Mhm.
» A special meeting council order for
Tuesday, August 4th.
A waiver of notice of meeting. Let me
put the recommendation on the floor that
council waves the notice of meeting
requirements as permitted under section
127.4 of the community charter. Seconded
Council Marbury. Discussion.
Call the question. All in favor?
Carried. Take approval of agenda,
please. Council Marbury.
>> Thank you, Mayor, that the August 4th,
» Thank you, Mayor, that the August 4th,
2026 special council meeting agenda be
approved as presented.
>> Seconded.
» Seconded.
Councilor Hoffman. Discussion.
Call the question. All in favor?
Carried.
Consent agenda. Take the recommendation,
please.
Councillor Knoxsena.
>> That the items in the August 4th, 2026
» That the items in the August 4th, 2026
consent agenda be moved for information.
>> Seconder.
» Seconder.
Councillor Norbury. All in favor.
Carried. Any items council would like to
bring forward for discussion?
Councillor Norbury.
>> Thank you, Mayor. 3.2 for discussion.
» Thank you, Mayor. 3.2 for discussion.
>> Seconder. Councillor Knoxsena.
» Seconder. Councillor Knoxsena.
All in favor.
Carried. Councillor Norbury.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I'll motion that the
» Thank you, Mayor. I'll motion that the
District of Tumbler Ridge grant
municipal significance designation for
the Conuma Resources 10th Anniversary
celebrations to be held at the Tumbler
Ridge Fairgrounds on Saturday, August
22nd, 2026 and Saturday, August 29th,
2026.
>> Seconder.
» Seconder.
Councillor Knoxsena.
Any discussion?
Call the question. All in favor.
Carried.
Second item, Councillor Norbury.
>> Thank you, Mayor. 3.3 for discussion.
» Thank you, Mayor. 3.3 for discussion.
>> Seconder. Councillor Knoxsena. All in
» Seconder. Councillor Knoxsena. All in
favor.
Carried. Councillor Norbury.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I'll motion that
» Thank you, Mayor. I'll motion that
that the District of Tumbler Ridge grant
municipal significant designation for
the TR Strong Benefit Concert and Fall
Fair to be held at the Tumbler Ridge
Fairgrounds on Saturday, September 5th,
2026.
>> Seconder. Councillor Knoxsena.
» Seconder. Councillor Knoxsena.
Discussion.
Call the question. All in favor.
Carried.
Uh new business, NDIT grant application
support recreation infrastructure 2026.
Report dated August 4th, 2026 from the
Director of Operations and
Infrastructure regarding the NDIT grant
application support recreation
infrastructure 2026. Recommendation,
Councillor Knoxsena.
>> That council supports the District of
» That council supports the District of
Tumbler Ridge's application to the
Northern Development Initiative Trust
Recreation Infrastructure Program for a
grant of up to $300,000 towards the
construction of the Tumbler Ridge
covered driving range and golf cart
storage facility and that staff be
authorized to submit the application and
any supporting documentation required by
Northern Development Initiative Trust.
>> Seconder. Councillor Hoffman.
» Seconder. Councillor Hoffman.
Discussion, Councillor Norbury.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um I'm actually going
» Thank you, Mayor. Um I'm actually going
to be voting in opposition to this. Um
since our discussions about the golf
cart storage, which I was in favor of,
I've been having discussions with
different golf um users.
And
the majority don't actually support this
project. They think it's They think it's
cost too much. It doesn't fit the needs
that they want. Uh
you know, and this is a mix of people
who already have golf carts in the
storage, people who are on the waiting
list.
And um you know, I want to really know
like
I'm I'm fine spending money on a project
that people want. But I can't find
anybody who actually wants this project
for the price it is. They'd rather see
something um more more targeted. Um even
recognizing that we can receive a
significant grant to reduce the project.
Um you know, they're just not in favor
of it. So, at this point time, I cannot
support it. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Councilor Arjulick.
» Thank you. Councilor Arjulick.
>> Um yes, I also will be voting against
» Um yes, I also will be voting against
it. I just feel that we could use this
$300, $300,000 towards another um
infrastructure program.
Uh for the recreation. And um I would
say that I also align with Councilor
Norbury on his reasoning for not
supporting it.
>> Thank you. Councilor Hoffman.
» Thank you. Councilor Hoffman.
>> Thank you, Mayor.
» Thank you, Mayor.
Uh I'm actually in support of this. I am
I'm not sure it's exactly what I would
want or exactly what needs to be there,
but if we can get 300,000 towards a
project of this nature,
uh I think there isn't any reason to go
for it. The golf course needs some
upgrades, one of which is the driving
range.
Um and we've also identified that we do
need more storage space.
Um I mean, if you tell me that it has to
be exactly this if we get the the grant,
then I'll be less supportive of it. But
uh I I think with the last few years how
the golf course is going, we need to
look seriously at uh
at what do we need to do there to to
keep the usage up and keep the interest
up. Um
And investing in the golf course is just
either we invest in it or we let it go.
