[19:41] Good morning everybody. I'd like to call
[19:43] this meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. for
[19:45] the regular council meeting, Clearwater
[19:47] County regular council meeting for
[19:49] August 25th, 20126.
[19:52] I'd like to welcome all members of
[19:53] council here this morning as well as
[19:55] Clearwater County staff who will be
[19:56] providing us with information needed to
[19:58] make the best decisions on behalf of
[19:59] residents, businesses, and stakeholders
[20:01] of Clearwater County. I'd also like to
[20:04] welcome any members of the public in
[20:06] attendance this morning, as well as any
[20:09] media who may be present or joining us
[20:11] online. Before we begin today's agenda,
[20:14] are there any council members that uh
[20:17] would like to declare potential conflict
[20:18] of interest or carry interest on any
[20:20] agenda items here this morning?
[20:24] Seeing none,
[20:27] I'd also like to remind everybody that
[20:28] all public meetings are live streamed
[20:29] and recorded. Any verbal or written
[20:31] information provided may be included in
[20:33] public documents as per the Access to
[20:36] Information Act sections four and
[20:37] Protection of Privacy Act sections 2,
[20:40] four, and five.
[20:43] Uh as we
[20:45] move towards adopting today's agenda, I
[20:47] do have an amendment I would like to
[20:50] make to today's agenda and it would be
[20:52] under 5.3. It would be regarding Kney
[20:56] Plains Ecological Reserve.
[21:03] So I'd be looking for
[21:06] a motion to amend the agenda.
[21:09] And I I'll actually I'll make the motion
[21:11] to amend today's agenda. And I'll call
[21:13] the question. All those in favor.
[21:16] That motion is passed. The amendment
[21:18] would be under 5.3, which is Kney Plains
[21:21] Ecological Reserve.
[21:25] With that amendment being proposed, I'll
[21:28] call the question. All those in favor of
[21:30] that amendment.
[21:32] has been adopted by
[21:34] councel.
[21:36] Now to adopt the agenda as presented and
[21:38] as amended. I'd be looking for a motion
[21:41] to adopt the agenda as amended. Coun
[21:45] councelor Lewin makes the motion to
[21:46] adopt the August 25th, 2026 regular
[21:50] council meeting for Clearwater County as
[21:51] amended. I'll call the question. All
[21:53] those in favor and that motion is
[21:56] supported by council.
[21:59] Adoption of the regular council meeting
[22:01] minutes for July 28th, 2026. Were there
[22:04] any errors or omissions noted in those
[22:06] minutes? If not, I'd be looking for a
[22:09] motion to adopt the amendments as
[22:10] presented.
[22:13] Councelor McCully would like to make the
[22:14] motion to adopt the regular council
[22:16] meeting minutes from July 28th, 2026.
[22:20] Seeing no discussion, I'll call the
[22:22] question. All those in favor? That
[22:24] motion is carried.
[22:29] Now we'd like to proceed into today's
[22:30] agenda into item 4.1 which is first
[22:33] reading of bylaw 26101
[22:36] for application number 1826 to amend the
[22:39] land use bylaw. It is on page 10 of
[22:41] today's agenda and I'll pass the floor
[22:43] over to administration to present this
[22:44] item to council.
[22:46] >> Thank you Ree. Uh Bob Bob Haggma of High
[22:50] Country Surveys has made application on
[22:53] behalf of Rocky Mountain Salvage to
[22:55] amend the land use bylaw for the purpose
[22:57] of redesating 35.26
[23:00] acres. On the maps they are labeled as
[23:04] parcel C and parcel B.
[23:08] They are known as plan 0520308
[23:11] block one lot one. And they would like
[23:14] to go from the agricultural district to
[23:16] the industrial district.
[23:18] The subject land is located
[23:20] approximately 2 kilometers southwest of
[23:22] the town of Rocky Mountainhouse adjacent
[23:24] to Highway 11A.
[23:26] Should the land land use amendment be
[23:28] successful, the land owners intend to
[23:30] develop a storage facility which will
[23:32] require development approval.
[23:36] The land owners intend to use the
[23:38] westerly and easterly portions of the
[23:40] property which is broken up into three
[23:42] parts all under one title. Parcel A,
[23:44] which is southeast of the railroad, will
[23:46] remain undeveloped and is not part of
[23:49] this application.
[23:51] The subject parcels cannot be subdivided
[23:54] unless an area structure plan or an
[23:56] outline plan is adopted by council and
[23:59] the subject land is located within the
[24:01] Rocky Clearwater IDP area plan area and
[24:04] is within the plan boundary in the rural
[24:07] policy area.
