Good morning everybody. I'd like to call
this meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. for
the regular council meeting, Clearwater
County regular council meeting for
August 25th, 20126.
I'd like to welcome all members of
council here this morning as well as
Clearwater County staff who will be
providing us with information needed to
make the best decisions on behalf of
residents, businesses, and stakeholders
of Clearwater County. I'd also like to
welcome any members of the public in
attendance this morning, as well as any
media who may be present or joining us
online. Before we begin today's agenda,
are there any council members that uh
would like to declare potential conflict
of interest or carry interest on any
agenda items here this morning?
Seeing none,
I'd also like to remind everybody that
all public meetings are live streamed
and recorded. Any verbal or written
information provided may be included in
public documents as per the Access to
Information Act sections four and
Protection of Privacy Act sections 2,
four, and five.
Uh as we
move towards adopting today's agenda, I
do have an amendment I would like to
make to today's agenda and it would be
under 5.3. It would be regarding Kney
Plains Ecological Reserve.
So I'd be looking for
a motion to amend the agenda.
And I I'll actually I'll make the motion
to amend today's agenda. And I'll call
the question. All those in favor.
That motion is passed. The amendment
would be under 5.3, which is Kney Plains
Ecological Reserve.
With that amendment being proposed, I'll
call the question. All those in favor of
that amendment.
has been adopted by
councel.
Now to adopt the agenda as presented and
as amended. I'd be looking for a motion
to adopt the agenda as amended. Coun
councelor Lewin makes the motion to
adopt the August 25th, 2026 regular
council meeting for Clearwater County as
amended. I'll call the question. All
those in favor and that motion is
supported by council.
Adoption of the regular council meeting
minutes for July 28th, 2026. Were there
any errors or omissions noted in those
minutes? If not, I'd be looking for a
motion to adopt the amendments as
presented.
Councelor McCully would like to make the
motion to adopt the regular council
meeting minutes from July 28th, 2026.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call the
question. All those in favor? That
motion is carried.
Now we'd like to proceed into today's
agenda into item 4.1 which is first
reading of bylaw 26101
for application number 1826 to amend the
land use bylaw. It is on page 10 of
today's agenda and I'll pass the floor
over to administration to present this
item to council.
>> Thank you Ree. Uh Bob Bob Haggma of High
Country Surveys has made application on
behalf of Rocky Mountain Salvage to
amend the land use bylaw for the purpose
of redesating 35.26
acres. On the maps they are labeled as
parcel C and parcel B.
They are known as plan 0520308
block one lot one. And they would like
to go from the agricultural district to
the industrial district.
The subject land is located
approximately 2 kilometers southwest of
the town of Rocky Mountainhouse adjacent
to Highway 11A.
Should the land land use amendment be
successful, the land owners intend to
develop a storage facility which will
require development approval.
The land owners intend to use the
westerly and easterly portions of the
property which is broken up into three
parts all under one title. Parcel A,
which is southeast of the railroad, will
remain undeveloped and is not part of
this application.
The subject parcels cannot be subdivided
unless an area structure plan or an
outline plan is adopted by council and
the subject land is located within the
Rocky Clearwater IDP area plan area and
is within the plan boundary in the rural
policy area.
The town of Rocky Mountain House will
have a chance to comment on this
application at the referral public
hearing stage of this application.
Moving into considerations, the proposed
redesignation is to allow for the
operation of a storage facility. As per
section 7.2.6 of the MDP, council should
consider whether or not this site is
suitable for an isolated industrial
site.
The subject property is adjacent to 11A
and access is achieved by way of an
approach off National Historic Site
Road, Range Road 7-5.
Due to the nature of this site, it would
be appropriate for council to consider
policy 11.2.4 of the MDP to ensure that
the applicant is proactive in mitigating
the impacts of noise and visual impacts
on adjacent land owners and traffic.
Additionally, council should consider
policy 14.2.6
to ensure that the property is suitable
for the proposed use.
The proposal would be considered an
isolated industrial district parcel
outside of a business park which is
permitted at the discretion of council.
However, there are a number of
surrounding land uses and present which
are industrial and direct control. The
proposal complies with the size
requirement of the land use bylaw as it
exceeds the minimum requirement.
Staff is recommending that council
consider granting first reading to bylaw
number 26101
and proceed to a public hearing. Thank
you.
>> Thank you. Do Mr. Connelly.
Uh I'll open up the floor for discussion
from council or the applicant I see is
with us here this morning. Would you
like to provide any input or remarks on
this application?
Uh thank you uh Reef. Yes, this this
application came before council and I
believe there's two members present here
that uh heard that application a little
over a year ago and at the time RM
Solage had uh bought this property with
the intent of uh having a depot in Rocky
Mountain House. They've got several
throughout Alberta and BC right now. And
uh it was turned down because uh council
didn't feel after the public hearing and
hearing from uh the neighbors and that
sort of thing that uh uh a salvage
operation would be a good thing to put
right at the entrance to the historic
park and turned it down. Uh things have
changed. RM Salvage bought a lot out in
Metal Dog and uh we'd invite you to go
out there and see their operation. It's
very professional. Uh, one of the things
that uh, scared council last time was
one of the photographs of their Edson
operation which they had just purchased
and it looked uh, it looked bad and uh,
and I can understand that. And what's
happened since then, they took it over
uh rebuilt it and it doesn't look at all
like the the picture uh on the internet
showed at that time. E so that's why
we're inviting you just to see how they
do operate and uh their operation in uh
Metal Dog there is it's not unsightly at
all. It's very well organized, that sort
of thing. And that's the way this
company works. So what they're proposing
to do here though is have has nothing to
do with the recycling business part of
it. They bought this land and uh they
want to make use of it. If it remains
agricultural, it's
not uh not really uh good for anything.
if uh
the the storage facility that they're
proposing would be at the west end of it
there. So it would be at the entrance to
the park and they intend to uh uh the
other side there. Yeah.
And and uh they propose to adhere to any
development uh standards that need to be
done like BMS, trees, that sort of
thing. So there'd be basically nothing
to see from the highway. And uh the one
thing that they would have to do is
probably borrow some uh dirt or gravel
from the south of the railway to build
up the north side of the railway. and
they do that with you engineering uh
plan and all the provincial approvals in
place in order to basically transfer
some wetland from the north side of the
tracks to the south side. There's
wetland on on both sides of the tracks
right now. So, uh they'd make that part
between the tracks and the highway
useful and then leave the south end in
more of its natural state. Uh, one thing
that we haven't done yet, but uh,
they've talked about at RM Salvage is to
see if uh, the parks are interested in
maybe purchasing that park south of the
highway or south of the railway so that
uh, they can incorporate it into the
park as a buffer between the park and
the railway and then any industrial use
that might happen on the north side of
it as well. They've got absolutely no
intention of ever developing south of
the high or south of the railway
and uh and and to kind of close it off
like this land has never ever ever been
agricultural. There's never been a crop
grown on it. There's never been animals
on it until uh what was it uh in until
2005 when we subdivided it into that lot
with three parts. It was railway land
and it had been since I believe it was
1912
or something like that that uh the
railway was surveyed in here and it was
part of of course the route that went to
Nordic and uh it was a station grounds
for Lern. So over the years the propane
depot was built there which is an
industrial use and taking the two
parcels one on either side of that uh
propane depot would be a natural fit.
There's also industrial use to the
northeast of that where TNT has their
yard. uh to the southwest there's two
gravel pits and uh uh I believe yeah the hill pit is re reclaimed
and I'm not sure about the um the one on
the north side of the highway because
it's uh screened from the highway but uh
that that uh hill pit that Pernis owns
now is used as a rig lay down area and
people drive by it it's not unsightly
either you know I mean it is an
industrial is granted. But um that's the
way the world works. You know, you put
industrial by highways where there's
access and it creates the least
disturbance to the community. So we feel
that in order to assist RM Salvage with
developing these two pieces properly, uh
land use change is uh appropriate.
>> Thank you.
Mr. Exmith. I I do have one
question and to balance the council, the
floor is open for questions. Is it for
the business operations? Is it necessary
to have access to rail?
>> Uh, we're not sure at this time because
we're not sure what business is going to
be there. Like they're proposing a
storage, but on the other side, who
knows what it's going to be. And and if a business along there needed rail,
they would have to extend that spur line
that goes to the propane depot right
now. So it would be a cost, but yeah, if
that's one attractive part of it is
being on the rail that if somebody needs
rail access, it's there already.
>> Councelor Lewin, go ahead.
>> This is Bulldog Metals. Is that correct?
>> No. No, this is RM Salvage.
>> RM Salvage.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, you mentioned Bulldog earlier.
>> I did.
>> Metal Dog.
Pardon me. Metal Dog. Not
Bulldog.
>> Yeah.
>> Metal Dog.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Metal Dog is the industrial park
by the airport.
>> Okay. Are they the same as the ones in
red?
>> No. No. Okay. No.
>> Thank you.
>> No. No.
» Deputy Reed McKay. Go ahead.
>> Thank you. I'm just curious about the requirements for this designation.
Like if the intention is for storage,
then redesating this highway commercial
would actually be more appropriate than
industrial.
So it it seems like a red designation of
industrial would leave it open to
possibly some business ventures that may
not be
wanted or approved of by residents.
>> Yeah. Any any development uh require a
permit from the planning department and
uh the county's got guidelines to make
it uh the the amenities fit the area.
um they they just uh felt industrial was
the way they wanted to go.
>> Do you have any comments on that,
Braden, or
>> No, I don't.
In fact, recreational vehicle storage is
not even an exempt usage of industrial
land.
So, it would seem that that's a rather
strange choice um
>> for storage.
>> Yeah, it may not be recreational vehicle
storage. It may be like like another rig
lay down site or maybe some uh
>> bins. Yeah, bin storage is they take up
a lot of room and we don't have that
much room at our site at the Metal Dog
location.
So something for storing bins or a
trailer
would be useful there.
>> I see. Okay. Thank you,
» Cer. Councelor Serat, go ahead.
>> Well, it's working now. Um, yeah, the
other thing I was thinking about was the
water. That's quite low land there and
there's water that drains through there.
Have you talked to the water resource
people and stuff or have you thought
about uh how you're going to mitigate
maybe some contamination
of storage of let's say vehicles or or
bins or stuff like that.
>> Yeah.
Uh absolutely, councelor Serach. Uh we
did do a a contour plan on the west area
here that shows where the drainage is
>> and uh before any development is
anticipated, we'd be contacting
engineers and uh water resources in at
the province in order to make sure that
the development works to something that
they uh would approve of. Absolutely.
>> Fantastic. That's one thing I was kind
of concerned about because there's quite
a water flow through there.
>> Yeah.
Like I say on on both sides, I
actually
>> Yes.
>> I actually did a a boundary survey for
the parks here this summer
>> and I was trying to access the north
boundary through uh RM Salvages lot and
I got stopped up by uh wet land and when
I get stopped up it's wet.
>> Yeah.
>> You know my quad with the tracks, right?
So uh so I did access it from the south
side which was somewhat better and uh
like I say uh
there there is a fair bit of highland on
the south side of the tracks too. Okay.
And uh some of that material may be used
to uh change the material on the north
side. And basically what you have to do
if you uh take away wetlands then you
have to either replace it or pay a
penalty.
>> Yep.
>> And uh they they would be looking at
replacing the lands on the north side
that's wet with lands on the south side
that's high right now. And then it would
be wet lands for uh natural
you know habitat.
>> Yeah. I'm I was just concerned about
what flow there because it could end up
in the national park and that's one
thing we certainly don't want is any
contamination going into that national
park.
>> Right. No, absolutely. That would be at
the forefront of any
>> Yeah.
>> So, I really do appreciate that. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Connley. Do you have
comments or
>> I just had a couple points to add.
>> Go ahead. Uh we prior to the public
hearing, we will send referrals to the
environment
and then discretionary uses in the
industrial district are recreational
vehicle storage and outdoor storage. So
both either use would be going to the
planning commission for a decision. So
administration would have conditions and
then the commission could add more
conditions that they felt was needed.
>> Thank you for that, Mr. Connelly. That
was actually one of my questions that
this agenda item will be deferred or
referred to uh the municipal planning
commission for for input and comments
which uh councilors Humphrey, myself and
councilors Powell currently sit on the
municipal planning commission. So this
will be sent there for as a referral.
>> This this will also go there for
referral and for the development permit
if that goes through.
>> Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Connley
Councelor Levin go ahead.
>> Yes. Um what is the anticipated increase
in traffic volume and what type of
traffic would be semi-truckss body jobs?
>> Yeah, it would be
>> very little like how how often would you
be moving bins out of there?
» Typically our bins are going to be out.
This is for in the scenario that you
know summer comes to a close and lots of
projects are finishing. We would get a
few bins back. So we would take these
bins there. It would more or less be
minimal traffic.
>> Okay. And which route would you take to
if if this went forward, which route
would you take to get to that point?
Would you go right through town or would
you go around highway 11? would go I
would go past the on Highway 11 staying
out of town. Um just it's just easier as
a semi-truck operator to go around town.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. If there's no further discussion,
uh we be looking for a motion for first
reading or further discussion on this
matter. Clarification. Councelor
McCauley. Go ahead. I make the
recommendation that staff or council
consider granting first reading to bylaw
number 26101 and proceed to a public
hearing. Okay, we have a motion on the
floor from councelor McCauley that
council grant first reading to bylaw
26101
and proceed to a public hearing. That is
the motion on the floor. Seeing no
further discussion, I'll call the
question. All those in favor
that motion is supported by council
unanimously. Moving on to item thank you
for coming into council this morning.
Moving on in our agenda item 4.2
bylaw 26102
fire and rescue services on page 27
to welcome Deputy Chief Stewart. Good
morning and welcome.
Ready
to proceed? Okay. Uh good morning, good
evening, council. Um here on behalf of
Chief Hemrich, director of emergency
services, presenting uh bylaw 2612
as amended um by council's I believe
July 27th strategic planning meeting.
Just need to find my place here. My
apologies.
Here
we go.
Uh so for background council July 27th
2026 the uh strategic planning committee
of the whole meeting emergency services
presented the new fire rescue services
bylaw uh number 26 uh102. After
deliberations of the committee, uh,
council approved the fire rescue
services bylaw with amendments, uh, that
align the fire permit requirements, uh,
with the force and prairie protection
act fire season specifically from March
1st to October 31st of each year. Um,
uh, the amendment has been made
resulting in the following changes. Um,
the addition of the fire season uh
definition, clarity written to the fire
rescue services bylaw under section 155
carrying uh clarifying when a fire
permit is not required and specifying
conditions of what is acceptable to burn
outside the fire season and stating
notification requirements. Uh supporting
statements and clarification on the fire
permit requirements for fire rescue
services under section 161. Uh
specifically clarifying the fire season.
Uh attached is a uh redline text version
of the bylaw that shows the changes uh
after the strategic planning committee's
deliberations. Um also uh if councelor
were to approve this bylaw today uh it
would repeal bylaw 106920 which is the
legacy fire rescue services and fire
control bylaw. Uh as well uh there is
another uh item for council uh uh on
condition of this bylaw 26102 uh being
approved that there would need to be uh
revisions and repealed of certain
sections specifically section 8 of the
village of Caroline's community
standards bylaw as well.
Uh so if council um remembers strategic
planning uh meeting, we spoke um not at
length, but we spoke uh about uh fire
services request to modernize our fire
rescue services bylaw uh here in
Clearwater County. Uh specifically
adding sections clarifying uh sale use
of fireworks. Uh transitioning from only
requiring notification to an actual fire
permit system. Uh we had originally uh
requested an annual permitting system.
Uh with good discussion with council uh
and clarity to land owners, uh we
decided uh to ask for an amendment to
change the structure of this bylaw to
more uh closely align to Alberta
wildfires fire season of March 1st to
October 31st. Uh that is a large concern
for uh us in in Clearwater County and to
our residents of the uh fire protection
area boundary and whether uh a neighbor
can burn on one side versus a neighbor
on the other side that cannot. This fire
bylaw definitely does uh align with the
forest fire protection act and make it a
lot more uh understandable for
residents. Uh legal did again tell us to
remove specific language around uh uh
burnable debris or prohibited debris
which would be clarified in in county
policy and be the forward- facing
component when people are applying for burn permits. So that would be very
clear on what burnable debris is.
Essentially we left the bylaw uh uh
written in a way that if the province
were to change their legislation and add
things to prohibit debris or remove
things prohibited debris, we wouldn't
have to amend the bylaw. We could simply
amend county policy and change that
forward facing uh information. Um again
um council what administration is
requesting today is that uh council
reviews bylaw 26102
uh complete with amendments and grants
first and second readings and permission
for third reading of bylaw 260012.
>> Thank you. Deputy chief do have one
question and the floor again is open up
for council for discussion or comments
questions. Uh just the just for clarity
and and uh the difference between crown
lands and forest protection area. Uh
just there's a lot of people that have
privately owned land that fall within
the forest protection area, but uh I
think sometimes there could be a
confusion that maybe it's forest
protection area is considered as crown
land, but it's it actually extends out
uh quite in significantly onto privately
owned land in Clearwater County. I just
wondered if you could provide a little
bit of information and clarity for that
for the viewers watching.
>> Uh of course, Reef. Uh great question.