And I think uh just locally there's
enough support for investing in it and I
think we're also becoming a regional uh
interest, especially if we did have a
covered driving range that could be used
year-round.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Counselor Roxburgh and then
» Thank you. Counselor Roxburgh and then
Counselor Hoffman. Or Counselor Norbury,
sorry.
>> Thank you. Um I'm not in favor of this.
» Thank you. Um I'm not in favor of this.
I wasn't in favor of the building to
start and since the budget passed with
the building, the new building in it,
I've received significant feedback from
people who are really not happy with a
million dollars being spent on a
building for storage. Um I get the
covered driving range part. People would
love to see that, but the cost is just
too high for what we're going to get.
>> Thank you. Counselor Norbury.
» Thank you. Counselor Norbury.
>> Thank you, Mayor.
» Thank you, Mayor.
Uh
you know, going back to my previous
statements, I'm sure there are people
who are in favor of this. I think
you know, I over spoke a little bit
there. But realistically, when you know,
talking to people and and real
the cost recovery time line is too big
for us. You know, we're estimating a
cost recovery time of 20 years um if we
can get all the spots filled. And
realistically,
if people aren't happy with this,
they're not going to subscribe to the
building. Um you know, we had
you know, I I think when we first looked
at this project back in the winter time
of you know, a simpler design building
by the old building, that was probably
the probably the best option that we
could that we could have had. Maybe we
should be looking at uh at those options
again.
I realize things have changed since the
snow melt, but uh yeah.
Thanks.
>> Thanks. I'll be supporting the motion on
» Thanks. I'll be supporting the motion on
the floor.
The people [clears throat] I've talked
to, the people that reached out, I mean,
obviously have concerns about the price
and I think that's why staff is is
looking at grants and this won't be the
probably the only grant they look at.
So, this is an initiative to bring down
the cost of of the budget.
So, [clears throat]
to me it's this is only one. This is uh
there's other grants out there and I
think
this grant is it does not guarantee
success. This gives it direction that we
asked for in the budget first off to
start looking at reaching out for
grants.
Um so this is what they've come forward
with in regards to applying for the
grants as requested in the budget by
council that was passed. Um so the
concern I have is that the people that
have reached out to me are concerned
with the price and I think this is the
way of getting the price down as staff
looks for other grants within the
in the realm of this concept of the
drawing of the covered range with golf
cart storage. So I'll be supporting it.
Any other discussion?
Call the question. All in favor?
Opposed? Councillor Jewell, Councillor
Nuxoll, and Councillor Norbury opposed.
Motion is defeated.
Golf course tournament package report
dated August 4th, 2026 from the Chief
Administrative Officer regarding golf
course tournament package
recommendation.
Councillor Norbury.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um Councillor receives
» Thank you, Mayor. Um Councillor receives
this report for discussion.
>> Seconder, Councillor Nuxoll. All in
» Seconder, Councillor Nuxoll. All in
favor?
Opposed?
Carried.
Councillor Norbury.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um
» Thank you, Mayor. Um
so you know, we had uh we had IMW come
in asking for
reduction on cart fees for users that
have brought in carts.
Um can we get a little more explanation
on like the
how that fee structure would look? You
know, I I did have an opportunity to
talk with Miss Scott about fee
structures and I think it's important
for people to to hear it. Um you know,
from my understand is if
somebody brings their own cart
um and we waive that fee, then they
would have to pay their trail fees.
Um so the cost for that participant may
actually go up um even if they brought
their own cart if they don't already
have their trail fees. So maybe we can
get an explanation of how the the trail
fees work um
and the and the cart fees work for um
these tournaments. Thanks.
>> Thanks. Miss Olson.
» Thanks. Miss Olson.
>> Thank you, uh Mayor and Council. Uh
» Thank you, uh Mayor and Council. Uh
as far as my understanding is the trail
fees are paid
per cart at the beginning of the season.
So, I think it would be different. I
don't think that they would divide up a
tournament and in any way that
some people would pay a different fee
than others that were in the tournament.
The organizer would
have a general um
fee structure for the whole thing, but I
will ask uh acting director of community
services Bradley if he would like to
chime in.
» Thank you, Ms. Olson.
Mayor and Council,
um yeah, so the trail fees
uh
my understanding is it's it's a flat
fee. This this tournament fee is a $45
um
that is for each participant. Uh that
covers our administrative and event
coordinating fees, uh administrative
assistance with preparation of the
proxies,
uh course preparation, uh event
management, um and then exclusive access
to the whole course.
Um
due to the fact that we're having a
shotgun start for most of these
tournaments, uh we shut the course down
2 hours previous
uh to allow time for,
you know, the course to be emptied by
the time the tournament goes on.
Uh
now my understanding with if you come
there with your own uh golf cart, uh
it's still the same fee for yourself.
Um
just kind of as an administrative cost
for a tournament.
Um
understanding that yes, uh some of the
users are going to be using
uh district carts. Some of them will
have their own.
Uh
the way that I was
explained it is that uh
this fee
kind of breaks down everybody's
administrative costs on our end.
