[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.

September 9, 2026 - Regional Council

Transcript