Council urges Peace Villa funding reinstatement; UBCM rules block regional resolutions; Empty chairs at budget Open House

Seniors left waiting: Council to send Open Letter demanding Peace Villa funding revival

Save Our Northern Seniors (SONS) isn’t the only local body reeling from what is essentially the cancellation of the Peace Villa Residential Care Centre’s expansion. Turns out, City Council is just as upset, and they’re not taking it lying down.

Councillor Gord Klassen reported that he’d spoken to seniors in the community, and they’re very concerned about the postponement of the third unit at Peace Villa.

“The postponement of the third unit at Peace Villa is not simply a minor delay, it is a direct result of the province withdrawing funding that had been committed to this project, and that’s disturbing. This decision has real human consequences,” Klassen said.

Seniors who want to “age in place” are being moved out of the community, placed hours away from their families, all while care providers are being stretched thin – and the virtual care options offered cannot replace in-person care at Peace Villa.

Klassen says he understands that the government is facing financial pressures, “but the need for long-term care in our region has not gone away, and it just increases, so we need to do something about that.”

What they’ve decided to do, is write an open letter to the government, to Northern Health, to the premier and the Minister of Health “urging the immediate reinstatement of funding for the third unit at Peace Villa.”

Councillor Trevor Bolin said that this letter would be on behalf of the entire community, not just Council.

The government “needs to understand that there’s 24,158 people that are affected by this, whether they’re seniors or not, because it is maybe your parents, or grandparents, it will be us when we get to be that age,” Bolin said.

---

UBCM rules block regional resolutions – Council deletes two from NCLGA list

Council revised its planned resolutions for the North Central Local Government Association’s annual conference, and ultimately the Union of BC Municipalities conference in September, because the UBCM has changed its rules.

According to Councillor Gord Klassen, UBCM is now “disallowing” resolutions that have come before them in the past five years – regardless of whether they’ve been endorsed and put into UBCM policy. Additionally, any resolutions with a regional, rather than provincial focus won’t pass muster.

This means that two of the three resolutions Fort St. John was going to bring to NCLGA and ultimately UBCM, are off the table.

These resolutions were for the support and enhancement of our industries and resources; and intergovernmental relations and communication with local governments.

You can find the report detailing the resolutions Council has had to strike here.

The third resolution, dealing with BC Housing data transparency will go ahead – it’s provincial in scope and hasn’t been brought to either association in the past 5 years.

Klassen suggested two other resolutions to round out the three resolutions each community is allowed to bring to NCLGA:

· The upkeep of and noxious weeds on, highway rights-of-way – which would include traffic features like the Airport Road roundabout;

· Brownfield redevelopment tools. Brownfields are empty lots within municipalities, like the space at 100 Street and 100 Avenue where the Fort Hotel once stood. The tools could include taxation, exemptions and incentives to encourage development of brownfields.

Klassen thinks these two resolutions “will gain traction across the province because every community is dealing with these same two issues.”

---

Balanced budget, empty chairs – Who’s watching the wallet?

The City’s budget was laid out for all to see. Bright, shiny posterboards festooned the City Hall lobby, detailing where taxpayers’ money is going. Council and staff were present to answer questions.

Not a soul showed up.

Then another opportunity for residents to ask questions, when the Director of Finance, Shirley Collington presented the draft 2026 Operating and Capital Budgets in a Public Meeting.

This time, four people showed up. But only one asked questions.

Gwen Bourdon wanted to know why the old IT couldn’t be sold and the resulting funds put into the budget to pay for IT equipment.

The building, Deputy Chief Administration Officer Darrell Blades replied has reached the end of its life and has already been gutted. And when the City sells a building, the funds from that sale can’t be used for any purpose other than land.

Bourdon then wondered why that land couldn’t become a parking lot, as there is a shortage of parking around City Hall when Council holds meetings.

Blades replied that it is destined to become a parking lot in the future. One thing he omitted however, is that funds were previously slated to turn the site of the old IT building into parking, but $250,000 of those funds were reallocated to the Aquatic Facility Project Planning Budget at the August 25, 2025, Regular Council Meeting.

Putting on an Open House for taxpayers and holding a Public Meeting are operating expenses that will be paid for by residents of Fort St. John.

Yet when the opportunity came to peek at where that money goes... the lobby was empty, and the questions stayed few. In a town where big calls like the pool referendum are coming, you’d think more folks would want a say before the bill arrives.

Thanks for reading! Original work by Tania Finch. If you’re inspired by this piece, feel free to share with credit and a link back — that’s how local stories spread fairly.