] » Welcome, Lori. Floor is yours.
>> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um,
[24:43] thank you for giving us the opportunity
to speak with you.
[24:47] We're here tonight on behalf of Northpaw
Animal Rescue Society to talk about our
[24:52] current contract with the NRM, our
request to increase our annual funding
[24:57] from 42,000 to 95,000
and also what animal welfare services
[25:02] could look like in Fort Nelson going
forward. Uh we know that going from
[25:07] 42,000 to 95,000 is a significant
increase and we didn't come up with that
[25:12] number lightly. Uh when we started we
knew there was a huge need for animal
[25:17] welfare services in our community. Uh
but we didn't really know what it was
[25:22] going to cost to provide them. Now we
do.
[25:25] Um we have two years of actual expenses
and experience behind us now and we have
[25:30] a much better understanding of what it
takes to keep the service running. The
[25:34] NRM currently provides Northpaw with
$42,000 a year and our operating our
[25:40] basic operating expenses alone are
approximately 60,000 per year. Um, that
[25:47] includes $33,600
in rent along with building and safety
[25:53] expenses, cleaning supplies, liability
insurance, phone and internet, waste
[25:58] removal, yard maintenance, banking and
credit card fees, and basic off office
[26:03] expenses. That is before we care for a
single animal.
[26:08] Um once you add food, veterary care,
vaccination, spay and neutering,
[26:13] medications, transportation, all the
other costs directly associated with the
[26:17] animals, we spend approximately another
40,000 per year. So in reality, it costs
[26:23] Northpaw more than $100,000 a year to
provide the service we are providing.
[26:28] We make up the difference through
fundraising, donations, grants, and a
[26:33] huge amount of volunteer labor. and we
will absolutely continue doing those
[26:38] things, but fundraising
should help support an essential
[26:41] service. It shouldn't be the only thing
keeping it going.
[26:45] Um,
[26:50] there's another challenge that I think
is really important for council to
[26:53] understand and that is fostering. In
larger communities, rescues and shelters
[26:57] can rely heavily on foster homes uh when
their facility reaches capacity. We do
[27:03] not have that option here right now in
all of Fort Nelson. We have one foster
[27:08] home that will foster cats and one
foster that will foster puppies. That's
[27:12] it. So, when our kennels
[27:17] um or a cat room are full, we don't have
a large foster network to fall back on.
[27:22] We also don't have another shelter 20
minutes down the road. Um, the NRM
[27:27] covers more than 85,000 square
kilometers and in 2025 alone, Northpaw
[27:32] assisted 96 animals in different
capacities.
[27:40] 96. Yeah.
Uh, because of where we live, when we
[27:45] are full, our options become extremely
limited. Sometimes there simply isn't
[27:49] anywhere else for an animal to go. And
that becomes even more concerning when
[27:54] we look at what's happening elsewhere in
northern BC. Dawson Creek is expected to
[27:59] end their funding for animal control in
December. Uh based on the numbers we
[28:04] reviewed, that represents roughly 37% of
their estimated $700,000
[28:10] annual budget for that SPCA branch. So
approximately $260,000.
[28:16] Obviously, we can't say exactly what
effect that will have on us here, but we
[28:22] do know how animal rescue works. When
one community loses capacity, those
[28:27] animals don't disappear. Shelters fill
up, rescues fill up, foster homes fill
[28:31] up, transfers become harder to find, and
eventually that pressure moves further
[28:36] down the line. With the very limited
fosters and transfer options we already
[28:40] have in Port Nelson, I think we need to
think be thinking about this now rather
[28:46] than wait until we're in crisis.
>> Um, sorry I'm so nervous.
[28:52] » You're doing fine. You're doing fine.
Yeah, you're doing a great job.
[28:59] » Okay.
[29:03] » Okay. Also, the NRM has expressed
interest in Northpaw potentially taking
[29:07] on animal control and pounding.
Uh, we already provide cat pounding and
[29:14] we do some animal control related work.
We have only just completed our first
[29:20] two years of operation.
So, what we do have now um what we
[29:26] didn't have two years ago is experience.
and we know what our current service
[29:31] costs and we know where our facility
works well and where our limitations
[29:36] are. Uh we have worked tirelessly
renovating and creating safe spaces for
[29:41] animals and if we're given the
opportunity to expand our services.
[29:46] Uh there are changes we could look at to
making
[29:50] um to safely house more cats at our
facility. If we were going to take on
[29:55] dog pound keeping, we would need to look
at either building a separate structure
[30:00] or securing another rental space
specifically for impounded dogs. A
[30:05] proper pound facility would need
individual
[30:08] dog runs that allow dogs to safely move
between indoor and outdoor areas on
[30:13] their own. Our facility was not designed
for that type of setup and because we
[30:19] are renting the building, we cannot make
major structural changes.
[30:23] Um, I did contact a local retail realtor
and requested the current inventory of
[30:29] available rentals so I could bring some
numbers to council tonight.
[30:33] Unfortunately, I didn't receive that
information before the meeting.
[30:38] So, over the next year or two, Northpaw
and the NRM could determine what it
[30:44] would realistically cost for Northpaw to
potentially take on two additional
[30:48] contracts of service, the animal control
and pounding.
[30:53] um an annual contract of 95,000 would
give Northpaw some stability and allow
[30:58] us to make service
stability and allow us to make the
[31:03] service we had already provided
sustainable
[31:08] page.
>> Um we've learned a lot in the last two
[31:11] years and we're still learning. We see
things that are really hard to forget.
[31:15] The abused, the neglected, the
abandoned, the ones simply left behind.
[31:21] We see animals come through our doors
scared, hungry, confused, with no idea
[31:26] what they did wrong. Uh we also support
families who love their animals but are
[31:31] struggling to feed them basically and
take care of them. Um and we see the
[31:37] heartbreaking side of animal welfare
that most people thankfully never have
[31:40] to see.
Um
[31:45] the days there are days when it's
exhausting and there's days when it's
[31:50] heartbreaking and there are definitely
days when we wonder how much more we can
[31:54] take on. But we still show up. We want
to keep showing up for these animals. Uh
[31:59] we just need our community and our
municipality to stand behind us so that
[32:03] Northpaw can continue uh to be there for
the next animal that has nowhere to go.
[32:09] Thank you.
[32:13] I'm like shaking. Do I stay for
questions?
[32:16] » Yeah.
>> Yes, please. Yeah. So, that was a good
[32:19] report. Thank you for for for that.
>> Uh, does anybody on council have any
[32:24] questions?
[32:28] Good. Uh, councelor Souls.