Uh to be able to break this down even
further,
uh to have
like be able to pick and choose who has
their own cart, who doesn't, we don't
see who's on the tournament
uh schedule. Uh that is done by the
tournament coordinators as far like the
organizers. Uh
It's like for example, the Legion IMW uh
they would have those lists of entrants
um for the district to be able to police
that, monitor that.
Uh
it would be
a bunch of extra work for our district
staff.
>> Thank you.
» [clears throat]
>> Let me make a couple comments. I
» Let me make a couple comments. I
wouldn't think staff would have to uh
police it. To me, the the only concern I
have I guess is when we look at I mean
we're using IMW but IMW in the fitting
tournament is for a fundraiser for
charity or cars and we're charging for
cars that they're not using. I think
last year
there was comments made that they used
eight carts.
To me that that governing body would
supply a list of carts they need. They
need six carts.
Would be no
to me extra man time when when the
tournament organizer would state that
they need six carts. It sounds to me
that if we shut the course down 2 hours
beforehand, there'd be six carts ready
to go. Those ones would be charged a
full rate.
I guess my biggest thing is when it's
going to a non-for-profit as a
fundraiser. It's not so so much if it
was, you know, independent businesses
that are throwing golf tournaments on
for their their companies.
To me it's when we see it being done as
a fundraiser to help a non-for-profit
organization raise as many funds.
Like and you know, in the same aspect
and understanding from staff that
they've set a rate
>> [clears throat]
» [clears throat]
>> to kind of
» to kind of
offset the cost of admin for for helping
with the proxies and and such like that.
So I I think it's a a tougher scenario
than
just yanking out golf cart um
fees out of a tournament fee of of the
45 bucks that was mentioned by staff.
But I understand where the delegation
came in and was looking at that in
regards to
it's a cost that they pay but they they
use.
But they I don't [clears throat] think
maybe it wasn't going to be honest. I
think during the delegation I didn't
until this came out didn't have all the
information in front of me when we talk
about there's a side cost to that with
administration cost, but also the the
concept of shutting the course down 2
hours ahead of time for that shotgun
start. So, I think there just needs
maybe a bit more communication back to
the
organizations of that are planning one
that's going to all the funds are going
to go to a non-for-profit. Or council
looks at a different different view of
how to direct that to to staff in
regards to um
not charging, you know, for
non-for-profits for for the carts that
they don't use um when it's run by
companies that are doing it for the
non-for-profit. Councilor Hoffman.
>> Thank you, Mayor.
» Thank you, Mayor.
Um for me, I think we're just looking at
this wrong.
We're just trying to do a fair
administrative co- cost per participant.
And if that's $40, that's fine. And if
we just don't use golf carts very often
and we call it $40 because we've looked
at the last five or 10 tournaments and
we just don't use the golf carts, then
that's fine. I the the process and and
the the adding more things to do for
organizers of
private golf cart, public golf cart, no
golf.
I think the the point is really just
having a number that's fair as an
administrative cost, and then that's it.
That's why we charge that per person per
tournament, whether it's 36 or 72 golf
or whatever it ends up being.
Um
and I I mean, I have no problem looking
back and seeing what the golf cart usage
is per tournament and saying, "Yeah,
okay, we're we're overestimating or
we're reasonable or we're not." Um but
to just change the rules and every time
there's a tournament to start counting
golf carts, I I just I don't see a need
for that. I don't see how that's adding
anything. Um but if 45 is too much of an
administrative fee and we want to look
at that, then let's look at that.
Thanks.
>> Thanks. Any other discussion by council?
Okay.
Moving on.
Appointment of Deputy Chief Election
Officer report dated August 4th, 2026
and Director of Corporate Services
regarding appointment of the Deputy
Chief Election Officer recommendation.
Please Councillor Norbury.
>> Thank you, Mayor. That council appoint
» Thank you, Mayor. That council appoint
appoints Katherine Selfox Selfox, Human
Resources Manager, as a Deputy Chief
Election Officer for the 2026 General
Local Election pursuant to section 58 of
the Local Government Act.
>> Seconder, Councillor Knoxedahl.
» Seconder, Councillor Knoxedahl.
Discussion?
Councillor Hoffman?
>> I just want it on the record that Ms.
» I just want it on the record that Ms.
Selfox is actually okay with this and is
willing to be a deputy before I say yes,
she is.
>> Ms. Olson?
» Ms. Olson?
>> Uh I'd like to pass this question on to
» Uh I'd like to pass this question on to
the Director of Corporate Services.
>> Thank you, Ms. Olson. Yes, she is.
» Thank you, Ms. Olson. Yes, she is.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Any discussion?
Call the question. All in favor?
Carried.
Uh Ms. Olson, any emailed in questions?
» No.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Take adjournment, please.
Councillor Knoxedahl.
» That the August 4th, 2026 Special
Council meeting be adjourned.
>> Seconder, Councillor Hoffman. All in
» Seconder, Councillor Hoffman. All in
favor?
Carried.