[24:09] The town of Rocky Mountain House will
[24:11] have a chance to comment on this
[24:12] application at the referral public
[24:14] hearing stage of this application.
[24:18] Moving into considerations, the proposed
[24:21] redesignation is to allow for the
[24:23] operation of a storage facility. As per
[24:26] section 7.2.6 of the MDP, council should
[24:30] consider whether or not this site is
[24:32] suitable for an isolated industrial
[24:33] site.
[24:35] The subject property is adjacent to 11A
[24:38] and access is achieved by way of an
[24:40] approach off National Historic Site
[24:42] Road, Range Road 7-5.
[24:45] Due to the nature of this site, it would
[24:47] be appropriate for council to consider
[24:49] policy 11.2.4 of the MDP to ensure that
[24:53] the applicant is proactive in mitigating
[24:56] the impacts of noise and visual impacts
[24:58] on adjacent land owners and traffic.
[25:03] Additionally, council should consider
[25:06] policy 14.2.6
[25:09] to ensure that the property is suitable
[25:10] for the proposed use.
[25:13] The proposal would be considered an
[25:15] isolated industrial district parcel
[25:17] outside of a business park which is
[25:19] permitted at the discretion of council.
[25:22] However, there are a number of
[25:24] surrounding land uses and present which
[25:28] are industrial and direct control. The
[25:31] proposal complies with the size
[25:33] requirement of the land use bylaw as it
[25:35] exceeds the minimum requirement.
[25:38] Staff is recommending that council
[25:39] consider granting first reading to bylaw
[25:42] number 26101
[25:44] and proceed to a public hearing. Thank
[25:46] you.
[25:48] >> Thank you. Do Mr. Connelly.
[25:50] Uh I'll open up the floor for discussion
[25:52] from council or the applicant I see is
[25:54] with us here this morning. Would you
[25:55] like to provide any input or remarks on
[25:58] this application?
[26:00] Uh thank you uh Reef. Yes, this this
[26:03] application came before council and I
[26:05] believe there's two members present here
[26:06] that uh heard that application a little
[26:09] over a year ago and at the time RM
[26:12] Solage had uh bought this property with
[26:15] the intent of uh having a depot in Rocky
[26:19] Mountain House. They've got several
[26:20] throughout Alberta and BC right now. And
[26:23] uh it was turned down because uh council
[26:26] didn't feel after the public hearing and
[26:28] hearing from uh the neighbors and that
[26:31] sort of thing that uh uh a salvage
[26:34] operation would be a good thing to put
[26:38] right at the entrance to the historic
[26:39] park and turned it down. Uh things have
[26:43] changed. RM Salvage bought a lot out in
[26:46] Metal Dog and uh we'd invite you to go
[26:49] out there and see their operation. It's
[26:51] very professional. Uh, one of the things
[26:54] that uh, scared council last time was
[26:57] one of the photographs of their Edson
[27:00] operation which they had just purchased
[27:03] and it looked uh, it looked bad and uh,
[27:08] and I can understand that. And what's
[27:11] happened since then, they took it over
[27:14] uh rebuilt it and it doesn't look at all
[27:16] like the the picture uh on the internet
[27:19] showed at that time. E so that's why
[27:22] we're inviting you just to see how they
[27:24] do operate and uh their operation in uh
[27:29] Metal Dog there is it's not unsightly at
[27:32] all. It's very well organized, that sort
[27:34] of thing. And that's the way this
[27:35] company works. So what they're proposing
[27:38] to do here though is have has nothing to
[27:41] do with the recycling business part of
[27:43] it. They bought this land and uh they
[27:46] want to make use of it. If it remains
[27:49] agricultural, it's
[27:52] not uh not really uh good for anything.
[27:59] if uh
[28:02] the the storage facility that they're
[28:05] proposing would be at the west end of it
[28:07] there. So it would be at the entrance to
[28:09] the park and they intend to uh uh the
[28:14] other side there. Yeah.