[32:33] Oh,
>> or councelor Enex, do any of you have
[32:37] anything uh any questions for Lori?
That's Danny here. I don't have any
[32:42] questions. I just watched the um
>> the evolution of of this.
[32:48] » It certainly is the there certainly is
the need in the community for this type
[32:52] of service and our community all know it
and so do we the uh just the level to
[32:59] which it gets developed. I think that is
uh everything costs everything costs
[33:06] money and I we get that. Um, so I think
discussion is in order going forward
[33:11] with this and not deciding tonight, but
I I welcome more discussion on this
[33:16] particular file
>> as I do too. Um, I just need to con um
[33:23] commend Lori and crew for what you guys
have done in the past and continue to do
[33:29] for those animals. So, thank you.
>> Thank you.
[33:35] So the normal approach that council
takes is is is first heard deferred. So
[33:39] when we hear something for the first
time like your presentation has made a
[33:42] request for funding,
we'll defer it to a discussion. We won't
[33:46] talk about it that first night. We'll
we'll and it's actually pretty timely
[33:50] because I think staff is right in the
throws of getting ready to bid this um
[33:55] this work because it I don't this is not
a grant to you. this is a bided con you
[34:01] you it's we bid this contract and you
and you bid it. So you're sort of asking
[34:06] us to to to change that and so that you
know that's uh that's a big deal for us
[34:12] you know to take something that's that's
been a bidable contract and then switch
[34:17] it over to a to a a funded service by
the by the council. So there's some
[34:24] things that we'll, you know, staff will
have to research for us and come back
[34:27] with the with a report that talks about
um I guess the ramifications and the the
[34:35] pros and cons of of each approach,
right? So yeah, so thank you very much
[34:40] for your presentation. I I think that's
that's the way we'll move this we'll
[34:43] move this forward.
>> Perfect. Okay. Thank you.
[34:46] » Thank you.
Sure. Yeah.
[34:52] So just to kind of go on what Lori said.
So I'm Bruce Dyn in case anyone doesn't
[34:56] know me. Um just yeah like it's
community and we don't look after just
[35:02] Nelson. We look after River
Nelson First Nations Fort Leard. So my
[35:10] recommendation to the council is to
approach those communities because we've
[35:16] tried for funding and we've been shut
down but yet
[35:21] a lot of our
rescues are not from Fort Nelson,
[35:25] they're from other communities. So if we
can encompass everybody and then it's
[35:29] not just on Fort Nelson or uh yeah just
not on Fort Nelson residents but it's if
[35:36] we can all come together to the table
and get some funding from everybody
[35:40] that's an option right it's a big area
there's there's lots going on we get
[35:45] that and some people may have access to
funding easier than than us right so
[35:50] just that's one thought I just want to
throw out in front of everybody like
[35:53] let's it's not just for Nelson it's it's
the area like Lori mentioned. So
[35:58] » So that that drives a question for me
then. Is there a fee for service for
[36:00] those communities? Do you do you charge
them a fee for doing that
[36:05] » or do you just out of the goodness of
your heart go and rescue the dogs?
[36:08] » Right now we have a contract with um
FNF.
[36:15] » You can stay.
All right.
[36:19] » So we do have a contract with FNF but
just for cats. Uh, Lothrock Canine
[36:24] Rescue was doing the dogs, but now they
have quit. So, we wrote up a propo a
[36:29] proposal for FNFN and they denied it
straight up. So,
[36:35] Profit River, yeah, we've been doing it
for free. We've we've tried so many
[36:40] different channels to speak to someone
say like this is how much money we've
[36:44] spent on your community alone
uh with nothing.
[36:49] And same for Fort Leard.
So, are those
[36:54] services included in the $101,000?
>> Is that all that's that's part of the 96
[37:01] animals? I think that's all part of that
entire
[37:04] » Okay. So, that's all included in that.
>> Can we get those numbers?
[37:07] » Yeah.
>> Broken down and they can include that in
[37:10] a report because that would be valuable
information to know how much is spent
[37:16] » on the animals in each of the
communities. Yeah.
[37:19] » Yeah.
>> We can work on that. Yeah. because
[37:21] that's that's something then I can talk
to the chiefs about, right?
[37:24] » Yeah, that would be great.
>> Yeah. And that's what I just wanted to
[37:26] make sure everyone's aware of. It's not
just here, it's encompassed, right?
[37:30] » Mhm.
>> Yeah. Good.
[37:32] » Good information.
>> Yeah, sure.
[37:34] » Okay. Thank you very much, both of you.
[37:46] I'm all over the map here. Okay.
Thank you.
[37:52] That brings us to reports uh bylaws and
policies admin 8.1 on the agenda. Admin
[37:57] report 52 uh the NDIT trust annual grant
applications.
[38:05] » Yeah, you don't have to stay.
>> Okay.
[38:07] » What? What?
>> I have to go to the
[38:10] night shift.
>> Yeah.
[38:15] » Thank you.
Why did you tell them?
[38:24] » Yes.
[38:28] » Welcome.
>> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and
[38:31] Council. This report um highlights
several of the annual grants we apply
[38:36] for through the Northern Development
Initiative Trust. We've got the business
[38:41] facade improvement program, grant
writing support, and economic
[38:44] development capacity building. A routine
part of the application is a resolution
[38:50] from council. So, we've put this before
you for that.
[38:54] » Thanks, Hillary. Any questions? This is
pretty standard, pretty standard stuff,
[39:00] and it'd be nice if it could be
operationalized, but it NDIT requires uh
[39:05] requires it from us. So, uh, would
somebody like to make a recommendation?
[39:10] » Council Anders.
>> Wrong one.
[39:12] » Yeah, I I I'll get it. I I do truly
appreciate it that we utilize as much of
[39:17] this funding as we can. So, I'm happy to
motion that the Northern Rocky's
[39:21] Regional Municipalities submits an
application to the Northern Development
[39:24] Initiative Trust Grant Writing Support
Program for the maximum amount of 8,000
[39:29] offset the cost of providing grant
writing and support services. and that
[39:34] the Northern Rocky's Regional
Municipality submits an application to
[39:37] the Northern Develop Initiative Trust
Economic Development Capacity Building
[39:42] Program for the maximum amount of 50,000
to partially fund a regional economic
[39:48] development officer position and that
the Northern Rocky's Regional
[39:52] Municipality submits an application to
the Northern Development Initiative
[39:55] Trust Business Facade Improvement
Program for the maximum amount of 20,000
[40:01] to fund the 2026 Fort Nelson Business
Facade improvement program.
[40:05] » Thank you, councelor Anders. Do I have a
seconder?
[40:09] Councelor Souls.