Uh the the forest protection area is is
a boundary set under the forest and
prairie protection act. Uh specifically
following man-made and natural features
through the province that uh uh that
allows the province to uh be the
authority having jurisdiction for for
forest management uh inside that area
including wildfire management and
permitting purposes. as where crownland
uh is is a term used for u
government-owned property at at really
any provincial level. That can be
provinially property, that can be
federal lands. Uh there is private
property within the forest protection
area that is owned by private land
owners. Uh for an example, the the
Clearwater River is part of the forest
pro uh forest protection area boundary.
Anything west of the Clearwater River
from the Clearwater store, Clearwater
Trading Post up to where the Clear Water
meets the North Saskatchewan River is
inside the Porsche Protection Area. But
there's large tracks of of private land
in that area uh that is privately owned.
Uh essentially uh that is some of the challenges with how we administer uh
burn permitting systems and uh
authorities having jurisdictions for
wildfires, for example, fire bans and
fire restrictions. Uh although it may be
private land within Clearwater County
because it is within the forest and
prairie protection act that it is
resides within the forest protection
area uh the province is actually the
authority having jurisdiction for fire
permitting, fire bands, fire
restrictions, fire advisories and uh
wildfire management. Um so uh as we're
just east of that river that uh that
sole discretion lies with Clearwater
County. So there is some very uh uh
interesting overlapping of jurisdiction
specifically around uh fire permitting,
fire bands and fire response in those
areas around wildfire specifically and
wildland firefighting fuels. Uh and that
is where a lot of confusion comes in and
one of the big reasons why we wanted to
revise this bylaw to make it more clear
for land owners that crownland is not
necessarily describing the forest and
prairie or the forest protection area.
That is a totally separate boundary.
Thank you for that. Deputy Reeve McKay,
go ahead, please.
>> Thank you, Ree. Just have a question
regarding the uh dates under fire
permits
and then a follow-up question after
that. But uh in 161, it states that fire
permits will be required during fire
season from March 1st. Should that not
be May 1st?
If no permit is required from November
1st till April 30th, why would a permit
be required from March 1st?
Uh stand by councelor. I'm just uh
finding that section here and that may
be a revision that needs to be done to
this bylaw. The fire uh season is
clarified as March 1st to October 31st.
Uh outside the fire season, November 1st
to April 30th.
uh that should say uh that April 30th
should be brought back to
um the end of February for an example.
Um so that is actually an error in this
bylaw. The fire season November 1st to
April 30th notifications for burns prior
to ignition must be made to the county.
I believe that that's an error in the
bylaw that would need to be revised
before being approved. Uh the fire
season is March 1st to October 31st and
that is when permitting would would uh
would take place if this fire permit was
approved. That is when Alberta wildfire
permits for uh so anytime outside of
March 1st to October 31st would be
outside the fire season and we would be
asking for a notification and not a
permit in that period of time.
>> Okay, thank you for the clarification.
Now that said, since it is March 1st,
historically,
um, a lot of egg producers are used to
burning in March, like I would say 98%
the burns done in this county are done
in March. How are we going to relay to
egg producers that they can no longer do
that and they now require a permit to
burn in March? That's going to require a
significant media campaign and we're
going to have to probably allow at least
one year if not more of you know um
reduction in fines or warnings instead
of fines or something like we can't just change that when people
have been doing it literally for a
hundred years. So that I guess that
that's a big concern that's been brought
forward from the community that I wanted
to express.
And is there a plan to to deal with
that?
>> Uh Deputy McKay and council. Uh yes. Um
and completely understanding that this
is a a change that will impact um uh
folks in our county that burn uh every
year, specifically the agricultural and
forest uh uh uh industries. Um, our plan
of this year, uh, being that we are not
past October 31st this year, if council
were to approve, uh, this bylaw, the
intent in the plan was to not bring
permitting into force until next March
1st after a significant, uh, uh, media
campaign, uh, public communications, uh,
to go out with, um, to our land owners,
to our industries. Uh, for an example,
we would not enact the permitting
portion in 2026. we would bring this
into effect in March 1st, 2027.
Um because of that specific reason, uh
we also have new software to to manage
permitting that uh uh is just being put
into place now. Uh it would be intend to
be ready for next year, not for the
remainder of this year. And um
enforcement of this bylaw is the
discretion of the fire service uh based
on us engaging our our community peace
officers for bylaw enforcement. So, uh,
because we're bringing in fines, uh, or
municipal tags, uh, with this bylaw, uh,
that is at our discretion to to fine and
enforce those pieces. So, we can
definitely, uh, and intend to give
forgiveness for education purposes for land owners that may not have
received the news uh, in time. Uh, we
expect that to be the case. Uh, we do a
ton of education now with land owners
uh, even inside the forest protection
area to this effect specifically. Um it
happens today. Uh the the interesting
piece is that outside the forest
protection area, we have a lot of
miscommunication with the public when
they're asking for burn notifications,
whether they need permits or not. It is
very confusing. So I believe this will
actually be easier to educate the
public. It will be a basically one
source of truth whether you need a
permit based on time of the year or not,
regardless of where you live in
Clearwater County, as opposed to having
two standards based on a line that
nobody can see other than on a map. Uh
so I believe this will bring more
clarity over time. There will need to be
education for sure. That is the plan and
that we would not start uh the
permitting process uh until March 1st of
2027 after that public media campaign
would be uh assisted us with corporate
communications etc. It would be a large
portion of what we would do if this was
approved between now and then.
>> Thank you for that. And lastly, just to
follow up on that, the permit itself,
is the intention for it to only be
available online
or do we have another option?
>> Uh, the intent is for the majority of
them to be handled online, but we will
always have the option for folks to call
uh emergency services where our
administrative staff would be able to
assist individuals with uh completing
the permitting process online. Um, so
essentially we can build the permit for
them in the new system uh over the
phone. That is an option for sure that
we intend to maintain for as long as
it's a uh a need or a demand by the
public.
>> But I ask that because there are many
older residents that would possibly be
burning a brush pile or something would
not have
>> of course access.
>> Thank you very much,
>> Councelor Humphrey. Go ahead.
Yes, I still have
an issue with where what section is it
for fire pits?
>> Uh, Council Humphre, uh, that would be
near the top where it defines um, uh,
fire pits here. My apologies. I will
find it for you.
>> I'm I had it earlier, but I'm bouncing
around here. Ah, there it is. Yes.
>> So, there's there's really two places.
There's one in definitions uh what
describes uh a fire pit and then there
is a full section with more details
is
>> right and and my concern with this is uh
I understand for for hamlets
uh that kind of thing but for our for
our egg sector to be putting all this uh
you where it says uh height does not
exceed 60 cm. So what's that? That's 2
ft. Uh can't be over 2 ft. Can't be a
meter in width. Uh to have all those in
there already where
most of the county is already outside of
that. Um many many uh residents in the
county will take a
be it a well cribbing or a culvert or
a tank of it of some kind and cut a ring
out of it and that's their fire pit and
it might be 2 ft high it might be three
feet high but it might be five feet
across. So for us to put that limit in
there,
you know, and I I know this was talked
about prior when we were in our
strategic planning and uh was well it's
always been like that, but just cuz it's
always been like that doesn't make it
right and it hasn't been enforced. It's
still something that I believe should be
addressed and
removed
from there. That
again, we could we could have it for our
hamlets or or our subdivisions, but when
you get out to the to the egg sector, I
just don't believe it should be in
there. I don't know. I'd be looking for
some uh ideas and thoughts on it from
the rest of council. But
if we go with that, half the fire pits
in the county aren't legal according to
this. And and to just say, well, that's
okay. I I think we should have something
to say somebody's not going to come
along one day and say, "Oh, your fire
pit's 4t. You need to remove it." You
know, we shouldn't be putting in
something that already doesn't fit for
where all the counties or where a large
portion of the county residents
have that in place. And if they've been
having fire pits in it for the last 40
years and hasn't been an issue, I don't
know why we would make it an issue now.
>> Deputy Chief, go ahead, please.
>> Uh uh thank you, Councelor Therie. Um, I completely understand the sentiment
and uh it is a complex issue for sure.
Our previous bylaw um like you said does
have stipulations on what a legal fire
pit looks like in Clearwater County and
to this date uh we have not enforced
that unless there's been a significant
incident where that fire pit was uh
through an investigation determined the
cause of a major fire that left a
property and caused significant damage
where there was some kind of cost
recovery injury and or death. Um
really uh the language in this new bylaw
is less restrictive on fire pits than
our previous bylaw. So we've actually uh
in the in the spirit of aligning the
language in Clearwater County's bylaw
because if council can can see the
picture of our county, it's about a
fifth of our county where this bylaw
solely applies. The other four fifths of
the county is in the forest protection
area. And the language that's in this
current bylaw mimics the the province's
language around approved fire pits in a
in the forest protection area. So as of
today, four-fifths of Clearwater County
is required to follow this standard for
a fire pit. Uh only the eastern portion
of Clearwater County outside the forest
protection area, which is about a fifth
of our area landwise, is uh falls solely
under the discretion of old bylaw 1069.
Uh this bylaw change would actually make
the same rule appro apply east to west,
north to south across Clearwater County
for what a legal fire pit looks like.
And we have no intention of inspecting
or capacity to inspect fire pits on
private property. It's really the fact
that we need a definition in the bylaw
of what a legal fire pit is. So that if
there is a major incident that's causing
some kind of significant property
damage, injury, loss of life, where an
investigation proves that that was the
origin and cause of that fire, that we
have some way to recover costs and to uh
enforce penalties under the bylaw. If we
don't have a definition of a of illegal
fire pit across the board in Clearwater
County, uh that's where if that
situation were to happen, we wouldn't
have any way of enforcing that that was
a uh a a fire hazard or a fire risk that
caused the fire that was not legal in
the first place to have. So really uh
understanding the sentiment uh we have
not to this day enforced fire pits
unless there's been a significant
emergency where that's been deemed as
the as the problem or people are burning
illegally during a fire ban or fire
restriction. Um and normally what
happens is we enfor we we instruct them
to extinguish the fire and that's really
where today it stops because we don't
have any uh teeth in our current bylaw
to enforce any penalty whatsoever
outside the forest protection area. Uh,
and this actually gives county residents
a consistent definition of a fire pit
across the entire county.
>> So, have we had,
you know, an issue with a fire pit? I've
never heard of one where a fire pit
started, somebody was having a fire in
their backyard fire pit and it burnt the
area down. Did that happen?
>> Yes, we have. I can't speak uh
specifically to dates and times today,
but in my 10 years 10 years here with
Clearwater Regional Fire Rescue
Services, we've had many fires that have
either originated from a fire pit uh in
someone's backyard. Uh we've had them in
the town of Rocky Mountainhouse
specifically where we've lost up to
three homes from a fire pit not being
attended, extending in someone's
backyard to three properties. Uh we've
had them uh where burn barrels have
caused repeat uh responses to the same
property three four times over the
course of two years where someone using
a burn barrel uncor incorrectly or not
extinguishing it not monitoring it uh
has caused a wildfire that has left
their property and burned onto adjacent
land owners properties damaged
structures uh that that has happened in
Clearwater County for sure.
I'm still just not good with that one
meter size when we know it's not doesn't
fit for a lot of the residents. So, um I
have an issue with that. Uh and and just
for clarity, that is a consistent site
across the entire province of Alberta,
uh for for the entire forest protection
area, any any municipality that you can
find a a fire bylaw for, which is the
majority of municipalities in Alberta
that have fire control bylaws that
stipulate uh sizes and restrictions on fire pits. That is a consistent size,
and that's because that comes from uh
the forest protection area specifically.
It is consistent across provinces as
well too. It's a fire fire service
standard of that 3 ft by 3 ft by 3 ft or
that one square or one cubic meter in
size of burning material as a manageable
size for an for any competent adult to
uh control and extinguish effectively in most settings. Essentially there is a standard there. We're not
going outside or deviating from uh you
know municipal uh or industry best
practice across the board in Canada, let
alone in in the province of Alberta.
>> Yeah, it it might be the standard. I
still don't think it's right. I mean,
just because a guy has a fire pit that
was bigger doesn't mean he's building it
a fire that big, if you know what I'm
saying. Correct. We we do have the
ability um under this bylaw to permit uh
larger sized
uh pits. For an example, there's many um
commercial or not for-profit
organizations. Visited one yesterday
with Alberta. There is a a fire pit that
would not meet this standard, but
variances do exist. Um, if there is a
pit that is larger in size that they can
prove meets the intent of the bylaw and
we go out and permit it, we have the
discretion to do that. We can issue a
permit for something that is larger than
what is in this pit or in this bylaw.
>> So, they would have to get a permit
every time they had a fire in their fire
pit.
>> Well, I mean, they they could get
similar to a burn barrel. A burn barrel
is larger than the 3 ft by 3 ft. uh a a brush pile is bigger than the 3 ft by
3 ft. Um burn barrels can have a
standing fire permit for the year. We
can issue a fire permit in uh March 1st
that is good for the entire year for
them for that for that burn barrel once it's deemed that it meets the
standard. Uh there's a potential that we
can we can do that as well. We could we
could permit a fire pit as long as it
had the the grading on it and it met the
size. that would create a a significant
administrative burden for the fire
services for sure. Uh something again
that we we uh
>> sounds like more red tape and I don't
think we want that.
>> I I I would I would tend to agree with
council. I I don't believe that we want
to endeavor down the path of of
permitting things outside of this.
Again, that the intent of having the
definition in here is if you have a a
fire of that size, you do not require a
fire permit. If you have a fire in a pit
that meets this bylaw, you don't have to
have a fire permit. You can you can burn
as long as there's no restriction or ban
in that pit, burnable debris, whenever
you so choose, uh, without requesting a
fire permit. Um, it's only if you if you
endeavor to burn something larger than
that size in an in something that is not
considered an acceptable pit where you
would need a fire permit.
So, we're not saying folks can't do
that. Uh, but this bylaw would say that
if they were if they were burning in in
something that doesn't meet the standard
of an acceptable pit and we responded to
that to that home for a fire that
escaped their fire pit that they may be fined under this bylaw for
having a pit that doesn't meet the
standard.
>> For the comments, council
>> still
like I know there's residents out there
that have this
have fire pits. They've had them for
years. And just seems to me like we're
setting up something that you might not,
but down the road somebody might come in
and go, you know, don't like the color
of his hair. Uh, his fire pit's too big.
I think we should just not have that as
being an issue, whether it be a a
grandfather clause or what. There has to
be some way around an issue like that
for existing rather than just saying
well I wouldn't do that but the next guy
might just
I think there should be something in
here to address that issue. We know it's
there. So I think we should address it
not sweep it under the rug and say we
won't.
And then if it does happen, we've got
residents that are
basically
mad because they've been burning in this
fire pit in their backyard for their
whole life and now they have to change
it.
Just
I think we should address it somehow.
I'm looking for some way to rather than
saying
we won't but we might.
I'd have to
>> I don't like we won't we won't but we
might
>> counselor I I I
uh the request and I understand the
sentiment. Um, I would I would uh
endeavor to probably speak uh with legal
on on if we could uh put some kind of
clause in the bylaw where existing fire
pits uh that don't meet the standard of
this bylaw
um uh could be exempt and only new fire
pits going forward would have to meet
the standard. the the complexity would
be is that our current bylaw that has
been in in in place for over a decade
already makes those pits you're speaking
about illegal in Clearwater County. Um
this is this change is not going to make
pits illegal. Uh this change will
actually probably make some pits uh
legal that weren't before because it's
less restrictive than the current
legislation that we have or current
bylaw we have in place in Clearwater
County. Um this is this change does not
make a pit that's legal today illegal.
Um there that would not be the case in
Clearwater County at all. uh the the the
current language in the draft bylaw is
less restrictive than the current
language in our current bylaw that is
enforced today.
» Okay. So, go ahead, councelor. would not
make it illegal. Then for
>> there there's there's no Clearwater
County that is uh in in place anywhere
today that is not already illegal that
this bylaw would make illegal is what
I'm saying. The the new language is less
restrictive than the current language.
So this this change would not make a a
whole bunch more fire pits in Clearwater
County illegal by any means. So, if we
were to try and endeavor to build some
language into this bylaw,
um
I don't know how I'd have to speak with
legal on what that would look like. Uh
because I don't know how we could do
that with a current bylaw already in
place that would make the pits you're
speaking about uh legal because our
current bylaw in place already makes
them illegal. Um,
and the the intent really I want to I
want to refocus on the intent of having
a standard in the bylaw so that we have
a benchmark
uh in case something happens. We can't not have a definition in the
bylaw of what's
legal as a fire pit. If we don't have
that definition, all of the penalties
and fees in the bottom of this bylaw
that would relate to somebody having an
uncontrolled fire get away from them on
their property would be uninforceable.
Uh and then the entire intent of this
bylaw outside of the fireworks portion,
for example, would would essentially
become uninforceable. And and if it was
challenged in any court of law, we would
be directed that this those portions of
this bylaw would be uninforceable. So we
do need language in here that stipulates
what is legal. Could we change that to
something larger? Of course we can. Uh
but we we selected the language in this
bylaw to make it consistent for
Clearwater County land owners. If we if
we have a different uh definition of
illegal fire pit in this bylaw, that
would mean that 1if of Clearwater County
has a different definition of what's
legal and the other four-fifths are
still uh legally responsible to follow
what's in the Forest and Prairie
Protection Act. That's the complexity in
our county is that Alberta, the Alberta,
the province of Alberta is responsible
for telling us what's a legal fire pit
in most of Clearwater County.