[28:18] And and uh they propose to adhere to any
[28:22] development uh standards that need to be
[28:26] done like BMS, trees, that sort of
[28:28] thing. So there'd be basically nothing
[28:31] to see from the highway. And uh the one
[28:35] thing that they would have to do is
[28:38] probably borrow some uh dirt or gravel
[28:42] from the south of the railway to build
[28:46] up the north side of the railway. and
[28:48] they do that with you engineering uh
[28:50] plan and all the provincial approvals in
[28:53] place in order to basically transfer
[28:56] some wetland from the north side of the
[28:58] tracks to the south side. There's
[28:59] wetland on on both sides of the tracks
[29:02] right now. So, uh they'd make that part
[29:05] between the tracks and the highway
[29:08] useful and then leave the south end in
[29:11] more of its natural state. Uh, one thing
[29:14] that we haven't done yet, but uh,
[29:16] they've talked about at RM Salvage is to
[29:19] see if uh, the parks are interested in
[29:22] maybe purchasing that park south of the
[29:24] highway or south of the railway so that
[29:27] uh, they can incorporate it into the
[29:30] park as a buffer between the park and
[29:31] the railway and then any industrial use
[29:34] that might happen on the north side of
[29:36] it as well. They've got absolutely no
[29:39] intention of ever developing south of
[29:41] the high or south of the railway
[29:44] and uh and and to kind of close it off
[29:48] like this land has never ever ever been
[29:50] agricultural. There's never been a crop
[29:53] grown on it. There's never been animals
[29:55] on it until uh what was it uh in until
[29:59] 2005 when we subdivided it into that lot
[30:02] with three parts. It was railway land
[30:04] and it had been since I believe it was
[30:07] 1912
[30:10] or something like that that uh the
[30:11] railway was surveyed in here and it was
[30:13] part of of course the route that went to
[30:16] Nordic and uh it was a station grounds
[30:19] for Lern. So over the years the propane
[30:22] depot was built there which is an
[30:24] industrial use and taking the two
[30:27] parcels one on either side of that uh
[30:30] propane depot would be a natural fit.
[30:34] There's also industrial use to the
[30:36] northeast of that where TNT has their
[30:38] yard. uh to the southwest there's two
[30:42] gravel pits and uh uh I believe yeah the hill pit is re reclaimed
[30:50] and I'm not sure about the um the one on
[30:54] the north side of the highway because
[30:55] it's uh screened from the highway but uh
[30:59] that that uh hill pit that Pernis owns
[31:02] now is used as a rig lay down area and
[31:05] people drive by it it's not unsightly
[31:07] either you know I mean it is an
[31:08] industrial is granted. But um that's the
[31:11] way the world works. You know, you put
[31:12] industrial by highways where there's
[31:15] access and it creates the least
[31:18] disturbance to the community. So we feel
[31:20] that in order to assist RM Salvage with
[31:24] developing these two pieces properly, uh
[31:28] land use change is uh appropriate.
[31:32] >> Thank you.
[31:32] Mr. Exmith. I I do have one
[31:35] question and to balance the council, the
[31:36] floor is open for questions. Is it for
[31:38] the business operations? Is it necessary
[31:40] to have access to rail?
[31:43] >> Uh, we're not sure at this time because
[31:46] we're not sure what business is going to
[31:47] be there. Like they're proposing a
[31:49] storage, but on the other side, who
[31:52] knows what it's going to be. And and if a business along there needed rail,
[31:58] they would have to extend that spur line
[32:00] that goes to the propane depot right
[32:02] now. So it would be a cost, but yeah, if
[32:05] that's one attractive part of it is
[32:07] being on the rail that if somebody needs
[32:10] rail access, it's there already.
[32:13] >> Councelor Lewin, go ahead.
[32:15] >> This is Bulldog Metals. Is that correct?
[32:18] >> No. No, this is RM Salvage.
[32:20] >> RM Salvage.
[32:21] >> Yeah.
[32:22] >> Well, you mentioned Bulldog earlier.
[32:24] >> I did.
[32:25] >> Metal Dog.
[32:26] Pardon me. Metal Dog. Not
[32:28] Bulldog.
[32:29] >> Yeah.
[32:29] >> Metal Dog.
[32:30] >> Yeah.
[32:30] >> Okay. Metal Dog is the industrial park
[32:33] by the airport.
[32:35] >> Okay. Are they the same as the ones in
[32:36] red?
[32:38] >> No. No. Okay. No.
[32:39] >> Thank you.
[32:40] >> No. No.
[32:43] » Deputy Reed McKay. Go ahead.
[32:46] >> Thank you. I'm just curious about the requirements for this designation.
[32:51] Like if the intention is for storage,
[32:54] then redesating this highway commercial
[32:57] would actually be more appropriate than
[32:59] industrial.
[33:00] So it it seems like a red designation of
[33:03] industrial would leave it open to
[33:06] possibly some business ventures that may
[33:09] not be
[33:11] wanted or approved of by residents.
[33:15] >> Yeah. Any any development uh require a
[33:18] permit from the planning department and
[33:22] uh the county's got guidelines to make
[33:24] it uh the the amenities fit the area.