>> Thank you.
[40:13] » Is there any further discussion or
questions?
[40:16] Seeing none, all in favor? Opposed?
Seeing none opposed, that carries.
[40:22] » Thank you.
Thanks, Hillary.
[40:29] » Okay, that now brings us to 8.2, two,
which is the travel and expense policy
[40:34] update.
>> Good evening, mayor and council. Uh, we
[40:39] have received some feedback that the PDM
rates within the municipality's travel
[40:43] and expense policy do not reflect
standard meal costs in most cities. As a
[40:48] result, council members and staff
frequently incur out-of- pocket expenses
[40:51] while traveling for municipal business.
Back in 20 2022, the council repealed
[40:57] former town and regional district bylaws
that address council remuneration and
[41:02] travel expense reimbursements while
evaluating the adoption of a separate
[41:05] travel expense policy to provide
rationale and consistent guidelines for
[41:09] council and staff travel expenses. As
part of this update, the travel and
[41:13] expense policy integrated the standard
CRA
[41:17] simplified tax filing guidelines,
providing a flat rate of $23 per meal up
[41:21] to a maximum of $69 per day per person.
The current $69 per day relies on on the
[41:29] CRA method like I mentioned. Um, but we
also looked into other places. So, for
[41:35] its own traveling workers, the federal
government uses the National Joint
[41:38] Council Travel Directive. Under this
directive, a federal public servant or
[41:42] CRA employee traveling in standard
Canadian provinces is allotted a modern
[41:47] market perdeium of $121 per day. We also
reviewed neighboring communities and it
[41:53] also showed a clear shift towards
adjusting pdiums upward. Cetwin rates
[41:57] vary between $85 and $100 per day.
Dawson Creek's rate is currently $75 per
[42:03] day, but it's under review to increase
to 110 per day. Port St. John is 110 and
[42:08] Terrace is $75 per day. Based on an
average of those public service
[42:13] organizations surveyed, a proposed daily
maximum of 105 could be a rate that both
[42:17] covers present-day restaurant costs
while sitting below the federal standard
[42:21] of 12125 and remaining closely aligned
with neighboring communities like Fort
[42:26] St. John and Dawson Creek. To ensure
clear administrative administration for
[42:31] partial travel days, the proposed 105
maximums could be prrated for breakfast
[42:36] of $25, lunch 30, and dinner 50.
Increasing the allowance from 69 to 105
[42:42] per day carries a direct incremental
cost increase of $36 per person per
[42:47] travel day. The municipal business
travel volume varies by annual meeting
[42:51] schedules. The overall impact will
fluctuate based on the actual travel.
[42:58] Thanks, Elaine.
Does council have any questions about
[43:03] the report? Council Anders,
>> I haven't been on a trip in a little
[43:07] while. How how often are meals provided
anymore? I know that when council went
[43:12] out, most of the functions had a lot of
meals provided. Not all of them, but
[43:17] there was a lot of them provided. Like
on on a five-day trip, you probably had
[43:20] three or four days worth of meals, like
lunch and dinner or breakfast and lunch
[43:24] covered.
>> Yeah.
[43:25] » Yeah.
that it still happens. it it still
[43:28] happens um that that meals are provided
but you don't always get opportunity
[43:33] like UBCM there'll be some meals that
although you know provided you don't get
[43:37] an opportunity to get to them right so
and there are others that uh that it
[43:42] happens you know three or three or four
but you know that's that's I suppose
[43:46] what the pro-rated uh opportunity is but
the overall I I you know I was one of
[43:51] the ones who who gave feedback here I
mean you know recently I was out and
[43:57] you know, where they have some of these
conferences, you have a meal at the
[44:01] hotel that you're staying at at this
conference and, you know, you'd be
[44:04] hardressed to to get dinner for $69.
So, it's uh you know, when I was in
[44:10] Taylor
four years ago, and the whole time I was
[44:13] in Taylor, it was $100 a day, you know,
and it was prrated for for any meals
[44:18] that that you were able to to attend.
So, uh, you know, I I just don't believe
[44:24] that that anybody should be out of
pocket for doing for doing this job. And
[44:28] and I probably travel more than anybody
does to these conferences that I go to.
[44:35] And if it's costing me money out of my
pocket, it's costing our staff money out
[44:38] of their pocket as well. And uh you know
I just I just believe that we should be
[44:43] looking at um you know being on par with
with some of the other I mean even the
[44:48] provincial government doesn't follow the
CRA rules or sorry the federal
[44:51] government right they're 121 as opposed
to the 69.
[44:55] So uh I'm a believer that uh that we
move this that we move this upwards. I'm
[45:00] I'm okay with the average uh that's
that's been recommended or that's been
[45:05] pointed out I guess by the by the staff.
So those are my thoughts on on on this
[45:11] Paul. Anybody else?
>> Okay.
[45:15] » Would it be too complicated to like say
say you're at a conference for a 3-day
[45:22] conference and lunch is provided for the
three days? Would it then be too
[45:26] complicated to remove that whatever it
works out to the lunches? I don't know
[45:33] what's the figure to remove that from
the daily allotment. Would that be
[45:38] because I
>> we already do that.
[45:40] » We already do that. So So then to um
counselor Andrew's point, if you're
[45:46] attending a conference where lunch is
provided, you're not going to be getting
[45:50] that twice, right? Yeah. Okay. Well,
that Yeah. Good.
[45:57] » I think it's time for the for this
discussion for sure. One of the things
[46:01] that I run into is that the same thing
where you're at a conference and you
[46:05] have a single meal in a day, but you
have to find your other ones. And in
[46:10] most cases,
um, those of us who live here and don't
[46:14] travel a lot don't know where the good
eating spots are or well, with me, I can
[46:19] walk as far as I need to find one, but
but you don't know the layout of the
[46:24] land. And that tends to actually cost
you more than you anticipate to start
[46:29] with, just finding a place to eat.
[46:35] » Thank you.
Any other comments?
[46:41] So there uh there's no there's no
recommendation I don't think that goes
[46:44] with this. Uh I think it becomes just a
matter of us making a recommendation to
[46:48] uh to increase the travel allowance uh
to the $105 or $106 whatever it was uh
[46:56] including what did we call it? Including
the um
[47:03] uh prrated
part of the policy. Is that that really
[47:07] what we're looking for?
Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So, I couldn't
[47:11] remember exactly what it was.
>> Anybody that would make that that would
[47:16] make that recommendation.
[47:23] » I will. Mayor Fraser.
>> Okay. Councelor Enax will move that we
[47:28] uh we increase the herdium rate to $105
a day including and incl uh ensuring
[47:36] that the prorated policy still applies.