So, we need to take this up to up a
notch
>> and and with with the amount of caused
wildfires in Alberta, I I I don't
believe there would be any appetite to
make it less restrictive for burning in
the forest protection area.
>> If not, if they reopen that bylaw, you
would probably see year round fire
permitting be one of the first things
that would happen. you would probably
see more restrictions around uh what you
can burn when and why. Um but it's not a
problem that's getting easier to manage
in the province of Alberta. And this is
one of the reasons why we brought this
bylaw forward is we are seeing the same
challenges outside the forest protection
area that the province is seeing inside
the forest protection area with more
larger wildfires, the vast majority of
them humancaused escaping our ability to
put them out quickly uh because of
weather patterns and weather conditions
that we're we're we're dealing with. And
this is the entire intent of this bylaw
is to increase the safety standard for
Clearwater County residents while not
making it restrictive that people can
enjoy the rural lifestyle uh here in
Clearwater County. I I also love to have
a campfire in my backyard and I live in
the forest pro uh forest protection area
west of Dover Court and uh I I
understand that uh there's different
laws that I need to follow that my
neighbor a few miles to the east across
the clear water doesn't need to follow
today.
>> So yeah, and I I totally understand all
of this. I just this thing just jumped
out and because I know there there are
situations where it just doesn't fit.
Um, and I understand we've been in a
drought basically for the last 8 years.
So, we're dry as as can be out there.
And and uh my my hats off to you guys
for the job you do
with our fire protection. So, um, and I
understand why we're why we're doing
this. I just had
some questions. So, I'm I'm still not
sure how I how I feel about it. Uh,
guess that's why I'm why I'm sitting in
this seat is to
try and sort things out for the
residents of Clearwater County. And I'm
one of them. So, uh,
try and make it make sense.
>> Thank you, councelor Humphrey. What I'm
hearing through this discussion, and
this is a really important discussion
regarding fire pits for the residents of
Clearwater County, I hear from councelor
Humphrey that he does not want to create
any additional red tape or any
burdensome legislation that or policy or
bylaws that could have negative impacts
on community members. And I think all of
council would agree with that. I also am
hearing from the deputy fire chief that
uh there are already current bylaws in
place that have restrictions and size
requirements on existing fire pits.
I do believe that the the landscape of
Cleora County has also changed. We have
many more short-term rentals and
different users coming to the
municipality. We have uh more campsites
that have been designated on private
land where we have more users. we've had
uh so so that has changed the the users
of fire pits and fire does have an
impact especially when you have a
wildfire event in the community. Uh burn
notifications versus fire permits. We've
already had many people in the community
that have used burn notification process
uh would just be now rather than a burn
notification more a fire it would be a
permit.
So, with that being said, um there are
some council members that would like to
provide comments and we'll start with
councelor Lewin.
>> Yes. Um if you had a fire pit got out of
control on you and burnt down your place
and the neighbor's place, um you charge
them or find them. Is that correct?
>> Uh councelor Lewin, great question. And
it's a complex one. It depends on where
you are in Clearwater County. uh if that
happens in the forest protection area
and there was some kind of negligence or
uh you know a fire pit that didn't meet
the standard or somebody wasn't
attending the burn uh under the forest
and prairie protection act there's
actually quite heavy penalties for that
>> uh up to where that landowner can be uh
build for the entire cost of the
response.
>> What about on your private property?
That's what I was
>> even on your private property if you're
in the forest protection area if you
have a fire that gets off your property
and extends
>> and there's any kind of wildfire
response that if that wildfire response
officer deems that there was some type
of negligence or breach of the forest
per protection act you could be fined
under the for protection act and you
could also be build for the cost of the
response which can be on wildfire
incidents astronomical. Uh there's been
some very hefty bills to private land
owners in other parts of the county uh in the millions of dollars uh to
recover costs for wildfire response
based on air tankers and helicopters and
heavy equipment and crews. Uh there's
also civil liability for that person
they would carry uh where adjacent land
owners and insurance companies could uh
you know essentially through civil uh
civil law uh try and recover damages and
losses. Um, yes, you can be fined
outside the force, uh, protection area
in Clearwater County. Uh, our current
bylaw and the language in this bylaw
allows us as discretion to bill land
owners. Uh, we do not bill for fire
response for, uh, fires that are are not
negligible in in nature. Uh, we can cost
recover through insurance if we have the
avenue to do that. Uh this bylaw
specifically states in the fees and
services in the bottom uh when we would
bill and when we would not. Uh that
aligns with our current county bylaw as
well. Uh the 1069
um for there is a specific section that
talks about wildfires inside and outside
the forest protection area. I think Jan
is looking for it for us right now.
I guess where I'm going with this one is
if you did find uh residents with
insurance that had insurance and they
were fined for neglect or what whatever
you find them with um their insurance
would be null and void, wouldn't it?
>> Uh or
>> no. Um
it it depends on your insurance. Okay.
>> But uh personal liability insurance is
in a lot of cases not necessarily no
fault insurance. Uh sometimes your
insurance will cover it, other times it
will not. It depends solely on the
insurance provider and your policy. Um
but in certain situations, yes, that is
the case. You could be insured and if
you were doing something negligent,
um your insurance company could hold you
um
>> responsible
>> at responsible and and not cover those
costs.
>> Second,
>> councelor Powell. Go ahead. I was just
going to make a motion that council
grants first reading to bylaw 26102
complete with amendments.
>> Okay.
We have a motion for councelor Powell to
grant first reading to bylaw 26102.
Deputy Reef McKay. Go ahead.
>> Thanks Ree. And just quickly before we
vote on that motion, just regarding
fireworks,
a fireworks permit is being required
year round now. I don't believe that was
part of any other previous discussions
that we had.
Uh Deputy Reef, we that was not changed.
That was original language in the bylaw.
I'd have to clarify with Chief Hemrich
when he's back or with wildfire, but I
believe that fireworks permits
specifically are required in the FBA
year around year round. Fireworks are
handled separately than than uh uh
recreational fires and and and uh
burning because they they there's a
portion of the explosives act that
applies um where it includes sale and storage as well. So, not only does
the user uh in the forest protection
area today, if you buy fireworks in
Edmonton and drive to Clearwater County
and decide you want to discharge
fireworks at the um you know out by the
Ram River in the FBA, you require a fire
permit today from Alberta Forestry,
>> right? And um I understand that, but
this isn't only applying to the FBA.
This is applying to Clearwater County.
>> Correct. Yeah. So to tell someone on the
east side of Clearwater County they
require a permit for fireworks for New
Year's Eve when there's 3 ft of snow on
the ground. Ridiculous isn't the right
word to describe that.
>> Understood, counselor. And and I can
clarify that. Um I I believe and uh that
fireworks permits are required year
round in the FBA today.
>> Right. In like in the fire protection
area for sure. and and part of the
reason why the language says that in in
this bylaw was to align with what the
province is doing. So again, we don't
have two standards depending on where
you live in Claywater County. Um and
part of the permitting uh with fireworks
isn't necessarily around just the fire
risk, it's around the the human danger
as well. Um there is a lot of injuries
and deaths annually in Canada and the
United States due to improper use of
recreational fireworks. It's probably uh
the commercial grade fireworks shows are are less so problematic. Usually you
have pyro technicians standards experts
dealing with them, but it's the it's the
ability for somebody to buy fireworks at
their store and drive out west and set
off a whole bunch of fireworks in
vicarious ways. Uh that we see lots of
injuries, serious injuries, significant
injuries, losses of limbs, losses of
vision, things like that. So part of the
permitting on fireworks isn't
necessarily just the fire hazard. It's
also the the safety and human risk to
them. Um they may not create a wildfire,
but they may cause a structure fire
based on how you you're discharging
them, how you uh store them, things like
that. They can create undue fire risk
and explosion risks uh if they're stored
in in at length. Uh so it's not
essentially just the wildfire risk on
why we'd be permitting fireworks.
There's other risks there as well on why
that's an annual permitting process and
not just this bylaw isn't specifically
around the wildfire risk in Clearwater
County. This is the fire services bylaw
that that handles everything we we deal
with, not specific to wildfire risk. So
the the fire permitting for fireworks is
not solely on the wildfire risk. So
understanding there's no risk for a
wildfire for New Year's when you're
discharging fireworks. There's other
risks on why we would permit them
annually.
and and for clarity's sake, um the
Explosives Act changes two years ago um
came into force and basically in in our
in Canada, if a municipality doesn't
have a a fireworks bylaw or a bylaw
allowing fireworks to be sold or
discharged, they're actually blanketly
illegal. Uh so currently our current
fire control bylaw does not allow the
use of fireworks at all because there's
nothing in there that speaks about it.
So the explosives act is now in force
which means that everywhere that sells
fireworks today in Clearwater County,
anybody discharging fireworks anywhere
in Clearwater County today is doing so
technically illegally because we don't
have a bylaw permitting their use. So
this actually cleans that piece up. This
was something that I believe previous uh
fire administration was attempting to
get in front of council for some time
now is that since the changes of the
explosives act at the federal level um
fireworks use in Clearwater County has
essentially become illegal until we put
a a a system in place here that allows
their use. So this would actually
now increase administratively the fact
that we would need to go and permit the
places that are selling them. We would
need to permit those places would need
to have a structure in place for uh
requiring checking age uh of who is of
buying the fireworks. Uh and then we
would they would have to have a permit
from us to discharge them. Which in that
case if we were to put a restriction or
a ban on we could then contact those
individuals and say you no longer can
discharge your fireworks because the
fire risk is too high fireworks because
the fire risk is too high. Uh but as it
stands today, um if any law enforcement
uh agency catches somebody discharging
fireworks in Clearwater County, they can
find them today because it is
technically illegal under the Explosives
Act because we don't have a bylaw
permitting their use.
>> Thank you for that, Deputy Chief. So the
dis uh discharging of fireworks in the
past or by any resident in Clearwater
County has done so illegally, but
>> that's correct.
>> Correct. Yeah.
allegedly. I
>> Go ahead, Deputy Reef.
>> I'm not familiar with the National
Explosive Act. I mean, I'm not
registered,
but uh to believe that fireworks that
can be purchased at any store in
Clearwater County, literally any store
and any store across the entire
province, are now illegal.
I find that tough.
and the fact that we're going back to
the argument that unless we say it's
legal, it's illegal, that's a very tough
position to negotiate from.
>> I understand brief that this was a
massive discussion at the Alberta Fire
Chiefs Association for the last uh many
years. Um it is a uh an NRCAN direction
when they changed the explosives act
that made it very clear on that uh
specific law enforcement agencies were
the only agencies allowed to enforce the
explosives act. They pulled it out of
the national fire code uh and put it
into the explosives act. There were some
very large code changes at the national
level when uh Alberta in 2019 adopted
the national fire code and now the the
2023 Alberta edition of the national
fire code where they removed everything
but storage of fireworks out of the fire
code and took it out of the
municipalities hands on to manage at the
fire inspection level. uh those changes
put into a into motion a situation
legally where unless a municipality in
Canada has a bylaw allowing fireworks uh
to be sold, stored and discharged that
uh they were not legal to be sold,
storage, and discharged. And that was
the legal opinion based on the changes
to the codes al the fire code and the
national fire uh the national explosives
act. Um, and it's been a massive
discussion at the Alberta fire chiefs
and the office of the fire commissioner
levels across the country, specifically
here in Alberta. And I I understand uh
we we live in a province where there is
a lot of acts uh that are uninforced
today that exist. There's a lot of law
in place that are completely uninforced
um or uh enforced very little,
especially in rural Alberta. the
province is is is being a lot less um
sympathetic to rural municipalities for
not enforcing things like the building
code, the fire code, the explosives act.
Uh and we are in a position of liability
when we when we do not enforce
provincial and national legislation. We
are we are in that position of of
liability. Um this the intent of this
bylaw is to try and close some of those
liability gaps for Clearwater County and
start to uh align with our partners in
the province uh specifically the forest
prepare uh and protection area so that
our our residents have one standard set
of rules to follow and they're not
flipping through multiple documents
based on where they live to figure out
if something's legal or not.
That is the intent. Um I I can
definitely uh uh find some more detail
on the fireworks portion and provide
some clarity to council at a future
council meeting as well uh on those
changes and how they impact the county.
Uh we can uh get separate legal opinion
as well if that's if that's the the
desired council.
>> Thank you. And I I truly do appreciate
the intention of creating an act that is
equal across the county. I understand
that. However,
the overreach that has found its way
into this act, whether intentional or
not, really puts this council in a very
difficult position because for me to
explain that now anyone just using
recreational fireworks such as Roman
candles, which we all know are incapable
of harming anyone, is now illegal in
Clearwater County because we created a
bylaw that said it
Just just for clarity, um this bylaw
actually permits the use with a permit.
>> Well, with a permit.
>> Yeah.
>> Go ahead.
>> Where go for a permit?
>> Where do you go for a permit?
>> That same place that somebody would get
a a fire permit for burning a brush
pile. You would receive it. If if you're
in the if you're in the forest
protection area today, you have to go to
Alberta Forestry request firework. I
don't need a permit to burn a brush pile
the size of your house in December. But
now I need a permit to use recreational
fireworks on New Year's.
>> Yes, correct. That is the that was that
was how the bylaw is written.
>> If if I may
>> saying that deputy chief, I just have
one question. So with the but the
fireworks were they were illegal like
365 days of the year prior to they were
illegal
>> allegedly,
>> right?
>> But they're still sold here. They're
sold, but discharging them was illegal.
But now you would be able to obtain a
permit to discharge fire fireworks.
>> Correct. As of today, with the current
bylaw in place, the only place that we
have uh authority to manage anything to
do with uh fireworks in Clearwater
County is either the province through
Alberta Forestry whenever somebody wants
to discharge fireworks in their forest
protection area or through fire
inspections of those places that are
selling them. We can tell them whether
or not they're storing them correctly as
per the fire code. Uh the explosives act
today requires those people selling them
to um take a license for whoever's
selling them, take their name and their
phone number, all kinds of things. I'm
not sure if that's being enforced at
all. Um this isn't wouldn't be our
intention either, but there's other
pieces in the explosives act that I'm
sure are not being followed across the
province of Alberta, not just in
Clearwater County, that came into force
when they changed the explosives act in
the fire code.
I have one more question and I
absolutely understand where Deputy Reev
M is coming from with the permitting
process for fireworks with that with the
number of the number of CRA and CR
parcels that have been subdivided in the
past when now a permit is being
requested. Would it be would it consider
neighboring agricultural operations and
impacts on livestock for the discharging
of those fireworks because they can have
an impact on on cattle or livestock. So
would would that be considered in the
permit? So with the number of uh small
parcel holders potentially setting off
firework display having a negative
impact on a cattle producer for instance
would would that be considered in the
permitting process? It
>> it can definitely be part of our our
policy on how we consider fireworks
permits in Clearwater County. If if uh if that was uh a priority of council
for sure, we could we could look at that
and based on approving a lot of these
permits if there's no wildfire risk at
the time would be essentially
automatically approved uh subject to
size and what they're burning. Um
>> okay. No, I just wanted to bring
awareness to that. sometimes said in the
past that it's uh you'd have the right
to do what you want on your land, but
sometimes doing on your land does have a
negative impact or an impact on the
neighboring land owner. So, with that
said, we do have a motion on the floor
for first reading from councelor Powell
to grant first reading to bylaw 26102.
Seeing no further discussion on that
item, I'll call the question. All those
in favor
and those opposed.
Okay, that motion is supported for first
reading.
Moving on to further discussion or
motion for second reading to bylaw
number 26102.
Councelor Surmarmac,
>> do I do I understand this correctly that
1ifth of our county is more restrictive
than four fifths of our county
at the present time in our fire in our
fire bylaw?
>> Uh, councelor Surerac uh specifically
when it comes to uh fire pit uh size and
construction. Yes. Um, this bylaw is
actually less restrictive. The language
in this bylaw is less restrictive than
our pre our current uh bylaw in place.
However, our we are not the authority
having jurisdiction for what a fire pit
looks like in four-fifths of our county.
Rough numbers based on the size of the
eastern portion that's outside the FBA.
Uh the majority of our population
therefore in Clearwater County is in
that 1/5if of the county that is outside
the forest protection area. Um but the
other portions of Clearwater County are
less restrictive for fire pits for sure.
They are more restrictive currently for
permitting. Uh they are more restrictive
for um fines and penalties uh based on
uh negligent burning or burning during a
uh a banner or a restriction. the the
Force and Prairie Protection Act uh is very clear uh and it is it it is
enforced by Alberta Wildfire quite
frequently in the western portions of
Clearwater County for uh for things like
that, but their pit description is less
restrictive than our current bylaw is.
So, this language in this new bylaw
would bring us into alignment with the
rest of the county for fire pits uh for
permitting uh for fees and and um and
penalties.