Do I have a seconder?
[47:46] Councelor Souls seconds. Is there any
further discussion?
[47:50] Go ahead, councelor Anders. Um I I know
you mentioned that it fluctuates from
[47:54] year to year, but do we have an average
of how many how many times where you
[47:58] have someone traveling out? Like a
ballpark number.
[48:02] » I did reach out, but I didn't get a
number.
[48:12] » Yeah, we're talking what did we say? $39
a day.
[48:16] » 36
>> $36 a day per person that travels. And
[48:19] you know, our tribal budget is really
not that great. Not huge. Anyways, did
[48:24] you have something?
>> Uh, just a point of clarification. When
[48:26] would you like this amendment to be
effective?
[48:34] » I don't have a date. Any thoughts?
>> I had asked the question earlier as to
[48:38] um should this be something that happens
um January 1st because we've already
[48:44] voted on what the travel budget's going
to be. And Scott's response or m sorry
[48:49] Mr. Barry's response was um that it's
underutilized right now and he wouldn't
[48:54] anticipate that this change would um put
us over that budget by a great amount.
[49:01] » All right, let's let's pick let's let's
let's pick the inaugural the inaugural
[49:06] meeting for the new council. Let's make
this apply when the new council comes
[49:09] in. You guys all right with that? Is
everybody okay with that? Okay. So that
[49:14] will be uh in yeah November the 9th.
Okay.
[49:21] Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing
none, all in favor? Are there any
[49:26] opposed? Seeing none, that passes. Thank
you.
[49:31] Okay. Uh staff appointments.
Staff please.
[49:38] » Um so many of you will recall this uh
set of annual resolutions. We deferred
[49:43] this one because we had intended to
bring back some amendments earlier this
[49:48] year to the um delegation of authority
and officers bylaw, but we haven't had a
[49:54] chance to finalize that yet. And with
CEO Brewer joining us, we wanted to
[49:58] ensure there was no gaps and statutory
responsibilities as well as some other
[50:02] changes in the organization since the
last time this was adopted. So, it's
[50:06] here before you tonight, consistent with
our existing um bylaw and for your
[50:11] consideration and approval.
[50:16] » Any thoughts, questions? Pretty
straightforward. It's it's a standard
[50:19] thing we do. When people change, you've
got to do it. So, would somebody like to
[50:23] make that?
>> A motion that the statutory and other
[50:26] appointments and acting positions be
approved effective August 31st, 2026.
[50:31] » Thank you. Move. Moved by councelor
Andrews, second by Deputy Mayor G.
[50:36] » Is there any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor? Is there any
[50:41] opposed? That's carried.
[50:45] Okay, that brings us to 8.4, which is
the adoption of the IAFF mental health
[50:50] and wellness reserve fund bylaw number
247.
[50:56] » Somebody move for adoption. Councelor
Souls moves for adoption. Do I have a
[51:00] second or councelor Andrews? Uh we've
discussed this uh at the last meeting
[51:04] for second third reading. Is there
anybody who has any questions or
[51:07] clarification?
Seeing none, all in favor? Opposed?
[51:10] Seeing none opposed that carries.
[51:17] Okay, that brings us to correspondence
uh for discussion.
[51:23] There are two letters uh here for
discussion. one from uh Lesie Fox, the
[51:29] executive director of Furbears of the
Black Bear Kill in Fort Nelson, and the
[51:32] second from Ivonne Parkinson, director
of stewardship and planning, Northeast
[51:36] Reason, Ministry of Forest, uh regarding
our timber supply area. Could we move
[51:43] those for discussion, please? Moved by
councelor Andrew, second by Deputy Mayor
[51:47] Guring. All in favor? Post carried.
Okay. The first letter is from uh um
[51:55] the furbearers and it's uh
it's um a letter to us from them uh once
[52:03] they found out that there had been a a
bear which had been uh which had been
[52:08] killed by the cos in town for for their
reasons. uh they thought that they
[52:14] should send this letter and give us a
copy of a bylaw that would help to uh
[52:18] that would help to reduce that
potential. So is there anybody who has
[52:22] any thoughts with respect to this
letter?
[52:25] I mean we we already
we already are uh a wild we're part of
[52:32] the wild program. We already have our
wildlife attractant
[52:37] bylaw. Uh we've had many years of
discussions with both the wild Safe uh
[52:45] coordinator in town and the CEOs.
Uh we've been asking the CEOs more and
[52:50] more to take responsibility for uh
dealing with with with the bare problem
[52:57] when they are problems in our community
and they've been doing that. Uh I'm not
[53:02] asking them to justify the work that
they do. it's their job to to keep the
[53:09] community safe and unfortunately on
occasion you know they will make a
[53:13] decision that a bear needs to be
dispatched. Uh so therefore they are
[53:18] doing their job more and uh our bylaw my
my understanding is from talking to
[53:25] staff about the bylaw is that is being
enforced more that tickets have been
[53:30] written that fines have been both by the
co as well as uh our bylaw enforcement
[53:36] personnel. So, I'm not sure what else we
can do to respond to uh uh Miss Fox
[53:45] um the executive director of of the
Furbears. I think we're doing at least
[53:50] what they're asking us to do. Uh
councelor Souls.
[53:54] » Yeah. When I read this letter, I read it
as though there was an assumption behind
[53:59] the writing that we weren't up to speed
with a bylaw of our own and that we
[54:05] weren't possibly doing what we should
be. And I I would just say thanks for
[54:08] the letter and we're a step ahead of
you, but keep up the good work and
[54:12] goodbye.
>> Okay. I I I think maybe what what staff
[54:19] has put this for is is whether or not we
need to make a response to these folks
[54:22] and let them know that we do have those
things in place already. I'm that's
[54:26] that's all I can think of why it's here.
Staff, have you got any comments
[54:31] with respect to that? That was the
intent of putting it for discussion was
[54:36] just the assumptions that we got the
sense were included and whether council
[54:41] wanted to take a um a proactive approach
in our response just acknowledging what
[54:47] we do do prevent human wildlife conflict
in the community.
[54:51] » Thank you. Anybody else?
No, I think it would be good to um if
[54:57] somebody's going to take the time to
send us correspondence, I think that um
[55:01] they are deserving of a response back.
So, I would uh appreciate a response
[55:06] back to Miss Fox letting her know
everything that we do do and thank her
[55:12] for her interest in our community.
>> Is that a motion? Okay. Moved by uh
[55:19] Deputy Mayor Gwing that we respond to
the furbears. Do I have a seconder?
[55:25] Uh there's several seconders. So,
Council Andrews, thank you very much.
[55:29] All in favor? Opposed? Carried.
Good. Uh that brings us to uh the letter
[55:36] from Ivonne Parkinson, director of
stewardship and planning, Northeast
[55:39] Region, Ministry of Forests. So, this
letter uh indicates to us that the
[55:44] Minister of Forest will be doing a
review, the Ministry of Forest will be
[55:48] doing a review of our annual allowable
cut. And I'm uh I know that we have some
[55:52] staff members who who uh who take an
interest in in this and it's something
[55:58] we've been asking for. Uh it's an interm
so I'm not exactly sure what what that
[56:05] means but uh perhaps our director of
planning can uh can give us her thoughts
[56:11] on this please.
[56:18] » Okay.
[56:21] So exciting, isn't it?
So, yeah, it's an interim TSR. So, we've
[56:27] we've been asking since about 2024,
since the significant wildfire activity
[56:31] started in 2023 about how the ministry
reacts to um significant changes in uh
[56:38] forest conditions. So, we've been we
have documented emails back and forth.
[56:42] Um, at one point the ministry felt that
due to the lack of activity in the area
[56:48] that wasn't really worth their time and
effort to do it. So it sounds like the
[56:51] chief forers office based on information
from the um forest inventory and
[56:56] analysis branch have decided to go ahead
and do one. Interim is essentially they
[57:01] aren't going to do a full TSR. So during
a normal timber supply review, they'll
[57:05] look at a multiple like multiple factors
that influence an AAC determination. Um,
[57:11] so things like what's already been
harvested and operability and there's a
[57:15] number of things that they'll look at.
Um, usually it comes with an updated
[57:19] inventory. Um, in this case they're just
going to go with what they have
[57:23] essentially. Um, look at what's been
damaged as far as timber and what's been
[57:28] lost through uh, land use planning
processes like the boreal caribou
[57:32] recovery plan. Um, and then come up with
an interim AAC to reflect the current
[57:38] conditions. So, um, yeah, it's
interesting in that, um, there's pros
[57:45] and cons to doing an interim AAC
determination. So, one of them obviously
[57:49] is that messaging that we're sending to
potential forest investment companies.
[57:53] So, with a lower likely lower AAC, it
does signal that, you know, maybe we
[57:59] don't have as much as as what we'd like
to have sort of thing. So, right now
[58:02] we're sitting at about 2.5 million cubic
meters. um if that's lowered then it's
[58:07] less to go around or less for a
potential investment. But the offset to
[58:11] that is that you don't want to convey
something that we don't have. So in my
[58:16] mind when I look at this it's not so
much you know whether or not doing an
[58:20] interim AC determination is good or bad.
It's more the questions that I think we
[58:25] should be asking around outstanding uh
issues around the boreal caribou and
[58:31] recovery protection and recovery plan.
So if you recall, wildlife habitat areas
[58:36] were established uh for type one and
type two management areas within that
[58:41] plan. And those wildlife habitat areas
were intended to be interim until the
[58:46] planning process had been completed for
the bordo caribou plan. There's still
[58:51] type three and type four areas um in
that plan that will have restrictions on
[58:56] the land base as well that have not been
defined. Um they have been spatially,
[59:01] but there's been no management
objectives. um assigned to those type
[59:04] three and four. So I would say that's
one question we should probably ask. Um
[59:10] reading this information, I'm not sure
exactly how this is going to affect our
[59:14] community forest and whether their AAC
will be affected. So there was a
[59:19] separate AAC determination done for the
community forest. So I'm assuming it's
[59:24] not going to be affected, but we don't
know. So I think that's another
[59:28] question. um as well as what's the plan
for a full timber supply review. So the
[59:34] last one was completed in 2019 and
they're supposed to be done every 10
[59:38] years um which would put us about 2029
for a new timber supply review. So I
[59:44] don't know what the impact of this
interimm one would be keeping in mind
[59:48] that our community forest also requires
an updated AAC determination in July of
[59:54] 2029 as well. There's no mention of when
um an updated uh forest inventory would
[1:00:01] be undertaken which is integral to a
full timber supply review and it's
[1:00:05] something that our community forest will
need to do as well before a new AAC
[1:00:09] determination is done. So there's a few
questions I think you know more
[1:00:14] important than whether or not a interim
TSR should be done essentially. So
[1:00:20] » but it but at least it will will will
start us down the path of certainty
[1:00:26] right with respect to what's out there
right now and and that's important for
[1:00:29] us and the nations with respect to
trying to kickstart the forest industry
[1:00:33] here.
>> Definitely. So the point that you make
[1:00:36] about
about
[1:00:39] u getting the word out to potential
investors that there is this much
[1:00:43] available
in term
[1:00:46] and there's this much that could still
be planted and harvested. Right? It
[1:00:51] that's hasn't gone away,
>> right? It's just what's what's what can
[1:00:54] be cut now and what what is the
potential out there? We can still sell
[1:01:00] the potential. even though these these
areas have been burned, they still have
[1:01:04] potential to be replanted and and grown.
So, all of that is is uh is important
[1:01:11] and maybe they do that as part of the
full review, but but those are at least
[1:01:15] two things that that we that we should
get some information on that we don't
[1:01:19] have right now.
>> Yeah, I think and that's where I think
[1:01:22] the questions are more important than
actually whether or not the interim AAC
[1:01:26] should be done or not. Like it's pretty
obvious it should be. We need a
[1:01:29] realistic
>> picture of what we have available for
[1:01:32] potential investment.
>> We don't want to entice people to come
[1:01:35] to a a TSA where there's really not the
volume that we're advertising. So, it's
[1:01:40] more about those questions about the
effects on other things, particular the
[1:01:44] community forest, when that updated
inventory is going to be done, when the
[1:01:48] next TSR, full TSR is going to be done.
Um, as well as what's happening with the
[1:01:53] implementation of the Boreo Caribou Plan
and those type three and four management
[1:01:57] types.
Okay. So, you've recorded these
[1:02:00] questions so that when we talk to the
Minister of Force next Friday.
[1:02:04] » Perfect. Okay. Because I won't remember
them from now. So, if you've got them
[1:02:09] written down, that'd be awesome.
>> We expect to have your packages to you
[1:02:12] by Friday.
>> Oh, perfect. Yeah.
[1:02:14] » Yeah. We'll make sure that there's high
level.
[1:02:18] » Good.
>> Not quite so detailed, but you all get
[1:02:20] it. So,
>> well, you know, I do want to ask about
[1:02:23] the three and four and how they're going
to affect this review. I do want to ask
[1:02:27] the question about the the community
forest. That makes great sense. So yeah.