I thank you for bringing that forward to
making our county the same whether you
live in a in a green area or if you live
in a in a on in the farming area. And
this this is the this here the map
that's pulled up is is the def is the
difference. So essentially the yellow
area is outside the forest protection
area. The brown area is within it. Uh we
are the sole authority having
jurisdiction for everything fire in that
yellow area.
uh we are the authority having
jurisdiction for structure fires,
vehicle fires uh in the Brown area, but
when it comes to wildland fires, fire
permitting for burning um and fees and fines related to the forest repair
protection act, that brown area, Alberta
Forestry and Parks is the authority
having jurisdiction. And right now we
have two sets of rules based on brown
and yellow. We're trying to make them
consistent across the board. That red
line that roughly from the south follows
Highway 22 just south of Cran. It it
sneaks across to the east of 22 and
steals a portion of timber there. It
comes up to just south of Caroline and
runs west to uh essentially just south
of Highway 22, comes up and follows the
Clearwater River all the way into Rocky
Mountain House and then north of Rocky
Jags out to Pinoa County essentially is
the is the boundary. So,
it's it's there's some very recognizable
features. It's very easy to enforce
along the Clear Water. Do you live west
or east of the Clear Water River, north
of Rocky Mountain House, uh south of
Caroline? It can be you can live on a
range and your neighbor across the
street can or can't burn and you can or
can't or they will have a fine and you
won't or they can have a pit this way
and you can't. Uh so, it's very
confusing for residents and land owners
for sure.
Thank you for making it the same for the
whole country. I think it's important.
Thanks.
>> Thank you, Council Turac. At this point
in time, we've had a significant amount
of discussion regarding fireworks,
uh,
fire pits. Uh, a lot of discussion on
bylaw 26102, fire rescue services bylaw
and item 54.2 on today's agenda. But at
this point in time, we're going to take
a 10-minute recess return at 10:25.
Welcome back from our recess and welcome
back to the Clearwater County regular
council meeting for August 25th, 2026.
We've had significant discussion on item
4.2, bylaw 26102 for fire rescue service
bylaw. First reading was passed on this
bylaw and I'll continue to open the
floor for discussion and uh potential
motions for second reading. Councelor
Humphrey, go ahead, please.
» No comments from councelor Humphrey.
>> Go ahead, councelor.
>> Yes, see as I see as I do have it.
>> Go ahead.
>> Have the mic. It it just seems like
we're uh
we want to keep in mind that our our
county
I'm not sure on the exact
uh numbers but as you can see that
yellow area that's that's 15th of the
area but it's probably
90% or more of the population.
So, and we seem to be worried a lot
about
making it all the same for the whole
county. And I'm not sure that's really
an issue we need to
worry about. We should
maybe think more about what are what is
the effect to the all of our residents
or the majority of our res residents
cuz yeah we have a we live in a huge
county but the fire protection area
encompasses as as has been said like
four four fifths or or larger but our population is
largely centered in the yellow portions
of that and what we're the stuff we're
talking about and deciding on here today
is is affecting 90% of our population
and I just feel we maybe need to have a
little more time a little more time on
the drawing board for some of these
issues. Thank you, Councelor Humphrey.
I'm going to defer to CEO Simpson. Go
ahead, please.
>> Thank you, uh, Mr. Reev. I I I want to
throw three words out in front of
council that should maybe help
I would hope set your minds at ease on
the application of this bylaw. Um one
being uh negligence, one being the
reasonable standard and one being
enforcement because all of the
conversations that we're having back and
forth deal in those three key areas. Um
while it's been mentioned many times
that the brown area has a predefined
reasonable standard and the yellow area
has an actually a tougher reasonable
standard under the current bylaw
respecting say fire pit sizes. Um
the uh the reasonable standard that
we're trying to set here in the I guess
to tie in with the province's reasonable
standards regarding fire pit sizes. We
do need to set one. But the enforcement
piece, Council Humphrey, was one that
you spoke to. You know, you you you gave
the example of, "I don't like the color
of your hair. Your fire pit's too big.
Now I'm giving you a ticket." Right. So,
we'll dive over into the word
negligence, which is usually something
that a judge would arrive at in a court
proceeding after measuring whether there
was a deviation from the reasonable
standard, right? Which is defined as
what would a normal rational person do?
Um, currently the reasonable standard is
defined in the bylaw and it's pretty
rigid, but if you go to your definition
section for this new draft bylaw, so 2B7
and 2 C7,
there is also another definition or
another test for reasonable when a
professional is being involved. So
specific to the to the example of abuse
of power in issuing tickets for
oversized fireplaces or fire pits or
fireplaces because they're both covered
under that. Um we we lay out in all of
section 2B 1 through six what we would
consider a reasonable standard that is
used widely across the province for
characteristics of how to safely place a
fire pit. However, the the folks who
you've inoned would have variations of
that. Um, we kind of catch that in
subsection 7 where we use the language
as may otherwise be determined by the
fire chief having regard to health,
safety, hazards, and risks. Now, the
fire chief would be meeting under a
different test if somebody felt they
were being unfairly treated for the size
of their fire pit because of the fire
chief's determination. The professional
test would be um someone having
specialized skills and relying upon
those skills to make a determination. So
in the case of something having a three
and a half or four foot crusher cone in
their backyard and they were feeling a
little adamant that they shouldn't have
to conform, the language exists in this
new bylaw for the fire chief to give
them that variation, but it allows the
fire chief to exercise his professional
skills in determining that the fireplace
or fire pit either or is cited
correctly. that being away from
combustibles, uh, being away from wires,
being a certain distance from buildings
and so forth. So, it's not as though in
putting this into place, administration
suddenly is granted the authority to
unfairly exercise its power and issue
tickets. Typically, these definitions
would be used at the back end of an
incident when something has happened and
then the court would look to our bylaw
to see if we had a reasonable standard
defined. We need to have one of those in
bar none. Whatever it winds up being, we
need to have something. The the default
position for administration to do this
in a way that we think is I would say
industry standard is to follow the
provincial guidelines that are
established in the forest protection
area there. Um but also jumping forward
to enforcement which you know can be
applied to the conversation and comments
around fire pits, fireplaces and it can
be applied to the conversation around
fireworks permits. Um, unless council
expressly tells us to proactively go out
and begin investigating fire pit sizes
or asking people if they have fireworks
on their property and if they have a
permit, I don't believe administration's
intention would be to go out and begin
policing that immediately. It's more of
a case of when there's a complaint, we
would come out and check. The passing of
this bylaw with these sizes defined
creates um a a bit of a good touch point
actually between the public and the fire
services where if somebody's not sure
now where does my fireplace or fire pit
sit, can the chief send someone out with
those same professional skills to come
out and look at this thing and tell me
if I'm missing any hazards in how I've
identified where I should put it so that
they can still have it. But it would be
great if we on the admin side would send
someone out from fire services with
those professional skills to just take a
look and make sure that they're safe. So
it doesn't automatically trigger
penalties for them based on the size of
it. There is a means by which we could
issue that variance that Deputy Chief
Stewart was talking about. And all of
that sort of creates that that legal
balance that we would need in the event
that there is a fire. it gets out of
control and negligence is the thing that
we're looking to have determined so that
we can appropriately recover costs from
someone who was negligent or we can
determine no they weren't being
negligent, it was um circumstances
beyond their control or it was not their
fault. And I guess the same would apply
to fireworks permits. I I don't believe
that we're going to be sending peace
officers out at night trying to figure
out where the flashbang went off and
then chasing the ark back down to the
quarter section and checking for a
permit. But it does create
an opportunity for people to reflect on
their practice and whether they are
being safe unto themselves and in
consideration of their neighbors if
that's of of any help to council.
>> Thank you.
for that information. CEO
Simpson. Councelor, go ahead.
>> Yes. And thanks thanks for all that CO
Simpson. Um,
I guess I have one more
question on it and and I just feel that
now is the time for us to ask the
questions and and try and and get get
the answers for this. What about uh
insurance
around stuff like that if we if we know
that they're out there? Um, and whether
uh a fire gets away from somebody and
it's not negligent, it's just from
unseen circumstances. If it was in a in
a 3-FFT fire pit and that happened
and they burnt their house down.
Now, if it was in a 3 and 1/2t fire pit
and it burned their house down, same
circumstances. Is the insurance company
going to going to go, "Oh, but you guys
had an illegal fire pit."
>> Do you have any further comments,
Council?
>> Yeah. No. Excellent. I'm going to defer
to CEO Simpson. Go ahead, please.
>> Uh, I guess I'll give you the lawyer's
answer. It depends. Um, and an insurance
company would probably perform a robust
investigation, which would encompass
several factors. One of which may be was
their fire pit in regulation size or did
they have a variant according to the
bylaw that we have. They would look at
that, but they would also look at other
things. Um, were you intoxicated? Uh,
what was the weather conditions? Was
there a burn advisory or a fire ban in
effect at the time? Uh, it would be a
number of things and it would also
depend on the type of coverage they
purchased as well.
So if they had a no fault insurance as I believe was mentioned um then you
know insurance may not be happy and they
may pay the claim. But if there were
certain caveats on that insurance policy
that you know you had to be exercising
due care and you know you had to follow
all the rules of the county or the
municipality just as an example then
they may have a way out of paying that
claim. So, it would be hard to say that
the size of the fire pit alone would
determine whether they would be covered
under their own policy uh or not because
there's a lot of other factors that
would have to be considered.
>> Thank you again, CEO Simpson. Deputy
Chief Stewart,
>> thank you Reef. And just to dovtail on
CEO Simpson's comments, I have a lot of
experience in whether insurance
companies will cover a fire loss or not.
So, just to describe to council, we have
a a a a property loss or injury causing
fire in Clearwater County. Let's say a
home burns down. The initial authority
for the investigation actually lands
with us as Clearwater Regional Fire in
Clearwater County. Uh because we're
accredited under the Safety Codes Act
for the fire discipline for inspections
and investigations. So, our duty officer
that is on shift, uh we're all safety
codes officers. uh the majority of us
are qualified C1 or C2 investigators
under the provincial safety codes act.
We have a responsibility within 30 days
to tell the province where the area of
origin was and what the probable cause
was. If there's a death or an injury, we
have to notify the office of the high
fire commissioner immediately. if it's
suspicious in any way or we're
suspecting arson or foul play play that
we have to refer that to the RCMP as a
potential crime where then they would
issue a warrant for us to continue the
investigation on their behalf as a
subject matter expert or we would engage
a third party as Clearwater County to
come in and do the investigation for us
to determine origin and cause and then
what happens after we're done that
investigation sometimes concurrently is
that landowner has engaged their their
insurance company and says they've had a
loss
uh that insurance company will send an
adjuster and usually an investigating uh
an investigator out, usually a third
party investigating company. There's
many across the province. Uh they will
send a a fire and origin cause
investigator out to that fire and they
will do a parallel or subsequent
investigation on their own purely from
an insurance perspective.
Most times, unless there's proven malice
uh or proven fraudulent circumstances,
accidental fires are covered under
insurance. Um, for example, many fires
that I've been to is somebody
um puts a cigarette butt out in their
recycling bin that's in their garage.
They are they are the cause of the fire,
right? It was unsafe fire behavior. it
was all kinds of things, right? Uh their
insurance company covers them for that.
Accidental fires are are almost always
covered under insurance policies in
their in their liability process until
some type of malice intent or uh
fraudulent circumstance is suspected or
uncovered. That's when insurance
companies start withdrawing their
coverage unless it's clearly defined in
their in their policy that they wouldn't
be covered for something specifically.
Most accidental fires are covered
regardless of how silly the
circumstance. Um, a lot of people fear
that that they're not going to be
covered, but accidental fires are
covered. A candle, for example, you
leave a candle burning in your home, uh,
up against a window curtain and you
leave and you forget to blow it out and
you drive away and 8 hours later that
candle burns your entire house down. And
we prove that that was the cause. You
are liable for that fire. You were the
cause. Your insurance company will cover
you for that. it's an accidental fire.
So, it really depends on whether they
can they can prove and determine if you
did it for some intention of of
fraudulent circumstances or to obscure
some other crime or a crime was
committed in the conduct of that. So,
fire I I have never seen an insurance
company today look at municipal bylaw on
whether someone is covered or not based
on uh fire insurance. I have not seen
that.
Thank you, Deputy Chief.
>> Okay, councelor
>> I'm Go ahead.
>> Thank you. Uh, okay. Because that was a concern that I had was it
because we don't have a bylaw against
having a candle in your window
next to your curtains. I would hope we
never get to that never get to that
point, but me too. But apparently, but
we do have
around fire pit size and that's why it
just
>> seemed like we wanted to fix it. Maybe
it's not an issue. Maybe it's just
me thinking that it's
>> and and I I I
hear the spirit of of council and great
conversations.
fire and uh fire rescue services,
emergency services definitely does not
want to make council uncomfortable with
this. This is an important bylaw for us.
Um it is uh very important that we get
this right and it's very important in in
my opinion that uh council is
comfortable with uh with at least how
it's worded and how it's going to be
applied. Um
I I want to reiterate that I believe
that uh this bylaw is again the
intention is to set a minimum standard.
It is to make sure that we are
decreasing the red tea for Clearwater
County residents as much as possible in
the spirit of making sure that there's
one standard set of rules for everybody
uh that is common across the board.
understanding that the majority of
Clearwater County's population, I'm not
sure if it's 90% but it's probably
close, lives outside the FPA, we do have
large portions of our our population
that live in Frier Frier acres uh around
Crimson Lake, Twin Lakes, the Brower
subdivision for an example, Everddell,
uh Meadow Ponds, um Diamond Valley,
Recinus, um west of Caroline, south of
Caroline that is in the forest
protection area. um the Beaverrun
subdivision just north of the Summer
Village at Bernstick Lake. We have
significant amounts of people that live
inside the forest protection area in
Clearwater County. Uh for sure. Um is
there more outside? Yes, there is. Um
however, fires fires do not stop at the
imaginary line on the map. They really
don't. And many of the problems we have
are immediately on that forest
protectionary boundary or near it.
simply because that boundary was put
into place following where those hazards
and those risks are. Um, generally
speaking, uh, so we have the interface
of the heavier timbers to the to our
agricultural lands traditionally with
some exceptions to that across the line
for sure. There are tracks of forest in
the non-FFPA and there is tracks of
agricultural land in the FBA, but
generally speaking, it followed that
line for a reason. And I I do also want
to reer that there is no cost for any of
these permits. Like we're not we're not
trying to create a a a
cost recovery system or a cash cow for
Clearwater County. Whether it's a fire
permit or a fireworks permit, they are
at no cost. Uh that is the way the bylaw
is written. It wouldn't cost the
resident or a visitor anything to to get
one of these permits. um that
administrative burden is on fire
services u on on administering the
permitting system. Um and and really um
it's it's about setting a minimum
standard so that we can maintain safety
of the public as best as possible. Uh at
the same time balancing uh risk to
council uh legal risk to council and to
Clearwater County. uh at the same time
uh not creating red tape but making sure
that we have a standard set of rules
that's easier for our residents and our
visitors to understand because that
alone creates a lot of administrative
burden for regional fire and uh Alberta
wildfire today is simply explaining the
differences and where that boundary is
and whether they need a permit or not
and and it's it is quite quite a
consuming process today because we have
two different sets of standards for what
everybody considers Clearwater county. A
lot of residents and visitors actually
don't even understand the FBA exists or how it's applied. It's uh it's
something that we do a ton of education
on today.
>> Thank you for all that information.
Again, Deputy Chief Stewart. Um
Councelor Surac, go ahead.
>> Yes. I would like to make a motion that
council grants second reading to bylaw
26/103
and by law 2019
007.
Okay. So that'll be bylaw 26102.
Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
from councelor Serach that council grant
second reading to bylaw 26102.
That is motion on the floor from
councelor Humphrey. Councelor Powell,
you have no comments. Okay,
seeing no further discussion. Are there
any council members that have any
comments, questions?
Seeing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor
and those opposed.
And that motion is supported by council.
We'd be looking for a motion for consent
for third reading. Before that,
councelor Pal, go ahead.
>> Just it was just a comment on the
population. When you look at the map and
when we're talking about this um area
that needs to change to all align as
one, it actually if you look like ward
one, ward five, ward four and ward six,
the majority of those wards are actually
in the um forest protection area. And if
we go by wards, the amount of population
is actually divided fairly evenly in our
wards. So it actually is quite a high
population out there. It actually in is
only 2, three, and seven that sit on the
other side. The majority of the other
four wards are in the forest protected
area. So we actually do have quite a
substantial amount of population. It
isn't 90%. Um I would have to disagree
with that. It is a significant chunk of
Clearwater County residents that are in
the forest protected area.
Thank you, councelor Powell. I'm just
going to look for I'm going to defer to
Miss Hate. Uh permission or is unanimous
consent required to proceed to third
reading at this time?
>> Unanimous consent is is required.
>> Okay, thank you for that clarification.
Deputy Ree, go ahead.
>> Thanks. Just I guess to follow up on uh
an excellent point by councelor
Powell there. Do we have a statistics on
the population that is in the FPA and
the population that isn't within
Clearwater County?
>> Deputy Chief, go ahead.
>> I I do not, Deputy Reef. I am not aware
of of uh that of survey that Clearwater
Regional Fire Rescue Services has. I can
I could show council a heat map of our
emergency responses on where we get
generally dispatched to emergencies. Um
I can say that um I I I have no idea
what the separation is. There is a
significant portion simply because when
we talk about for us as a regional fire
service 7,000ish in the town of Rocky
Mountainhouse, Lesieville, Condor,
Alhhamra, Withro, uh Caroline, uh some
of the subdivisions um in the eastern
portion of Clearwater County as we
commonly refer it to the nonFP area.