[1:02:31] Okay.
>> Yeah. And I think in your notes right
[1:02:33] now we just mentioned it because I think
it's important um this as well as uh we
[1:02:37] shared a news article that was recent or
a news release that was recently posted
[1:02:41] by the BC government about the reszone
forest management process. We've
[1:02:47] included that in the UBCM notes just to
mention it as it just signals to the
[1:02:51] minister that you're paying attention to
what's happening in the in the TSA as
[1:02:55] far as forestry. But we'll ensure that
there's a little bit more detail around
[1:02:59] this piece in your speaking notes for
the minister of forest.
[1:03:02] » Good. Thank you.
>> Is anybody else? Oh, uh, councelor
[1:03:06] Souls, please. I appreciate Lisa what
you just mentioned about the background
[1:03:11] of the the unknown parts of the the the
elephants in the room are are like the
[1:03:17] elephant of the uh Cascade DA uh Casca
agreement with BC government that we're
[1:03:24] working through along with them and the
other two land use plans that we're not
[1:03:30] part party to that actually overlap the
same area that we live in and I think
[1:03:34] that those elephants are in the room in
one sense but not necessarily in a
[1:03:38] negative way. It's just that we're not
party to what is being said. So, I am
[1:03:43] positive that that would could might
affect uh uh timber supply review in
[1:03:49] this area. So, in an interm one,
especially given that we've been asking
[1:03:54] for one, I'm totally in favor with that.
I think it's a good idea to get started
[1:03:58] down the road. But as Lisa mentioned,
make them know that we're aware that we
[1:04:03] need to be asking questions about the
land use planning in the region as we
[1:04:07] go.
>> And if I could just note um in the
[1:04:12] letter it does I mean they do offer to
meet with us as well or if we have any
[1:04:16] questions to reach out. It doesn't
necessarily just have to be a UBCM
[1:04:19] conversation. So um if council wishes I
can reach back out to Ivonne and ask
[1:04:26] some questions as well. Yeah, I think
certainly that's something because
[1:04:29] that's at the staff level that that
offer was made, right? So, I think that
[1:04:32] we should follow up with that for sure.
We got 15 minutes with the minister,
[1:04:35] right? You're lucky if you're able to
get a meeting later with the minister
[1:04:39] for
>> Yeah.
[1:04:40] » Yeah.
>> So, but the a meeting with the staff
[1:04:42] would be great.
>> Yeah. Good.
[1:04:44] » Thanks.
>> Comment.
[1:04:45] » Oh, please.
>> U Jayen, you mentioned that the um
[1:04:49] packages are coming out for UBCM. Can
all of us get a copy of that, please?
[1:04:53] Thanks.
>> One question on that as I know at one
[1:04:57] point we tried to we were marketing our
undercut and the last timber supply
[1:05:01] review we took got rid of that undercut.
Would that's happened with an interimm
[1:05:06] report as well? Like I don't know if
we're trying to market any of our
[1:05:09] undercut, but would that wipe out
effectively any undercut doing an
[1:05:12] interimm review?
>> So yeah, they talk about that in the
[1:05:17] letter. So essentially it's going to be
um without in the absence of an
[1:05:21] inventory, I don't think they're going
to include undercut. It sounds like they
[1:05:24] won't be. Um it'll really just be
impacts from so taking the current AAC
[1:05:29] determination and minusing what they
feel we've lost in like through land use
[1:05:35] planning particularly the boreo caribou
plan as well as fire wildfire.
[1:05:41] So yeah I don't think they'll
reintroduce the idea around um undercut.
[1:05:47] It was already accounted for and like
you said in the in the existing TSR. So
[1:05:53] I think the uh we talked about this a
little bit earlier, the the map that we
[1:05:58] have that shows the the overlay of the
of uh the fires and the boreal caribou
[1:06:04] and all the land planning that's been
going on is is impactful. And so we'll
[1:06:09] we'll take some of those down there with
us. Lisa's already made a note to uh to
[1:06:14] make some copies so that we've we've got
that and we hand it out to whoever it
[1:06:18] makes sense to hand it out to.
>> Okay. Thanks.
[1:06:22] » Thank you.
Okay. I don't That's that. So, there are
[1:06:30] six pieces of correspondence for
information. Moved by councelor or
[1:06:34] sorry, deputy mayor Ging to receive
those. Do I have a seconder? Councelor
[1:06:38] Andrews. Thank you. All in favor? Are
there any opposed? Seeing none, those
[1:06:42] are all
adopted. Uh, new business. Uh so the new
[1:06:49] business I have here is for
communication of the primary care
[1:06:52] committee.
>> So
[1:06:56] uh there was a report at the uh
committee of the whole meeting talking
[1:07:01] about the communication plan for the
general public
[1:07:07] moving forward as we go through this
primary care process that we're going
[1:07:11] through. We're still basically in a
research phase. Uh we've we've had a
[1:07:17] committee uh of of residents who came
together and did a lot of work, a lot of
[1:07:23] work. And they made a recommendation to
the council which the council accepted
[1:07:29] u to do more research to create a
business plan and ultimately a
[1:07:36] uh I guess we're calling it phase two um
um of the primary care committee. We
[1:07:44] have an executive committee and we have
now what's called the steering committee
[1:07:49] which is
five of the seven. Correct me if I'm
[1:07:53] wrong. Is it five of the seven or seven
of the nine? I can't recall. There was
[1:07:57] two that that didn't want to come. Two
that that that can but the rest of the
[1:08:01] committee is still interested in
understanding what's happening and and
[1:08:05] giving us feedback as we as we work
through the research on uh on what
[1:08:10] primary care might look like in our
community. So, the report that came to
[1:08:14] us uh was an update on where we are now,
as well as asking uh for this
[1:08:20] communication
um
[1:08:23] uh plan to bring the community up to
speed on what we're doing because
[1:08:27] there's rumors flying around in the
community about primary care and and
[1:08:31] what's happening with it. And so, you
know, there are some things that we
[1:08:35] don't want to release yet. There's some
things that are involved in negotiation,
[1:08:38] but where we can, where staff feels that
there's information to be released to
[1:08:43] the public, it's appropriate to release
to the public. Um, they would like they
[1:08:48] would like us to do that at these
meetings that uh that the executive
[1:08:53] committee is having and the steering
committee are having. So, I would like
[1:08:59] uh
so maybe I'll back up a little bit more.