There is a lot of people that live in
that chunk of land. But I do agree with
councelor Powell that we have a
significant portion of Clearwater County
that is inside the FBA. Uh we have a lot
of our visitors. That's another piece.
When people visit Clearwater County,
they're generally not visiting the
non-FBA portion of Clearwater County. So
any long weekend in the summer, uh when
we get 10 20,000 visitors to the county,
they're generally in that brown non-FBA
area. Uh so fire permits and fireworks
permits and that risk shifts to there.
Uh so it's not only for our residents,
it's also for um the visitors.
Significant visitation that we have to
this area for recreation is large. Um
our our response uh extends into that
non-FFPA for emergency situations quite
a bit. That Highway 11 corridor all the
way out to Abraham Lake. Uh we were out
there yesterday for a RV on fire uh near
the Big Horn. It's we're everywhere for
sure. Um
but I don't have stats specifically on
that separation.
>> Thank you, Deputy Chief. And again, I
just I want to make it quite clear that
I 100% support
the the FPA regulations within that area
and I really understand your intention.
It's just the question is it right to apply those same
regulations
to this portion of the county right
because they are
rather strict. So is that what's best
for the residents is what we have to
weigh here.
Deputy Reeve understood. I I believe
from my professional opinion that this
bylaw uh would meet that intent that it
is from a safety perspective a clarity
of expectations for all of our
residents. I believe that the way this
bylaw is written uh is in the best
interest of our residents um and uh and
their safety specifically. I I do
believe that.
>> Thank you for that for deputy chief. So,
this bylaw would also create more
flexibility if from everything that I've
heard that uh residents could actually
get a permit to legally have fireworks
or discharge fireworks. With this said,
uh if unanimous consent, I'm quite
evident it's it's there's a a divide on
council on this item. So, I'm I'm quite
uh there would be a a motion required
for unanimous consent. I don't know if
that motion will pass from the first and
second readings that have taken place
already at this point in time. Third
reading would just come it would uh
third reading will be at a future
council meeting and would allow council
to have more time for cons to consider
this bylaw. Is that correct? Okay. So,
we'd be looking for a motion for um
unanimous consent.
Um,
I'll make the motion I'll move that uh
council grant unanimous consent to
proceed to third reading to bylaw number
26102.
So, as there is a divide amongst
council, I won't be supporting the
motion. I would like to have more time
for council's consideration on this
agenda item. So, if there's no
discussion on that right now, the motion
for is for unanimous consent to proceed
to third reading.
Does anybody need any clarity? Seeing
none,
I'll call the question. All those in
favor
and those opposed.
And that motion is defeated.
This uh bylaw will be at a future
regular council meeting for council
consideration in the future. Thank you
again, Deputy Chief, for your time and
staff for all the information.
Moving on to item 4.3
in today's
Miss A. Go ahead, please.
>> See this that third reading for um for
the uh fire bylaw has been postponed to
a future council reading. This next
agenda item is not required at this
time.
So,
I would recommend that uh item
um what is it? 4.3
is postponed
to a future council meeting.
>> Thank you for that, Miss Hate.
Council member looking for discussion on
this item or councelor McCully. Okay.
Councilor McCauley makes a motion to
postpone today's uh item 4.3 bylaw
260103
revising the former village of Caroline
community standards bylaw to future
regular council meeting.
That is the motion on the floor. I'll
call the question. All those in favor?
That motion is supported by council.
Thank you, Miss Hate. Moving on to item
section five, new business. Item 5.1.1
budget adjustment fire capital code F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F
FRS026
on page 89 and again pass it floor over
to Deputy Chief Stewart.
>> Thank you Raven Council. Uh it's great
to see you this morning again. Uh this
uh budget item in front of council today
or sorry this agenda item in front of
council today is related to a fire
capital uh purchase that was approved in
the uh 2025 budget deliberations by
council for replacement of unit 513
which is a engine in uh Clearwater
Regional Fire Rescue Services that is
due for replacement in 2028.
Um because of uh the time to spec and
build fire apparatus in today's economy,
uh there was a budget request for a 10%
deposit of this year for a 2-year build
time for this apparatus to be delivered
in 2028.
Um that budget was approved at a 10%
deposit in 2026 of 150,000. uh and at
the time of budget deliberations, it was
discussed with council that that then
essentially means an approval of a of
the remainder of the balance of that
cost in the uh delivery year of 2028,
which was an additional $1.35 million.
Um what I can say is that the reason uh
we're in front of council today is that
uh that $ 1.5 million ask is proven to
be shy of what we can purchase an
apparatus of this spec uh to replace
this truck. um by about 5%. So, uh the background information here uh given
to council uh specifically speaks to a
massive increase in not just fire
apparatus, but pretty much any mobile
equipment in uh cost and delivery times
across the board. Public works sees this
as well with a lot of fleet replacements
where they're taking longer and costing
quite a bit more than they did. However,
fire apparatus since uh the pandemic has
seen a hundreds of percent increase in
cost. So, an apparatus that uh would
have cost us $600,000 in 2019 is
generally around the $ 1.5 to $1.4
million range to replace. Now this
specific apparatus we did engage with uh
all of the uh prevetted vendors uh
within the RMA source well process uh
which is a uh process that allows us not
to go to RFP or go to tender but to
speak with prevetted uh fire apparatus
vendors and for council's information
there's really three large fire
apparatus conglomerates in Canada and
the United States that own the majority
of companies that build fire apparatus
so there is a difficulty there in in
hitting costs across the board. Those
three major vendors are listed under
Sourcewell. So, there's no
administrative reason why we would go to
RFP or tender for an apparatus like
this. Uh, but the request today is to
let uh council know that we went to
three vendors. We've got official
pricing from one and unofficial verbal
pricing from a second that $1.5 million
will not replace that apparatus today.
However, in the official pricing um from
one of the vendors uh that best meets
our our spec, there's a prepayment
option. So, the the request today in
front of council is that council uh uh
considers uh moving the $1.3 million
from fiscal year 2028 uh forward to
fiscal year 2026 where if we prepay for
the apparatus uh we actually save
$105,000 on the overall cost. So that
truck would come in under $1.5 million.
If we pay the deposit today and wait to
pay the remainder on delivery, that
apparatus will cost us roughly $79,000
more uh than what's budgeted currently.
So, two options for council would be to
approve an increase in in capital cost
uh for this year of $7,934
in 2026 to achieve the 10% deposit with
a remaining uh 92,000 in 2028. Uh that
was a round number of $100,000 to make
sure that we could cover off the cost of
the apparatus. um or move the 1.3
million forward to fiscal year 2026 and
save uh 1.5 or sorry 105,000 on the
overall cost of the apparatus.
And I'll leave the floor open for uh
questions uh from councel.
>> Thank you, deputy chief. Council
questions, comments, or motions at this
time?
>> Councelor Lewin, go ahead.
>> So this is the new firetruck replacing
an old one. Is that correct?
>> Correct,
>> sir. Yes.
>> And what year is the old one?
>> Uh, the old one was a 2008.
>> 2008.
>> So, it'll be due for replacement in 2028
after it 20-year service life, which is
our standard replacement cycle for large
fire apparatus.
And that's about 5 years on the industry
best uh best practice, which the
industry recommends replacing frontline
fire apparatus in 15 years. We take them
to 20 here in Clearwater County.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
Deputy Grief McKay, go ahead.
>> Thank is there a home for this large
apparatus somewhere else within the
county or would it have to be sold at
auction?
>> Uh the replacement apparatus debut reef
the one that's coming
>> that we're replacing like for old 513.
Does it have a home somewhere else
within the fleet?
>> Uh correct. Uh the the plan here today
is that 513 would come out of Nordic and
be uh stationed here in in headquarters.
Actually we have a old 2011, the one
fire engine that uh used to be in Condor
is currently being utilized by the
Wildland urban interface team. Uh it is
well beyond its 20-year life cycle. So
that 513 apparatus would come in here to
headquarters, be utilized as the
wildland urban interface team's primary
response engine uh for for the
foreseeable future as long as we can
maintain it safe on the road as a third
line apparatus and potentially a
mechanical spare uh if we have an engine
that goes out of service for significant
period of time.
>> Okay.
>> But it does have a home uh or it could
be uh dispersed uh as an asset through
the county's uh asset dispersement
policy. It could be we could recover
some cost on that truck if that was
council's direction,
» right? Or we could just disperse the old
condor truck and
>> correct.
>> It would probably be more beneficial to
fire services to do it that way.
Correct.
>> So, the sooner we can get our hands on
this apparatus, the better it is. Not
just for cuz this would go to Nordic.
Correct. Uh this engine actually u it's
to replace 513 in Nordic. The intent
would be that we would remove we would
move one of our engines in Rocky that is
uh been used really well out to Nordic.
Uh it better suits their needs out there
and then this engine would probably
replace that engine in Rocky
Mountainhouse. So although that capital
wise we're replacing the engine in
Nordic, we would be doing some fleet
adjustments when this new engine came
in. uh it would be going to our busiest
fireh hall and one of our engines that
was built in 2017
uh would be going out to Nordic to to be
stationed at station 50. It just better
operationally suits the needs of Nordic
than uh the truck we're we currently
have out there.
>> Okay. So by moving this to
2026 as you said and allowing us to save
those funds would that get us the
physical equipment any sooner?
>> No, it would not.
Okay, the build queue would not change
from those manufacturers and that
two-year time period is probably as
quick as we'll see in today's uh
building environment. Some
municipalities are seeing through
certain vendors up to a four-year build
time for a fire apparat.
>> Okay. Thank you,
>> Councelor Humphrey.
A question I have is if if we make this
uh
we make this adjustment and prepay it.
So we're prepaying it. We lock in the
price. If we don't prepay it, is the
price still locked in or not? Can it go
up? Cuz two years till we get the fire
truck, it's not locking it in. It could
go up hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In the past, uh, fire, uh, apparatus
manufacturers have have honored the
price, uh, whether we prepay or we do a
10% deposit after quotation.
There is there is word in the fire
industry that that is going to change
because of the these manufacturers are claiming that uh their supply chain
problems uh specifically the weak
Canadian dollar and
um uncertainty in the Canadian and US
markets with the current environment
we're in that that may change and if we could see u them coming back and
enforcing ing some of the force majour
clauses in these agreements when we
prepay the 10% only that they may come
back and give us a letter and say we're
not giving you this truck for that
anymore because things have changed and you need to give us more money. That
is the word on the street today and that
has to do a lot with the current
environment between Canada and the US
trade-wise.
Um it is my understanding uh that if we
prepay for this apparatus that that
price is locked in uh up until we
deliver that truck. If the 10% only is
paid, we run the risk that things could
change.
Um go ahead, council. I'd like to make a
motion that we uh approve
option two with the condition that it's
locked in. Of course, that's that we
lock in that price that we get
confirmation that they're not going to raise it.
» Go ahead, counselor. probably asking me
have funds somewhere to do this.
Miss Saran, go ahead.
>> Yes, currently in the restricted surplus
account for fire apparatus is just over
$2 million. However, um there would need
to be some
uh additional funds going into there to
fund future things. Um there is some
more discussion that needs to happen
around restricted surplus but to make
this happen there is funds there this
year.
>> Thank you Mr. Saran for that. Councelor
Maui do you
>> no okay um I do have one question uh
councelor Mack do you have comments?
Yeah, I was just wondering if if we the
interest on the 1.3
1.35
would we get more interest if we put
that into a bank instead of paying them
the 105
which would be
more beneficial to us? Would we make
more interest on that money if we kept
it for the two years or would we pay
more if we paid the 105?
>> Mir, do you know what I'm saying?
>> Yes. Director Hemark and I did have a
conversation about that and it is uh
slightly more beneficial to pay upfront
than the interest that would be received
on that money.
>> So, we would save money if we paid it up
front.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you. That's what I needed.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay, that answers your question.
Council Serach, I do have one question
and it's uh regarding the color of this
equipment. Will it be red or white and
what are the implications of having
white emergency services?
>> Uh Reev, that one catches me off guard.
My apologies, but uh currently
Clearwater County has a policy in place,
our vehicle and equipment use policy I
believe that requires fire apparatus
fleet to be white in color predominantly
um and have a specific decal uh down the
side of them that is indicative of our
5-year service ribbon. Um so as uh
regional fire management, we would be
following that policy today and that
truck would be specked as white with
that ribbon on it. If we wanted to color
that truck differently, I would need to
ask council to change a policy.
>> Thank you very much for that, Deputy
Chief. I'm just wondering if there's a
cost savings by having the equipment
white or is there an additional cost for
that be being white?
>> Uh,
so um I can't say from this specific
manufacturer that that cost would be
more to be white. We have paid more for
white apparatus in the past. Um, we have
had to buy spec apparats off the lot
that are already red and we've had to
paint them uh white to meet county
policy. Um, so we have in the past paid
more. Um,
yes. Um,
there is there's an interesting history
dynamic behind that in Clear Water
Regional Fire Rescue Services that I I
would not endeavor to get into with
council, but we have paid more for uh,
wide fire apparatus in the past. We have
also bought lots of white apparatus that
did not cost any more than if we would
have specked them red. There's generally
certain color band that causes us to
that manufacturers have that there's
really no cost. Uh so if we spec these
apparatus in advance, they don't. Um
right now there's one study that says
that the that there's uh color benefits
to having fluorescent green fire
apparatus. Uh, and there's one study
that says that your fire apparatus
should be the color your public expects
them to be. And I would endeavor that if
we pulled the majority of our public,
they would expect our fire apparatus to
be red. However, we have a mixed fleet
today where we have red apparatus and we
have majority white apparatus. So, it is
a complex problem. Right now, if we're
building fire trucks, we are building
them white simply because that is we are required to do that under county
policy.
Good.
Thank you for that information. I'm sure
there's going to be more discussion on
this, but uh councelor Powell, go ahead,
please.
>> I don't understand. I'm feeling a little
lost and caught off guard. Why are they
Why do they have to be white?
>> It's under current policy at this point
in time.
>> Can I Can we see the policy? Like, I'm
not I'm totally lost.
>> And this may be a discussion or a motion
required from council to have a review
of this policy.
>> Councelor Pal, do you have any further
comments? I always thought fire trucks
were red.
>> Thank you, Council Pal. Councelor Lewin,
go ahead, please.
>> Well, what size of this new fire truck
we're getting
>> because I've seen all different sizes of
fire trucks throughout the county.
>> Correct.
>> This kind of money. I just wondering
what the weight is, axle size.
>> Uh, I can pull up exact specifications
for you, counselor, um, based on a
proposal we received. Uh, this truck is
a what we considered a type one fire
engine. So, it meets the NFPA and
CANCF515
uh standard for a first frontline pumper
truck essentially is what it is. This is
a single axle pumper truck, not a dual
axle. So, it's not a one of our our
rural fire engines like you would see in Leyville that has two axles and
carries 2,000 gallons of water. It is
designed to be shorter single axle base.
It's it it uh based on the stations
it'll go into either replacing the truck
in Northern Rocky Mountainhouse. It
allows us to have a a lower driving
license class for the operators. It
allows us to operate that truck over
more restricted bridges and roadways. It
is supported by a fire tender that
brings lots of water if required. This
has a 750 gallons of onboard water. Um
it is a large pump that meets
firefighting capacity of 1500 gallons
per minute pumping capacity. requires
all the requisite uh or carries all the
requisite firefighting equipment. So uh
SCBAs, uh selfcame breathing apparatus,
uh hand tools, power tools, you name it.
seats five firefighters in the cab.
Um yeah, it would be similar to uh if
you went down to Nordic today, uh their
frontline pumper. It's very similar to
look and feel of that truck. If you went
down to Rocky Mountain House, the same
Caroline, the same condor, the same
seats five firefighters has a large
firefighting pump and carries all the
equipment that's required
>> and carries 750 gallons of water.
>> 750 gallons of onboard water. Yes.
>> Thank you,
>> councelor Pal. I just have a I just have
a question. I agree with um councelor
Humphrey on option two being made the
motion but I when we're purchasing a new
item like this which I think is great we
need to keep doing that when we are
ordering color
maybe I just think that is there a way
that we can discuss the color in the
policy prior to placing the order to
make sure that this is what emergency
services and does want for color and
that um before we go and purchase that
we have this discussion. I don't know
how that can be done with a motion on
the floor, but I just
>> at this point in time, we do not have an
official motion on the floor. Um,
>> I can provide some clarity to that
comment as well, too.
>> So, just to just to answer there, we do
not I haven't stated the motion.
>> Yep.
>> Oh,
>> yeah. Councelor Humphrey has made the
motion, but the chair has not stated
that motion officially.
>> My apologies.
>> So,
>> yeah, my councelor Humphrey has a
proposed motion, but it has not
officially been placed on the floor. And
that was actually to councelor Powell's
comments was my question was what would
the you know council's consideration of
cost savings uh with potential option
two but as councelor Powell has
mentioned potential costs of having the
apparatus white or red and having a
review of that policy. So is there a
deadline um regarding this agenda item
here today?
>> Uh so uh approving this agenda item
today for us to move forward allows us
to secure that build spot with the
manufacturer. there is a written spec
that today states that it would be uh uh
white in color. What happens when we
then start engaging formally with that
vendor after we either prepaid the 10%
or prepaid the entire amount of the
apparatus is we get into what's called a
pre-build cycle where we get to review
that spec and change whatever we want.
And there's also a final build
inspection that's done at the facility
after that truck has been built. So, we
have this this would start a two-year
process or we have lots of time to
change the color of this truck at no
cost to Clearwater County.
>> Do you have the information? Thank you,
Deputy Chief. Available today. I don't
You may have it. Is there additional
cost on the unit being white or would
there be a cost savings of the unit
being white or red?
>> I I don't have that number in front of
me. I I could attempt to pull up the
spec on here, but the spec that I have
doesn't have the list of the items
priced beside it. I'd have to engage the
vendor in that pre-built process. I I
don't believe there would be a cost
savings to make this specific truck
white from red. Uh the standard white
they use versus a standard red they use
because this truck hasn't been built
yet. Where we run into that case is when
we're buying a fire apparatus that's
already been built and we have to paint
it white or if we were buying some kind
of special white paint. Uh we have paid
more for white apparatus in the past.
This one specific because we're so early
in the process. They've just listed
simply painting the body as as a line
item. That's probably a placeholder
value. So, I wouldn't have that
information in front of me today on if
that would cost us more or less if we
dropped it down to red, but I can say in
the past that it has impacted price for
sure.
>> Thank you again, Deputy Chief CEO
Simpson. Go ahead, please.
>> Political question. Question to council.
>> What does council think the public would
want? The color of the apparatus that is
currently unpainted to be
notwithstanding policy. Red or white?
>> Red.
>> Okay. Looks like red is a majority is
what the community would expect fire
apparatus to be colored red.
>> And yourself, Mr. Ree?
>> Generally, when you see fire and
emergency services equipment, it would
be in general, you would think it would
be red.
>> I have good news for council. You do
have the ability to vary policy at your
discretion, not so much a bylaw. If you
want the apparatus to be painted red,
you can just stipulate that in the
motion today when you approve our option
two and we can send that information to
them and we can bring the policy back
for a discussion or repeal at council's
pleasure.
there's
to have united uh colors amongst a lot
of the fire apparatus is already white.
But I think what council is looking for
is maybe a discussion and see if there
are any cost implications or potential
cost savings in the future uh regarding
the policy. There may not be any cost
savings to be had to go from red to
white or from sorry white to red or
maintaining status quo as per current
policy of white but I think that
information could be brought forward and
I think council would um like to have
further discussion as we're indicating
option two which would be a cost savings
to the municipality of 105,000.
So I think a future discussion on this
current policy of a mandatory white fire
and emergency services apparatus could
be a future discussion for council to
get that information.
Does any council member have any
questions or deputy chief do you have
any comments?
>> Uh I have no comments at this point.
Reeve, I think um I think bringing the
vehicle use policy back to council is an
important step at a future council
meeting. Um, and as the CEO alluded to,
if if council so decides at that point
in time to change that policy, we can
change the color of this truck and it
would not cost us money to do that as
long as we did that sometime in the next
two years.
>> Okay. And uh that information if it was
brought forward and it was identified
that white is the better color and the
better interests of Clearwater County,
then my preferred color may be white at
that point in time. But uh councelor
Lewin, go ahead. I'm all for changing it
to red if we save some money as long as
we don't repaint all the other fire
trucks.
» That would be I assume that would be
expecting that would be part of the
discussion in the future. So, um
we have a proposed motion from councelor
Humphrey. Um
councelor Humphrey, go ahead. So, do we want to add in that we'd like this
truck red or are we going to decide that
at a later date which we have the option
to? I think at this point in time we
don't have I don't have enough
information to decide whether it should
be red or white. But I think a future
discussion and information brought
forward from the administration for
council consideration would be the first
steps to move forward. Okay. But we
should pro probably still get into the
queue.
>> And that was my question sort of for
deputy chief was if there's a time
constraint on this requirement for
>> I can I can speak to that specifically.
There is a time constraint for us to
move forward on this apparatus whether
that's uh figuring out a totally
different option um that would require
us to have a an apparatus that doesn't
align well with our fleet. we either
need to prepay uh in advance or we need
to adjust the current capital funding to
essentially replace this fire apparatus.
uh the the the manufacturer that gave us
a formal proposal did tell us that uh
annually in September uh firet truck
manufacturers re-evaluate market
conditions and considering what took
place over the last few days at the
federal level with trade down south I do
not expect trucks to get any cheaper and
they're doing a price adjustment in two
weeks 3 weeks time from now so this
truck uh and the formal proposal we have
before us today could if we if we wait 3
weeks could could be more money than it
is today.
>> Okay. So, we have a motion from
councelor Humphrey that council direct
administration to proceed with option
two
with the condition that the pricing is
secured from the vendor as presented.
Understood.
Does that capture the motion? Councelor
Humphrey captures it quite well.
>> Okay. Officially have a motion on the
floor from councelor Humphrey.
>> Seeing no further discussion, I'll call
the question. All those in favor
and that motion is supported by councel.
Moving into item 5.2.1.
It is the Kirk Browning Arena Ice Plant
upgrade. It is on page 91 of today's
agenda. Thank you again, Deputy Chief,
for your time.
Mr. Reeve, just uh just a supplementary
question before Director Hansen gets
going here. Did council wish to make a
motion to bring that uh policy back
regarding the color of the fire
apparatus for discussion at a future
council meeting?
>> Absolutely. And I'd be uh pleased to
make that motion myself that uh council
direct administration to bring back the
I'm I'm not sure what the policy number
or name is.
» The vehicle and
>> equipment policy.
>> Vehicle and equipment use policy. Okay.
I move that council direct
administration to bring the vehicle
equipment and use policy
for council consideration and review.
Um seeing no discussion, I'll ask
question. I'll call the question. All
those in favor
and that motion is supported by councel.
Now we can proceed into item 5.2.1. And
we have director Hansen and Miss Reglin
here. So I will pass the floor over to
director Director Hansen to present this
item, please.
Perfect. Good morning, council. Um, so
this ice plant agenda, I kind of had
some maybe uh discussions throughout the
year on the progress as you know,
bringing uh council back to budget 2026.
Um, we presented uh I think there was $2
million in in the 2026 uh budget to
first of all to evaluate the ice plant
um at the Kurt Browning Arena. Um, so
throughout the course of the the spring,
early summer, uh, we procured, we've put
out a, uh, RFP for engineering services.
Uh, we had one response from MCW, um,
uh, consultants. Uh, they've done a
thorough review and provided us a a
62-page uh, feasibility study there on that facility. Uh, we were really
hoping they could uh, come today and
speak to some of the technical aspects
of the report. Unfortunately, they they
send their regrets. they were unable to
attend today. Um so we're happy to go
through the conclusions of the report.
Um as well as um discussing the cost
escalation that we've seen, you know,
based off the budgeted amount and really
looking for uh council's commitment to
continue to move forward. you know,
there's there's um I don't want to be
this the spoiler alert that it's uh you
know, this system really has come to the
end of life uh based on the evaluation
and we need a path forward there with a new system. Um so with that, I'd
like to uh have Kate run through the
agenda item as well as um they have
provided a PowerPoint presentation which
they going to present. Um I think it
still be a benefit for us to present it
on your behalf. Unfortunately, I say
neither of us are mechanical engineers
to speak specifically about some of
those things. But um uh really we just
we're just looking for council support
and then we can and if there's if there
are technical questions that are
required from for council to make their
decision, we can get those answers for
you. So with that, turn over to Kate.
>> Okay. Good morning. Um, so yeah, I'm
just going to go over their PowerPoint
and I have some speaking notes and we
will try our best to kind of answer the
questions and instead of kind of the
agenda item because they do kind of
duplicate a little bit. Um, so starting
on slide two. So the current system
condition. So the condition of the core
equipment like the compressors, pumps,
condens, condenser equipment, piping and
controls are all aging and the plant
requires ongoing maintenance and
operational workarounds to remain
functional. So another item that they
found deficient are the safety and code
related deficiencies. So the previous
assessments identified issues involving
ventilation, gas detection, emergency
system, signage, documentation, and
other machine room requirements.
And then the third point that they found
on the current condition is the system
is deteriorating. So there reported
condenser leaks, corrosion at pumps and
piping, brine and glycol quality issues,
uninsulated piping and concerns with
both the hockey and curling rinks flaps.
Um so then in the very tiny there is a
couple photos and those are from a
condition assessment that we got from
the village of Caroline. It wasn't for
them.
Um so they mentioned that the important
point is that no single deficiency by
itself drives the recommendation. It is
combined with age, deteriorating
components, operational workarounds and
code deficiencies that creates a
potential risk. So the PL plant does
remain operational. Um however they're
not suggesting that it needs to be shut
down immediately. However, there is
costs associated with reliability,
safety and continual operation are
increasing.
Okay. So slide three.
So it's the life cycle risk. Um so we
did ask what happens kind of we did
nothing. Um so there is not a defined
remaining years number. um they don't
know if it'll be one, two, five. Um all
that they can note is that it is beyond
the typical service life and therefore
probable issues of failure, retroactive
maintenance and operational disruption
increases with time. So today the system
is operating but there is deficiencies
um and in the near future there could be
maintenance um increased operator
attention and continued reliance on
existing workarounds.
Okay. And then page
slide four.
So we had them look at the maintenance
only approach. Um and it would buy time.
However, it's not going to extend the
life of the asset. Um so maintenance
does not reset the age of the equipment.
Um
and it does not eliminate the major code
upgrades that would be required for the
actual plant room in the building to be
modernized. It cannot guarantee
continual operation if the major
compressor, condenser, piping system or
other critical components fail. The
existing maintenance agreement is also
important to understand in its context.
that covers inspection and routine
maintenance activities, but significant
items such as compressor overhauls,
major repairs, refrigerant filters,
fluid replacement, and emergency work
are outside of the routine maintenance
scope.
So in other words, the maintenance can
buy time, but it does not create a full
life cycle for this plant. And then they
outline four points, what it can kind of
do and then what it cannot do.
So slide five. So the replacement
options were evaluated.
Um so they evaluated three options for
the refrigeration plant itself and then
two options for the plant room itself
and you would need option one plus
option A or B. Um so the first one
refrigeration option is a low charge
ammonia system with secondary brine.
So this is the high sufficiency strong
heat recovery and natural refrigerant.
So option two CO2 refrigeration with
secondary brine system. So this is low
toxicity cold climate potential and
higher complex and costs. And the third
is HFO refrigerant system. I'm not going
to even try and pronounce what HFO
stands for. However, it is in my agenda
item spelled out. Um, so this is similar
operation lower efficiencies and
regulatory uncertainty.
So each option was assessed against
safety, efficiency, capital costs,
serviceability, life cycle performance,
heat recovery capability, operational
requirements and regulatory
considerations.
Um, and then there was two option for
the plant rooms. So the first one was
rehabilitate the existing room. So it's
feasible but it requires substantial
reconstruction to achieve modern code
compliance. And the second one is the
pre-manufactured plant room which we
have also referred to as the skid
package like a skid unit. It would be
come in as another unit and would be set
outside the existing building.
If we do the pre-manufactured plant
room, we would have to decommission the
equipment within the existing plant room
itself and do some maintenance of the
building. So you need like the piping,
the HVAC, the electrical, all of that
tied in as well.
So then the costs.
So the cost comparison. So the
refrigeration system the estimated cost
for the low charge ammonia option is
approximately 2.8 million. Option two
for the CO2 and brine is approximately 5
3.53 million and the HFO option is
approximately 3.85 million. On top of
those costs, the plant room,
so the renovations or rehabilitation to
the existing plant room would be
approximately 980,000
while the pre-manufactured plant room is
approximately 1.15 million. So the
recommend recommended option combination
is the low charge ammonia plus a
pre-manufactured plant room and it
produces a cost of approximately 3.97
million.
So this is a class 3C estimate. So
detailed design, final equipment
selection, construction phasing,
marketing conditions and tender pricing
would refine this number. These are not
based on it's just based on the cost
estimate at this preliminary stage.
So fingers crossed it's less. However,
um and then the cost does not include
future replacement of the hockey or
curling ring slabs. So it was identified
when we did a walk through with the
current
maintenance staff that there potentially
could be the actual concrete slabs would
need upgrading in the future.
um we haven't done a test to have an
idea. However, it's something that we
will have to consider in capital budget
in the future. Um there is an option we
can go in and test them and it would
give us a better idea whether it's one
year away, 5 years away. Um but that's
not a part of this scope. So if that's
something additional that council would
like us to look into, potentially 27, um
we can come back with that as well.
Okay. So again, so their recommendation
um is a low charge ammonia refrigeration
system with a pre-manufactured plant
room. Um so from a performance
standpoint, ammonia retain remains
highly efficient for arena refrigeration
and performs well across the varying
load conditions created by the hockey
and curling rinks. It is well suited for
to heat recovery that provides
opportunities to recover refrigeration
heat for applications such as slab
heating and snow melt. The low charge
configuration reduces the total ammonia
inventory compared with traditional
ammonia plants while maintaining the
performance benefits of ammonia. The
pre-manufactured plant room is equally
important to the recommendation. It
allows the new refrigeration plant to be
housed in a purpose-built coal compliant
enclosure outside the occupied arena. It
reduces the risk to occupants, provide
better maintenance access, and allows
the refrigeration equipment to be
arranged around water and requirements
rather than forcing new equipment into
an older room.
Um, so overall, the combination provided
the best balance for performance,
safety, constructibility, maintenance,
and long-term value.
So, a couple kind of closing notes. Um,
so again, these are based on preliminary
numbers for 2027 cost. So, we do have
inflation in there. Um, they did a
design contingency as well as a
construction contingency within their
cost estimates. Um and then the detailed
design would confirm get more in depth
for the refrigeration capacity equipment
selection, operator requirements, plant
layout controls, heat recovery,
construction phasing and regulatory
coordination.
They do recommend like I mentioned to
testing the existing slab during the
next available shutdown um just because
it was brought up as a concern. However,
I don't have as much of the background,
which is something we can kind of look
into again in 2027 when there is no ice.
Um,
so that's kind of what we have and we
will try and answer some questions, but
as Eric mentioned, mechanical is not my
background either. And yeah, I'll open
it up to any questions.
Mr. Reglin, I'll open the floor up to
council for comments, questions, or
motion. Council Lewin, go ahead, please.
>> Um, what are the life expecties of these
three different machines?
» Like is one five years and the more
expensive one 25 years type thing or
>> my understanding and I can do further
research, they would have approximately
the same life expectancy and I'm
thinking it's 40 to 50 years.
>> 40 to 50 years. Okay.
And uh regardless of which machine we
pick um there has to be new piping and
renovations in there anyway, doesn't it?
>> Correct. For any upgrade. Yes.
>> Yeah.
Okay. Thank you.
» Deputy Reef McKay. Go ahead.
>> Thank you.
Oh.
Um,
I was looking through the high level
cost estimate and now I can't find it
for some reason. I was looking through
this last night
and it it seemed to me that this
estimate was significantly more than
Propax. Now, I realized with Propax, it
didn't include controls, electrical,
things like that. But when you broke all
of that out, this estimate was still
well over a million dollars more than
Propacks. Now, did we go back to Propac
as well or just this uh M
CW?
>> Director Hansen, go ahead.
>> Yeah. No, thank you. Um, so we didn't
think it was appropriate to go back to Propac um just because, you know,
they've been asked for a price, they
submitted that. Uh we provided that
information to our consultants um and
they provide us a list of um of the
exclusions that they claim that were not included in the original
estimate. Um even when I look at their
list, I I I agree. Um I said I do have
some concerns about their estimate. Uh
we I I did kind of brief council on this
before about the use of cost consultants
and it seems to be the um the cost
escalation that that that includes. Um
really I guess the only thing the
assurance I can give council today is
that is to not focus so much on the
price as in that yes we we do realize
that it's going to be more than the $2
million you know and that's that's what
we've set forward in budget. Um this
consultant is has indicated upwards of
3.9. I still believe you know with the
contingency amounts and the and the um
the type of work that they've identified
as the things that weren't included
still do not equate to an additional $2
million. Um so I I project that we are
going to see some cost savings through
the detailed design process and that
detailed design process may include this
engineer. It may include a design build
um um relation with one of the standing
offers that we have with with RMA. This
was really for more of the case of the
um the condition assessment and that's
really what they they were brought in to
do and they were they were brought in to
provide the the cost estimate as well.
Um now if they truly believe that that
is is the cost you know and this in
their industry professional opinion then
we have to take that and we challenge
them on that as well. Um our decision
moving forward would be to take that
recommendation and whether we we
continue on that path using the as our
engineer on record to continue to assist
us with this program or we decide to go
with a uh a different approach. Uh but I
still think it's important that you know
there it was identified as a concern
early on that there was a list of
exclusions that weren't improve that
weren't included in the original
estimate. So, we do know that's going to
be more than $2 million, but our path
moving forward into detailed design,
there's still some options on the table
to get a better handle of to try to see
some more cost savings outside of this
engineering report.
» Thank you.
Uh secondly, just with regards to the
placement of
the new building,
are we going to be able to get by that
structure in behind there or is it going
to completely block off that access?
>> Yeah, great catch. It was uh we we
noticed that as well. They actually had
it on the exterior of the most the
farthest jut out there there is to the
west. Um there are other there looks
like there's other opportunities to be
able to to bring that unit around. Um so
um there again through a a preliminary
engineering sketch that they provided.