[1:09:03] the uh some of this information needs to
go to the public in a fairly timely way
[1:09:10] and there may not be an opportunity to
bring the whole council together to
[1:09:13] review each communication that staff
puts in front of us. So I would ask that
[1:09:19] uh the executive committee which is some
of the senior staff myself and deputy
[1:09:25] mayor Guring review any communicates
that staff are interested um in putting
[1:09:31] to the public. Uh and then we would we
would look it over and because we're we
[1:09:36] we're meeting weekly as opposed to every
two weeks. So it' be a little more
[1:09:40] timely. And then once the communicate is
um is reviewed by the executive
[1:09:46] committee and authorized by the
executive committee, we would then
[1:09:50] release it on our platforms as well as
give it to the steering committee who
[1:09:55] who can disseminate it to all of the
folks that they deal with because
[1:09:58] they've been doing a you know a great
job um talking to people in the
[1:10:02] community about what this what this is
all about as we do our research. So uh
[1:10:07] if there's any questions I will endeavor
to answer them.
[1:10:11] We we talked about that's a summary of
what we talked about essentially at the
[1:10:15] uh at the committee of the whole
meeting.
[1:10:19] So I would be looking for a resolution
from council that authorizes the primary
[1:10:25] care executive committee to review and
authorize public communication.
[1:10:33] » So move.
>> Thank you. So that's moved by councelor
[1:10:37] Andrews and seconded by councelor Souls.
Is there any further discussion? Oh, I
[1:10:43] guess just for the public that may watch
this, the information that we're giving
[1:10:48] is is not the plan. It's just the things
that we are doing. Once a decision is
[1:10:54] close to being made, there will be a
complete uh public process,
[1:11:00] a community engagement process to ensure
that people are fully informed uh in in
[1:11:06] in what the future plan for uh primary
care in this community will be.
[1:11:13] Okay, there's nothing else. Uh all in
favor, are there any opposed?
[1:11:18] Seeing none opposed, that passes. Thank
you.
[1:11:24] Okay, that brings us to councelor
reports. Deputy mayor Gwing, please.
[1:11:29] » Yeah. And just so that you know Brenda
has a report, but she can't her hands
[1:11:35] » her hands not coming up.
>> Her hand is missing and I need a
[1:11:38] teenager.
[1:11:43] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[1:11:44] » So, uh, Deputy Mayor Ging first and
then, uh, and then councelor Enax.
[1:11:50] » Okay. Um going to back up a little bit.
So August the 11th, I met with Jennifer
[1:11:55] Moore, who's the chair of Northern
Lights College Board. Um we had a great
[1:12:00] discussion. She was wanting to um talk
to me about how the college might
[1:12:05] increase their presence within Fort
Nelson. Um given that they don't have a
[1:12:11] whole lot of money. But yeah, so I we
had a probably an hourong meeting and
[1:12:17] yeah,
August 14th, I attended the opening of
[1:12:22] Red Apple along with the mayor and I was
so impressed with the lineup awaiting
[1:12:28] the 900 a.m. opening. It was down around
the building. Um they were offering a
[1:12:33] $10 gift card and a free laundry basket
to the first I forget how many C first
[1:12:39] 100 customers through the door. So then
the mayor and I were chatting. We
[1:12:43] thought maybe we need to give away gift
cards or free swim passes for anybody
[1:12:47] that attends the budget openings, right?
So
[1:12:51] » we need to bottle what they did.
>> We need to do that because man, them
[1:12:54] people, they were crazy.
>> No, I didn't think of that.
[1:12:58] » I didn't either. I gave my gift card to
somebody. Um August 19th, I attended the
[1:13:04] BC Rural Health Network executive
meeting followed by the implementation
[1:13:08] meeting on August the 20th. And on um
August 25, I participated in the
[1:13:14] election candidate information session,
followed by having dinner with the Wild
[1:13:19] Wolves motorcycle charity, who along
with the mayor, Scott Barry, and
[1:13:24] councelor Enex. And just a reminder that
the Wild Wolves are planning a 100 plus
[1:13:30] rider event through the Northern Rockies
next summer and they're headed north to
[1:13:34] deliver food and other essentials to
communities in need. And le last lastly,
[1:13:39] I just want to thank everyone for their
patience uh for the past couple of weeks
[1:13:44] as I've been navigating some family
illnesses um necessitating my absence
[1:13:49] from the community and my very delayed
responses to many emails. I'm very
[1:13:55] sorry, but I'm back on it now. So, I
appreciate everybody's support during
[1:13:59] this time. Thank you.
>> Okay, council. Thank you for that. How
[1:14:05] many days?
>> Yay. Council
[1:14:09] Reax, would you like to give your report
please? You should include that in your
[1:14:12] report.
>> So August 20th, I attended the special
[1:14:15] council meeting and August 22nd and 23rd
um along with the Northern Rockies
[1:14:22] Tourism Event Society. We helped execute
the first Northern Lights Flaming Grill
[1:14:28] Fest which astounded all of us. Um I
hope all of you were able to take take
[1:14:35] in part of it. We just need need to
thank the NRM for Art Fraser Park. Um
[1:14:41] the tents and the showmobile and a big
shout out to Morgan Hansen.
[1:14:47] Any event that we have um that he's
involved with. As soon as he's on shift,
[1:14:53] we have nothing to worry about. So,
thanks to Morgan for all his help
[1:14:58] throughout that entire weekend. Um,
August 25th,
[1:15:02] I I attended, like Lorine, um, Councelor
Ging had said, with Mayor Mayor Fraser
[1:15:07] and CEO Barry, the meeting with the Wild
Wolves motorcycle um, club. Looking
[1:15:12] forward to that.
There 100 plus crew coming through here
[1:15:17] next summer. It would be pretty
exciting. And SE September 2nd, I had a
[1:15:22] meeting with Russell.
And I'm not one to sit indoors,
[1:15:26] especially on a beautiful day. So, I
asked him if he wanted to go on a road
[1:15:30] trip and he graciously said yes. Um, I
didn't lose him. We drove out across the
[1:15:39] river. Um, some great friends out at
FNFN. Um, we started out at the health
[1:15:44] and wellness center and had a tour of
that. Took him into the beautiful arbor
[1:15:49] that Shel had unlocked for us. Um, from
there we went over to the administration
[1:15:54] building, had a tour in there. Uh Bonnie
Gardner hopped in with us. We took a
[1:15:59] tour over to the mill site and were able
to see the beautiful cabin that was
[1:16:05] built that they're going to um hopefully
sell and continue to build and sell. And
[1:16:10] we ended up at the Chalow School with a
bunch of excited teachers and staff
[1:16:14] getting ready for the the new school
year. And our 1-hour meeting turned into
[1:16:19] two. And it would have been longer had
it not rained because I really wanted to
[1:16:23] go down to the old fort. that that last
corner is a doozy. So, we didn't do
[1:16:28] that. And September 3rd, I attended the
Heritage Society meeting at the museum.