That's certainly where we wouldn't want
it. We'd want it to be um tucked around
the corner. So to try to
>> minimize any impact as that is a narrow
alleyway as it is today. We wouldn't
want to impact that any more than we'd
have to.
>> Okay. You're already on it. Thank you.
>> Councelor McCauley. Go ahead.
>> Does the I'm just I was reading through
this and it was the employee or the the
requirements were mentioning that they
possibly having someone that would be
certified with those plants or like a
power mechanic. Does the does the
current facility have that same
requirement
>> for the ice plant operator? Mhm.
>> Actually, I have I'm not sure from an
operation standpoint what those
requirements are for a ice plant
operator. It's something that hasn't
fell in our wheelhouse before as an
operator.
>> I was just I was reading through what
was what it had in here and I was just
curious if the current facility they
have are they required to have the same
sort of require or power mechanic that's
certified with the ammon plants.
>> I'm I'm sure there's some type of
certification there. you wouldn't want
anybody to be operating a system like
this. There's some there's some high
danger components um in an ice plant
that has could have some serious
ramifications. So, I'm assuming some
type of certification. I believe that is
contracted out. The the ice making is is
used by a contractor from the egg
services egg sorry egg services.
>> Just I was just curious for you. That's
all. Thank you.
>> You bet. Nice.
So there again, I'm really um just
looking for council support to to keep
moving forward with this project. I want
to make you well aware. Again, um um I
apologize for not having the um the
consultants, engineers. I was hoping to
get them in front of you. I really was.
Um but uh so we just wanted to we you've
been waiting for this report for a long
time. Um it's come to a critical point
there in the relationship, I think, in
with Caroline, and we didn't want to
wait any longer. Um we will be
discussing this again during the
September 21st strategic planning
meeting there as we're doing our
priority um list you know where this
falls on the priorities scale um from a
condition perspective it's very high
from from our recommendation. So uh we
just want to be prepared. We've
identified you know that um throughout
the year we've put some additional
funding in the Caroline restricted
surplus to try to deal with some of this
aging infrastructure. So, uh, we really
look forward to having, uh, more
discussion at at the future strategic
plan session. Um, but there was a
recommendation.
Um,
maybe Kate, do you want to walk through
the
» can do that?
So the options to consider is continue
with ongoing maintenance of the existing
plant or upgrade the refrigeration
system and plant room to a low charge
ammonia and brine system with
pre-manufactured plant. As we mentioned
as a condition public works we do feel
it's high on the priority list. However,
we will go over kind of the Caroline
restricted surplus and wherever it falls
within council's priorities. Um so our
recommendation is to proceed with the
upgrade to the existing plant with the
low charge ammonia and brine system with
pre-manufactured plant.
>> Thank you Mr. Ren. Um councelor Powell.
Go ahead.
>> I was just going to make the motion um
to upgrade the existing plant with the
low charge ammonia and brine system with
a pre-manufacture plant um as staff
recommendations.
>> Okay. Thank you for the motion.
Councelor Pal. I do have one question
for administration. Will there be any uh
earthworks required or ashvault or
paving that would be needed with the
installation of a potential new
pre-manufactured plant?
>> There will be minor site works just
where the building is going itself.
However, it is a flat area. So, we don't
see it as high cost and not ashvault as
far as I'm aware.
>> Okay. Yeah. With the current surface is
ashvault at this time. I just wasn't
sure if any of that was going to be
disturbed or if that was if anything was
going to be
>> It is going in the back where it's
gravel right now.
>> There's paper.
>> It's paid back there on the alley. Oh,
sorry. My apologies.
>> I drive back there quite a bit.
>> Okay. I have not been for a few months.
>> That's okay. Uh, Director Hansen.
>> Yeah. So, I um unbeknown to me, I
actually thought it would be um the skid
unit would actually be like a drop off
skid unit. Um likely it would be on a
pile system and you know, which makes
sense. you don't you don't want it to to
go anywhere, right? So, uh so likely um
you know a a pile system for the uh the
revision unit as well as the um there
was the other component as well that's
sitting up on the stand and I it's the name is uh
the fluid cooler I believe. So there
might be actually two components
actually need additional piles um
depending on what could be salvageable
from the existing one. Um but there are
like likely two components there which
is I say a a piling system there for a
foundation and then the piping into the
building. Um there is there's going to
be some risk with the um decommissioning
of the old system because you know as we
do a hazardous materials inspection. Um
you never know what you're going to come
across on a building of that age. Um but
hopefully it's not that that old that
there should be that much risk. But um
vermiculite, you know, um lead paint,
the typical, but I don't think there's
there we're going to stay away from the
a word. I don't know that there'll be a
lot of that.
>> Okay. No, thank you very much, Director
Hansen. I just wanted to see if I just
wanted to double check with the
potential just shy of $4 million
manufacturer plant that if there was any
considerable earthworks that may be
needed, but uh it's not sounding like
that will be a thing that may come arise
in the future. Having said that,
councelor Lewin, go ahead.
>> Yeah. Um,
Eric, he said it be going on piles
this plant. Yes. Okay. Has anybody done
a line locate to see what kind of lines
are running back there? If we impressed
with the area space.
>> Um, not yet. So, this this is being as
it's just a preliminary design phase.
You know, once we have that support, um,
absolutely we'll be doing location uh
locates. our operations team would
wouldn't appreciate us if we put a a
pile through one of their
>> They're saying if it's covered with
lines buried underneath there, it's
going to be hard to set it up there.
>> No, absolutely. And um you know, there's
there could be other options, you know,
even like a a uh a shallow uh concrete
pad if if for some reason that we
weren't able to get piles in the ground,
you know, and then do a cost comparison
for the other or one to the other.
>> Thank you.
>> You bet.
>> Deputy Brief McKay, go ahead.
>> Thanks. One thing we didn't really talk
about is the amount of downtime.
It was there any study involved with
that where, you know, we have to shut in
the old plant, do our piping tie-ins. Is
that a week, a month?
What are we talking for
delay there?
>> Yeah. And we're hoping that there would
be no interruption in any of the
programs for ice. So we would be, you
know, if we're as we we're just coming
into hockey season right now, if we get
the detailed design completed, procure
the equipment so that we have it here on
site and even if the um the idea would
be that the plant can still be
operational while we're especially if
we're going to use a um a skid unit,
which is a fully contained unit that so
the changeover should be um quick. you
know, everything all every all the
mechanical electric should be in place
and be nothing more than than switching
over the the parent piping out of the
building. So, we're we're hoping for
zero disruption to programming.
>> Okay, because that plant is shut down
typically June and July
» May, June, summer's
>> May, June. So again, it's not going to
guarantee there will be no delays or no
it's it's not a I've never done ice
plant before but you know as we set out
what our goals are and that's that's why
we are recommending to go with the with
the skid unit is that it should be just
you know a changeover and it should be
short.
>> Okay, sounds like there's been
considerations taken. Thank you. Okay.
So, we have a motion uh from councelor
Powell that council direct
administration to upgrade the
refrigeration system and plant room to a
low charge ammonia NH3 and Brian system
with a pre-manufactured plant. That is
official motion on the floor from
councelor Powell. Seeing no further
discussion call the question. All those
in favor
and that motion is supported unanimously
by council. At this time I'm just going
to call a short fivem minute break.
Welcome back after our short break here
um to the regular council meeting for
Clearwater County August 25th, 2026.
We're going to move into uh items under
new business, which is we had an
addition this morning under item 5.3
regarding the Coupney Plains Ecological
Reserve.
I'd like to open up the floor for
discussion.
on this item. If not, I do have a
proposed motions for council's
consideration
and I'll I'll proceed to make a motion
as I'm seeing no counselors are
have any indication of speaking at this
time. So, I move that uh council direct
administration to draft a letter
requesting an impact assessment
regarding and impact assessment and
clarification from the Ministry of
Forestry and Parks regarding the
disestablishment of the Coupney Plains
Ecological Reserve and the transitioning
of those lands to a provincial park.
Were
you able to capture that motion, Miss
Thompson?
>> Okay.
Move that council direct administration
to draft a letter
requesting an impact assessment
and clarification
from the Ministry of Forestry and Parks
regarding the disestablishment
of the Coupney Plains Ecological Reserve
and the transitioning of those lands to
a provincial park.
Okay, Miss Thompson has that motion
captured. Are there any discussions on
the on the motion on the floor? Deputy
Ree McKay, go ahead, please. Thanks.
Would it be possible to uh add to that
letter
some clarification regard and I'm just
going to refer to the public notice that
was provided in the mountaineer
newspaper
and they state that some of the current
uses in Cney Plains Ecological Reserve
are incompatible with the site's current
classification. So within that letter,
could we also request some clarification
as to what exactly those uses are?
and what exactly the future intended
uses would be.
» So that could be captured within the
clarification the the impact assessment
and clarification section but uh we
could expand potentially on that motion.
Miss Thompson.
» Okay. Motion is captured.
Is there any further discussion on this
item? Seeing none, I'll call the
question. All those in favor?
And that motion is supported unanimously
by council.
At this time, we're going to take a
recess till first. We'll return at
12:35.
Hey, we're good. Okay, welcome back from
our recess and welcome back to the
Clearwater County Regular Council
meeting for August 25th, 2026.
Uh, moving into item six of today's
agenda, we have reports.
Are there any items of discussion
on the section of reports? And maybe at
this point in time, I'll ask CEO Simpson
to go ahead and provide your CAO report.
>> Certainly. Thank you, your worship. Um
so for council uh make note of the fact
that on the 5th and 6th Nord will be
celebrating their annual Nord Days event
and there will be a market a show and
shine and hopefully lots of
participation from the community and
maybe folks from the surrounding area.
Concurrent with that, there will be some
road closures. Uh Lily A, Center Street,
Cherry a and an adjacent road will be
closed um for about an hour from 8 to
9ine during those days, but there's
still going to be access along Elizabeth
Avenue. So, all county owned parking
lots within Nordic will be uh delegated
to this event. So, if folks want to come
and park, they can use one of our one of
our spaces. Uh to council specifically,
uh we will be hosting the next uh
district 2, that's the central rural
municipalities of Alberta fall meeting.
Uh we are expecting between 80 to 100
delegates on the 2nd of October and
councilors from the central region are
going to be invited to our community to
review resolutions put forward and to
discuss municipal concerns affecting the
central rural region. So, I had made
note that Mountain View County would be
looking for a seconder on a resolution
of theirs uh that they're going to put
back to the province and uh by consensus
by email. Uh council had agreed to
second that motion. So, just be ready
when that one comes up to stand in
support of your colleagues from Mountain
View County. Uh RMA is happening
November 2nd to 5th and the um the
conventions which happen twice a year
will be at the Edmonton Convention
Center. uh resolutions that are crucial
to RMA's advocacy efforts will be put on
the table and they'll be looking for
direction to RMA from the members to
endorse specific positions or calls to
action. The resolution is directed to
the provincial or federal government
depending on the content and once those
resolutions are endorsed at the RMA
level, they remain active and they
influence the advocacy agenda of RMA for
the next three years. Uh so the deadline
to put forth a resolution will be
January of next year. If council has
advocacy priorities, a draft resolution
should be put forth to council in the
next couple of months and then presented
to the district 2 CRMA for endorsement
and then onto the spring of 2027 RMA.
And just a personal note, I've been
settling into the community with my kids
and my dog and I've been enjoying the
recreational amenities of the area, uh
including some marginal success trying
fishing at Cow Lake. Finally got one. It
was a jack, not a trout, unfortunately,
but we'll get out into deeper water, I'm
sure, and get better eating from there.
Uh, the community continues to deliver
on its promise of being vibrant,
welcoming, uh, and a great place to live
and work. So, of note, I've also noticed
there's some pretty good forge crops
going in the fields. I wouldn't be
surprised to see a second cut coming
through in the fall.
>> Excellent. Thank you for your report,
CEO Simpson. Are there any questions for
CEO Simpson from council?
Seeing none. Um, moving on to item 6.2,
we have the broadband project update for
August 2026.
Sure.
>> Janet, there's some indication of some
members of council wishing to speak.
Deputy brief, do you have questions,
comments?
>> Were you going to present the the item?
>> It looks like it. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead,
CEO Simpson. So, I'll present the item.
And I'm first I'd ask has everyone had
time to uh review the report itself?
Okay. I imagine there will be questions.
So what I'll do is I'll just run through
the material in the report and then I
will take those questions down and get
you some proper replies uh after the
council meeting as soon as the
information comes in. Um in general as
far as website updates go, uh the open
access network is uh still a pretty
popular piece of content on our county
website. We're up to 405 views from 240
visitors. Uh the telecom providers page
also is up to 303 views from 159
visitors and those two pages are about
80% of the traffic on the broadband page
in general. So folks are starting to
look at who they're going to get their
services from. Um, we're growing in
interest in the telecom providers, uh,
rising from 51 to 72 visits between the
first and second halves of July. And
traffic to the open access overview
page, we're sort of saying it's just
holding steady with those numbers. Um,
the residents are spending most of their
time on the broadband project funding
page, averaging about a minute and 53
seconds per visit, which is the longest
of any of the broadband pages we have on
the site. This suggests that visitors
are reading the page rather than passing
through it. Total site users has
continued to grow for the last three
months from 750 in May to 830 in June
and 915 in July. So it's an increase of
about 10% for each period. And page
views rose about 20% in July from 2900
to about uh uh 2900 sorry from 2400 and
change. Uh and the engagement rate is
improving about 40% from 39 to about 47%
of residents spending more time
reviewing service and project
information pages. The service select
pages rose from 42% and the uh the
project status views rose sorry they
rose 41 42% and project status views
rose about 34 a.5% indicating residents
are actively researching service
availability and construction timing in
their area. Paid social traffic went
down about 12% in July, which kind of
reflects the posting volume during the
summer months as we prepare for the
summer launch or the September launch
period, sorry.
Um, as far as Facebook or Meta
advertising goes, our August ads
continue to promote our internet service
providers. So during the first two weeks
of August, the focus was on Bear Bears
Paw's new website, which is dedicated to
Clearwater County's broadband packages
and prices. And these last two weeks in
August have been focusing on Mage
Network's dedicated web page. We're also
running a series of did you know posts
which uh will be launched weekly in
Clearwater County on our Facebook page.
And the intention of these posts is to
educate the residents and businesses on
a number of different aspects of the
program and answer some of the most
asked questions we hear in the
community. We're also going to be doing
some advertisements in the three local
papers. That's the Western Star, the
Mountaineer, and the Albertan to support
the internet service providers currently
in the market. And this is in response
to many residents asking for internet
service provider information so they can
begin shopping ahead of the network
launch. We're going to be launching an
early connection program which starts
today, the week of August 24th. And uh
the small number of residents targeted
in this uh program are going to connect
to the Clearwater County broadband
network and provide feedback for us,
helping prepare for the larger launch in
select areas of the county during the
week of September 21st. These dates
depend on the network being fully ready
and functional. So that includes
software and hardware testing. Um making
sure the area cabinets are fully
commissioned and fiber connected to the
property line uh from the property line
to the residents as well as the inhome
equipment installs. As we're rolling out
to larger area internet service
providers, uh their onboard packages and
pricing will be onto the marketplace
website and residents will be able to
sign up with their internet service
providers and get connected. residents
uh in areas coming online first will
receive one of two communication
materials. If they've not yet signed up
for Fiber Connect, they'll receive a
mailed communication in September
encouraging them to sign up for the
Fiber Connect program and choose an
internet service provider as soon as
possible. And for those residents who
have signed up for Fiber Connect, they
will be sent an automated email
informing them that they can begin
shopping for an internet service
provider and the marketplace website
will be ready with all of those ISP
packages and pricing.
As far as community engagement goes,
they uh there's been a presence at the
market on Maine in Rocky Mountain House.
And so the Clearwater County Broadband
booth continues to have presence at the
Thursday evening market in Rocky where
residents can stop by and ask questions
or sign up for Fiberconnect. This ends I
believe it would be Thursday the 27th.
That' be the last market.
So, of the Fiber Connect sales, uh, as
of August 11th, we've contacted 1736
residents. We have signed up 1,051 of
those. And the installation schedule,
which runs from August to October, we'll
see installations happening in Crimson
South, Farrier Acres North in August.
Uh, Nord Outer, Highway 752 in Cow Lake
to Range Road 384, Highway 752 to Range
Road 80, uh, Hidden Valley, Highway 752
to the West RV ATV park and Straen east
and northwest in September, and then in
October, Cheddarville, Congress,
Doverkart Hall, uh, installations along
Township 384 and 385, Range Road 84, and
the Classen Oilfield Cal Cowboy Trail
areas.
So, uh, of the internet service
providers themselves, Mage Networks now
has a full page dedicated to Clearwater
County broadband on their website and
all internet service, uh, providers will
be posted to our telecom page, which you
can access at
clearwatercount.ca/teleom-providers.
So, that would be Mage Networks, Bears
Paw Networks, and Aerotechnology all
have web pages dedicated to our
broadband. So, a lot of points of
interface for people to come in, pick an
ISP, and get connected.
With respect to construction, uh there's
a total number of homes that could get
fiber internet. That's 4,399.
We've passed 173 of them. And again,
we've uh received connection orders for
1,51 of those.