[1:16:36] » And that and now I'm currently out of
town, but I should be back tomorrow.
[1:16:40] » Good.
Okay. So, since the 10th of August, uh I
[1:16:47] did all that. We did the ribbon cutting
ceremony and uh you've heard how how
[1:16:51] that went. It went well. I attended a
barbecue with the RCMP, which a couple
[1:16:56] of you have forgot you guys were there
as well, uh where we were able to uh
[1:17:00] meet with the new executive out of
Prince George for uh for the area as
[1:17:05] well as some of the new officers. Uh so
that was good uh to get to know their
[1:17:11] names and uh sort of some of their their
plans for the area. Um, I've been
[1:17:16] attending the mayor's fire updates that
the uh that the province has been
[1:17:22] putting on every second weddednesday.
I've been attending those. Of course,
[1:17:26] it's we've been in pretty good shape
here um with respect to this year's fire
[1:17:32] season where others in the Lower
Mainland uh have not. So, uh very
[1:17:37] interested in in listening to uh to
those updates. Uh we had a community
[1:17:43] fire smart resiliency committee meeting
on the 20th that I attended. I did
[1:17:47] rifest and I also agree that it was it
went over very very well. In fact they
[1:17:52] ran out of food. So you know so that's
that it bad that they ran out of food
[1:17:58] but good because it was very successful
uh for them. So uh next year they'll
[1:18:04] have a little bit better idea what to
expect and and hopefully this will
[1:18:07] become an an annual event.
um Chamber of Commerce, I uh sat with
[1:18:13] them on the 27th to uh update them on
some of the things that we are doing.
[1:18:19] Um
Russell's first day was the 31st.
[1:18:27] There's something else here that I
missed that I don't have it on here. Oh,
[1:18:31] I wanted to say that um MP Bob Zimmer
made a a burn and turn yesterday. Came
[1:18:38] to the community. So, uh, yeah. So, I
met with him in the office upstairs
[1:18:43] yesterday. I talked to him about
kickstarted the re kickstarted the
[1:18:48] forest industry and what we're trying to
achieve there. I talked to him about
[1:18:52] rail. Uh, I talked to him particularly
the the information that I got from
[1:18:57] Penware. Uh, I showed him the video that
was from the um
[1:19:04] from he's not a senator. He's a house.
What's the other house in the states? Uh
[1:19:09] what do they call them? Representative
House representative uh u from
[1:19:14] Washington gave a an overview of of the
relationship that Canada has with
[1:19:20] Alaska, particularly Western Canada, and
their need for transportation. Uh
[1:19:25] they're pushing hard for for rail
service. And if we don't get BC
[1:19:30] interested in rail again, at least by
having some kind of a some kind of a
[1:19:37] regulatory body or something that's
driven by this by this province with
[1:19:41] rail, we are going to miss out on on the
major opportunity that that this might
[1:19:46] uh that this might present itself. Uh we
also talked about the immigration uh
[1:19:52] pilot that we have and why it's
important and if he can do anything in
[1:19:56] Ottawa to make sure that that sort of
program continues if not expands because
[1:20:04] you know all of the problems they have
with with immigration fraud uh in the
[1:20:09] bigger cities is really eliminated when
you get local governments involved who
[1:20:13] have the ability to vet the employers.
um
[1:20:19] deal with the applications that are
coming through and these are the people
[1:20:23] who you know make our beds when we're in
the host in the in the hotels and serve
[1:20:28] us our coffee and our drinks and our
meals at different so we have a we've
[1:20:33] built trust with them and you know if
there's funny business they're going to
[1:20:36] let us know so that we can pass it on to
the right people and and so from an
[1:20:41] immigration perspective allowing a
system like this uh in small rural
[1:20:47] communities ities, whether or not you've
got to collect them together like we're
[1:20:50] doing now or you give it to the to the
small communities
[1:20:54] um is just another it's not a it's not a
way around the immigration process. It's
[1:21:00] another opportunity that people have to
to um to become residents in in Canada.
[1:21:07] So, it's working well for us. We got a
we've got a we got a review or sorry, I
[1:21:12] a report a little while ago on on how
well it's working. So I just wanted to
[1:21:16] impress upon him that uh that that it's
working for us. So and then he was off
[1:21:23] to his next meeting and and then he was
going home the same day. So
[1:21:27] okay, that's my report.
Okay. And next week it is UBCM which
[1:21:33] came up on us so so fast. So fast. Uh we
have many meetings with ministers and
[1:21:41] and staff. Our staff are meeting with
provincial staff this week uh so that
[1:21:46] the staff will be available for meetings
that we have uh next week. Okay.
[1:21:52] Council reports.
Uh
[1:21:56] do we want to do the government transfer
policy update
[1:22:00] or did we cover that off under under
old sorry uh minutes
[1:22:07] » business arising from minutes? That was
that whole discussion. Okay.
[1:22:11] » She jumped the queue on us, but that's
okay.
[1:22:13] » That's fine. That was a good place to do
it.
[1:22:17] Okay. Uh, are there any notice of
motions for the next meeting?
[1:22:22] Seeing none, is there any public that
would like to ask any questions?
[1:22:29] Okay. Res we'll have a resolution to
move into a closed meeting to speak
[1:22:33] about personnel information and
negotiations.
[1:22:37] Moved by Deputy uh Mayor Gruing and
seconded by Councelor Andrews. All in
[1:22:42] favor? Opposed?
That's carried. Okay, we'll take a few
[1:22:46] minutes to uh clean out the room and
then we'll we'll have a bit of a bio
[1:22:51] break and then we'll get back at it.
Thanks everybody.
[1:22:56] Okay, thank you everybody uh for being
patient with us. Uh we do have a report
[1:23:01] to uh rise with. So I will uh I'll get
staff to uh read this resolution,
[1:23:09] please.
>> Uh to rise a report moved by councelor
[1:23:12] Enoch, seconded by councelor Souls that
staff proceed with the purchase and
[1:23:16] furnishing of a condominium unit to
provide additional housing for
[1:23:19] healthcare professionals and that a
budget of $150,000 be established and
[1:23:23] fully funded by a contribution from the
financial stabilization fund carried
[1:23:27] unanimously.
Thank you.
[1:23:33] So we are uh finished with that part of
the meeting and adjournment is in order
[1:23:39] for the regular council meeting. Moved
by deputy mayor Ging, seconded by
[1:23:44] councelor Andrews. All in favor?
Opposed? Carried. Thank you everybody.
[1:23:47] We are journed.