I'll show you the maps here. Um Ro
updates have built about 460 kilometers
of fiber to date. Um, let's see. Cable
construction, we've got 37% of the way
there, 606 km of the 1659 that are
planned. And civil construction, just
under 700 km of the 1389 planned. And
then with respect to Canadian Western
infrastructure, um, they've built about
150 km to date of their project.
Canadian fiber optics updates. They've
got 88 kilometers built to date um in
areas from Township 395, Northland Drive
to Range Road 65 and Township 400 and
Range Road 65, 64, 63 to uh along
Township 401A and Highway 598, Range
Road 63 to the Codner. So that's sort of
planned. Um more is taking place between
September and December of this year.
There's a couple site photos there for
you to look at.
of conduit being installed
and of course the reporting requirements
that come with having these grants from
the government. Uh we're working closely
with Innovation, Science, and Economic
Development Canada or ISIED, uh the
government of Alberta on reporting
requirements for the universal broadband
fund grant projects, which includes
monthly progress meetings with ISED and
the GOA, uh quarterly forecasting
updates for the GOA, quarterly community
progress reports to both entities,
milestone deliverables and claims and
reimbursements, a yearly forecast, and
of course, project change forms as
required. ired.
So that would take me to the end of the
content of the report. I would be glad
to receive your questions and then get
you the information that you're looking
for.
>> Counselor or Deputy Reef McKay, go
ahead.
>> Thank you. Um, I do have a uh resident
concern that I would like to bring
forward and that is that AFL
when they're contacting residents and uh
making sales calls led many residents to
believe that the system would be online
at the end of June and then it was the
end of July
and then it was the end of August and
now it's hopefully the middle of
September.
So, as the the owners of this network, I
think we need to
follow up and put a little more pressure
on um Arcadia and
AFL because it it seems like
they're quickly uh causing a lot of
frustration within the community and
that is going to cause a lot of uh a lot
of people not to sign
and it's going to create a system that
really uh doesn't have a business case
if there isn't enough customers. So,
>> okay. So, noted. Thank you, Deputy Ree.
>> And secondly, I do have a question to
administration regarding timing.
Many of these grants have a uh they have
deadline of I believe it's the end of
March 2027.
Are we we going to make it?
>> Um,
>> and if not, have we contacted the
appropriate people to say, "Hey, due to
weather, due to unforeseen
circumstances, due to anything we can
think of,
>> yeah, literally, there's a chance we may
not have this 100% completed by March
27th
because if we were to lose those grants
and this county became liable for 100%
of the installation.
Um, I don't think anybody in this
building would have a job anymore.
>> I appreciate the sentiment. Uh, I can
tell you that I have a meeting with
Arcadus at the uh, I guess 10:00 Monday
morning next week. And with that, there
will be also a presence from marketing
and I'll have my IT department there. I
will press upon them that it is
important to hit the deadlines for
reporting requirements, construction
requirements, and I will also ask about
any possibilities through the Ministry
of Extension. If there's going to be
delays, I will bring that information
back to you in a future report if that's
fair.
>> No, absolutely. We have a broadband
meeting upcoming. That's why I asked
these questions today.
>> No problem.
>> I believe it's mid mid October is the
next actual broad
>> Yeah, the 14th of October. There will be
a broadband committee meeting at that
time. Thank you.
>> Are there any other
comments or questions from council
members regarding the broadband project
update report?
Seeing none, is there any discussion on
the item 6.3 capital project status
update report?
I would uh I'll just comment briefly on
one item here. There's the Caroline
North Road uh 2026 ashvault overlay. I
would just like to uh thank staff for
uh I had local businesses that had
concerns with the construction
activities there that was uh briefly
interrupting their uh customers to have
access to their stores. However,
administration did rectify that very
quickly. So, thank you to staff and
director Hansen for that. Uh, so the
Caroline feed store north of Caroline
are still open and available to service
the community and along with the
Caroline golf course still open for the
community to be able to access those two
businesses along the Caroline North Road
while the ashvault overlay project is
underway.
Are there any other comments or any
questions on capital project status
update report? Seeing none. Clearwater
regional emergency services report.
Comments, questions?
Economic developer officer report. Any
comments, questions?
Financial report. These are all reports
for council's information and the
community.
Rocky Mountain House airport report.
It was nice to see that that project is
underway and the new airport terminal is
being installed and constructed.
Rocky RCMP report. Any comments,
questions?
Councelor remuneration.
And lastly, item 6.10 10 verbal
counselor reports.
We'll start with councelor Powell from
Ward One.
>> Thank you, Rafe. Um
on the 19th, I did attend the MPC. Uh we
did a morning of tours, there's
subdivision applications, temporary
business development permit, short-term
rentals. Uh there was a lot of great
discussion in MPC and I do look forward
to hopefully the rest of council um
being able to have a discussion on the
development um of Nordic and its future.
And then one other thing that I did get
to attend um on my own was I did get to
go to the chuck wagons and it was
absolutely fantastic. The stands were
packed and it was yeah it was it was
fun. I enjoyed it. So that is all.
>> Thank you councelor Pow. Are there any
questions or comments for councelor
Pal's report? Seeing none, councelor
Lewin, go ahead.
>> Yeah, August has been a fairly quiet
month, but I attended the Westville
antique days on August 2nd and um got a
chance to visit with a lot of
constituents in the area there. A lot of
faces I haven't seen for a long time. It
was really good, very positive. uh
attended the tornado recovery info at
the hub and um again um big thank you to
all the volunteers and everybody working
there and it was uh the citizens were
there to find out what procedures are
going to happen and how things are going
to happen. So um all the people that are
pitching in and helping and still out
there going hard. Um thank you very
much. That's awesome. and um wastewater
treatment tour uh for Leville. We
attended that yesterday and that was
very informative uh very educational and
uh I learned a lot because I was well
aware of a lot of it and that's pretty
much it. Thank you.
>> Thank you councelor Lean. Are there any
questions or comments for councelor Lean
on his report? Seeing none, deputy reef
mccay, go ahead.
>> Thanks Ree. uh August. So far, I've been
fortunate enough to uh
enjoy some of what Clearwater County has
to offer. Rather than uh attending a lot
of council, um on the long weekend, I
was able to uh family and I and many
others, we went out camping to
Hummingbird Falls area. And the reason I
bring that up is last year at this time,
we had lost the road into that area.
There was significant rainfall and there
was a single culvert in a switchback
that caused the road to be swept and it was bit of an ordeal. Took a few days
to get folks out of there. What I
noticed this year is that road is in I'm
going to say very very good condition
and public works operations has gone and
installed three culverts in that corner
to eliminate I think any possibility of
that road washing out in the future. So,
I just wanted to give credit where
credit is due there. They did an
excellent job on that.
Uh, secondly, I was also able to attend
the Chuck Wagons. Again, excellent event
put on by the uh truck wagon
association. It's great for the county,
for the town, the entire community. On
the 18th, we had an SDAB hearing. It uh
was the first I've attended and I had to
chair it. So, that was interesting.
But yeah, we have a good group of
volunteers on that board and I think it
went quite well.
And lastly, yesterday we had the
opportunity to tour the Lesleyville
Lagoon and uh water treatment facility
and I think this group learned a lot
from that and that was much appreciated.
That's all I have.
>> Any questions? Uh, councelor Surmac, go
ahead.
>> Yeah.
on your meeting that you um
councelor McKay, you were the chair of
the
I think Lu V.
>> Yeah,
>> it's a division of the board.
>> I heard some very good reports on that.
Um
you need to have a a nettle or a bone in
your
a flower in your cap.
Everybody was very appreciative of how
you handled that meeting.
>> Oh, that's good. I appreciate the
feedback.
>> So, um, you can take that very the the
people that I talked to were
pres were very pleased with how you
handled yourself and that meeting and
how well it went.
>> Thank you very much. So,
it's a great uh we need more of that uh counselors actually get praised
once in a while and so I didn't want
this to go unnoticed.
So, I certainly appreciate you stepping
forward and doing it.
>> Thank you, sir.
>> Thank you. Excellent. Thank you,
Councelor Macker. Are there any other
questions for Deputy Reef McKay? Seeing
none, councelor McCauley, go ahead.
>> Um, probably like everyone else, August
was a pretty light council month. Um,
the Lesleyville wastewater treatment
plant was really neat. Um, mostly
because I've toured more than one and
for the first time I seen one where
there was no chemicals, there was
nothing. It was all natural. And I think
that's something that everyone in this
county should know that that facility
has won awards apparently and is is um
yeah it's it's like it's green. It's a
green facility. It's really neat how it
works. I just wish we were there under
better circumstances. I think um with
everything else I just um I've been
working in Nordic for the last month.
So, we've uh been meeting everyone
there, shaking their hands, saying hi.
It's been uh definitely an experience. I
don't think anyone in Nordics had
someone there to greet or access for a
while. So, it's been uh definitely
something to uh something to see to see
the issues that you know you hear about
but don't always some of the issues that
they're they're out there. there's how
it's uh the construction on the highway
has sort of slowed things down a bit.
Your trip gets longer, stuff like that.
Um and after everything um with in with
staff with what I had to deal with
getting through uh my business open, I
just wanted to tell everyone we
appreciated everything uh for that. So,
thank you. And uh that's all my report
is.
>> Okay. Thank you, councelor McCully. Are
there any questions for councelor
McCully on his counselor report? Seeing
none. Councelor Serach, the floor is
yours.
>> Um, had a very quiet two weeks. Was
really nice to have some time off. Got
all my farming and done. Was great to
have the the two weeks off. Did some
camping out in the West Country. Um, did
lots. I also had a library regulation
Zoom session one night that was on the
20th with a new library act that's
coming in with the visual sex acts that
can't be in the library. Um they can be
there. They have to be kept separated.
People 15 years and under can't be
exposed to it. They if they need to they
have to have a p a parent agreement
signed that they can actually take these
books and take a look at it was very
informative that um and there's two
people and
this whole library act and regulation
come down to that um
the people that are looking after the
library acts and stuff can actually come
in and do inspections on libraries if
we're conforming to the new regulations.
And the two people that were doing the
putting on the Zoom,
an an Ethan and a Carrie, they both said
that that would be the last resort would
be that they would come in and do an
inspection
on on what's happening in your library.
And if any library does not really
understand what the new regulations are,
they can get a hold of the library act
or the library people in in um Edmonton
and Ethan or Carrie will help you
through any
anything that you need help with on this
new library act. It's there's a lot of
people upset about it, but I think in
the long run it'll be a good thing
that's happening with the libraries that
everybody will know what can be
displayed and what can't be.
So, and then I went to the sewer uh the
last sewer um tour that we had
yesterday.
I was very impressed with how pure the
water comes out of that uh new lagoon
system. Well, it's not a lagoon system.
I guess it's a willow
type
area and it's like councelor McAulay
said we've got national awards for how
great of a system that Clearwater has in
this area and we should be very proud of
it. We've got a few hiccups we got to
get over, but I think they're not
insurmountable. And I think u our
administration and engineers can get
over the problems that we're having and
it'll be a number one facility for us in
this area.
That's it. Thank you, Council Ser. Any
comments or questions for Councilor
Surmac's report?
Seeing none, Councelor Humphrey, the
floor is yours.
Great. Um,
it's been a great month so far. Wish
every month
had this many meetings in it.
Fewer than normal. Uh, yeah, the
treatment of the or the tour of the
wastewater treatment facility was uh
very informative.
I think something worth noting that uh
how how well the water's treated out of
there. There's two of the of the ponds.
There's three ponds at the Lville site
and two of them are
uh I guess not fresh water, but it's
clean water that can be used for
irrigation. It's that clear. It meets
all the standards. You might not want to
take a cup there for a drink, but it's
that close, right? So, it I just thought
it was worth mentioning for uh everybody
who is listening that yeah, there's only the one pond that's there is actual
uh the the sewer lagoon water that that
type of of uh of a holding pond. The
other two are after it's been treated
and it comes through and it is so clear
and and clean coming out there. It's uh
and no smell like you're normally used
to. So yeah, was pretty impressive. Uh
that's pretty much it.
Thank you, Councelor Humphrey. Are there
any questions for councelor Humphrey on
his report?
Seeing none, I'll uh I attended many of
the same events whether it's the
municipal planning commission, the tour,
the wastewater facility at Lesleyville.
Um however, I did attend a meeting with
the RCMP with CEO Simpson and a couple
of discussion topics that we had with
the RCMP was the uh potential homeless
claim and uh displaced people that were
potentially around the uh central waste
facility. However, that claim was
verified by the RCMP that there were no
um actually no homeless people or
encampments around that central waste
facility. Also brought up the question
about the police requisition
formula and how that comes to but that
is dictated by the provincial
government. So uh over the next few
years when we see the RCMP requisition
from you know roughly 1.4 4 million
going up to nearly 3 million over the
next few years. That is uh that formula
is dictated and created by the province,
not the RCMP.
I also had uh concerns. I had a resident
ask me about the speed limits. We have
three roads that create confusion uh
with speed limits. One would be the
Angle Road, the Caroline North Road, and
then the Arbutus Road. They all have uh
different speed limits and uh Deputy
Reev, you and I share a ward word
boundary there, but uh the angle road is
80 km an hour,
Caroline North is 90, Barbutus is 100.
So I've had residents uh have concerns
with three different speed limits. So
having said that,
I'd like to move that council direct
administration to bring back information
regarding the speed limits and options
for speed limit adjustments on the angle
road.
Yes.
So, I do have a motion on the floor. I'd
like to open the floor up for discussion
on that.
Deputy Reef, go ahead.
>> Thank you, Ree. And could we also add to
that the Orus
North
and Beaver Flats
between 12 and 760?
No, 598. Sorry.
>> I'd be open to that amendment.
» Just other examples of where the speed
limit differs significantly from other
areas. Thank you.
>> Are there any other suggestions or
potential amendments to the motion on
the floor? Councelor Powell.
>> Just not sure if it would be an
amendment or maybe it would be
discussion when that is brought forward,
but some of the subdivisions are posted
at 30 and some of them are at 50. How do
we make them all at 30 or we've got
differing um speeds in in some of the
subdivisions as well?
>> Okay. So, this uh
>> I don't I'm not sure. But
>> so there's there this will uh
potentially if the motion is supported
by council could uh have further
discussion at a regular council meeting
regarding speed limits on some of the
municipal highways.
See no further discussion of the motion
that is on the floor. Call the question.
All those in favor
and that motion is supported by councel.
Um
other than that, yeah, I did uh was able
to enjoy a little bit of time uh have a
little bit of a summer break for August.
Are there any questions from any council
members for myself? Deputy Ree, go
ahead.
>> Thanks Ree. Just regarding your
conversation with the RCMP when you had
asked them if there was no encampments
near our central waste facility,
was there encampments elsewhere that we
should be aware of?
>> They didn't identify any that they said
there was none there.
>> Okay.
>> Uh so that was clarified. Um but they
didn't identify any new ones that they
were aware of that were anywhere within
mun clearwater counties municipality.
So, as indicated by the housing
association, that may that information
may have been correct that was presented
to this council.
>> That's right. And CEO Simpson and I
through discussion with the RCMP, that's
why we'd asked that question. But, um,
CEO Simpson, please go ahead.
>> Uh, very quickly to the deputy reev. Um,
there was, if you recall, some
conversation that some sections of land
near the municipal airport may have
encampments on them. Um, Staff Sergeant
Leic did dispatch a unit to investigate
that and determine there were no
encampments located on the Crownland
parcels near our airport. So, haven't
found any yet.
>> Thank you. I believe there was some
concern
out of town sort of along the river. Has
that been
looked into as of yet?
>> Is didn't specifically ask them to look
in along the river. Um, if you give me
the general description, just because
I'm new here, uh, where along the river
coming east or west of Rocky, I'm happy
to relay that to the RCMP and ask.
>> I think that was just how it was
presented to this council.
>> Yeah.
>> From the uh,
the housing association, but that that's
fine if there's been none found. That's
all I need for now. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Are there any other
questions from council members for
myself?
Seeing none, I'd be looking for a motion
to accept
item number six in today's agenda,
reports as information. Councelor
Humphrey, you'd like to make that
motion?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Councelor Humphrey makes a motion
that council accept item six under
reports for information.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call the
question. All those in favor? And that
motion is passed.
We've been moving into correspondence
item number seven on today's agenda. Is
there any discussion on either one of
these letters? Letter from Minister Dan
Williams to Reeves of Clearwater County
and Red Deer County regarding Bill 28
concerns. And the second letter is for
the from Clearwater County in support of
the Caroline School enhancement
committee project.
I'm looking forward to RMA to have
further discussions with Minister Dan
Williams regarding Bill 28. But uh
having said that, are there any other
comments or questions from council on
either of these items for
correspondence? If not, we'd be looking
for a motion to accept correspondence as
information. Deputy Ree, go ahead.
>> I'll make that motion to accept
correspondence as information.
>> We have a motion on the floor from
Deputy Rek that council accept
correspondence as information.
Seeing no further discussion, I'll call
the question. All those in favor? Motion
is supported by council. No notices of
motion that I'm aware of.
And uh I'm also very much looking
forward to discussing that with the uh
with the minister in November.
Absolutely.
So that said, we have the last item of
today's
regular council meeting for August 25th,
2026, which is item number nine,
adjournment. And uh councelor Serach
makes a motion for adjournment.
Call the question. All those in favor?
And we are adjourned at 122. Thank you
and have a good day.