[33:29] um they they just uh felt industrial was
[33:32] the way they wanted to go.
[33:34] >> Do you have any comments on that,
[33:35] Braden, or
[33:37] >> No, I don't.
[33:41] In fact, recreational vehicle storage is
[33:44] not even an exempt usage of industrial
[33:46] land.
[33:48] So, it would seem that that's a rather
[33:50] strange choice um
[33:53] >> for storage.
[33:54] >> Yeah, it may not be recreational vehicle
[33:56] storage. It may be like like another rig
[33:59] lay down site or maybe some uh
[34:02] >> bins. Yeah, bin storage is they take up
[34:05] a lot of room and we don't have that
[34:08] much room at our site at the Metal Dog
[34:11] location.
[34:13] So something for storing bins or a
[34:16] trailer
[34:17] would be useful there.
[34:20] >> I see. Okay. Thank you,
[34:25] » Cer. Councelor Serat, go ahead.
[34:28] >> Well, it's working now. Um, yeah, the
[34:31] other thing I was thinking about was the
[34:32] water. That's quite low land there and
[34:35] there's water that drains through there.
[34:37] Have you talked to the water resource
[34:39] people and stuff or have you thought
[34:41] about uh how you're going to mitigate
[34:45] maybe some contamination
[34:48] of storage of let's say vehicles or or
[34:51] bins or stuff like that.
[34:54] >> Yeah.
[34:55] Uh absolutely, councelor Serach. Uh we
[34:59] did do a a contour plan on the west area
[35:03] here that shows where the drainage is
[35:07] >> and uh before any development is
[35:09] anticipated, we'd be contacting
[35:11] engineers and uh water resources in at
[35:15] the province in order to make sure that
[35:17] the development works to something that
[35:20] they uh would approve of. Absolutely.
[35:24] >> Fantastic. That's one thing I was kind
[35:26] of concerned about because there's quite
[35:27] a water flow through there.
[35:29] >> Yeah.
[35:30] Like I say on on both sides, I
[35:32] actually
[35:32] >> Yes.
[35:33] >> I actually did a a boundary survey for
[35:35] the parks here this summer
[35:37] >> and I was trying to access the north
[35:39] boundary through uh RM Salvages lot and
[35:43] I got stopped up by uh wet land and when
[35:48] I get stopped up it's wet.
[35:49] >> Yeah.
[35:51] >> You know my quad with the tracks, right?
[35:53] So uh so I did access it from the south
[35:55] side which was somewhat better and uh
[35:58] like I say uh
[36:01] there there is a fair bit of highland on
[36:04] the south side of the tracks too. Okay.
[36:07] And uh some of that material may be used
[36:10] to uh change the material on the north
[36:14] side. And basically what you have to do
[36:17] if you uh take away wetlands then you
[36:21] have to either replace it or pay a
[36:22] penalty.
[36:23] >> Yep.
[36:24] >> And uh they they would be looking at
[36:27] replacing the lands on the north side
[36:29] that's wet with lands on the south side
[36:32] that's high right now. And then it would
[36:34] be wet lands for uh natural
[36:38] you know habitat.
[36:39] >> Yeah. I'm I was just concerned about
[36:41] what flow there because it could end up
[36:44] in the national park and that's one
[36:46] thing we certainly don't want is any
[36:48] contamination going into that national
[36:51] park.
[36:51] >> Right. No, absolutely. That would be at
[36:54] the forefront of any
[36:56] >> Yeah.
[36:57] >> So, I really do appreciate that. Thank
[36:59] you.
[37:00] >> Thank you, Mr. Connley. Do you have
[37:02] comments or
[37:03] >> I just had a couple points to add.
[37:05] >> Go ahead. Uh we prior to the public
[37:08] hearing, we will send referrals to the
[37:10] environment
[37:12] and then discretionary uses in the
[37:15] industrial district are recreational
[37:18] vehicle storage and outdoor storage. So
[37:20] both either use would be going to the
[37:22] planning commission for a decision. So
[37:24] administration would have conditions and
[37:26] then the commission could add more
[37:28] conditions that they felt was needed.
[37:31] >> Thank you for that, Mr. Connelly. That
[37:33] was actually one of my questions that
[37:34] this agenda item will be deferred or
[37:36] referred to uh the municipal planning
[37:38] commission for for input and comments
[37:40] which uh councilors Humphrey, myself and
[37:42] councilors Powell currently sit on the
[37:44] municipal planning commission. So this
[37:46] will be sent there for as a referral.
[37:48] >> This this will also go there for
[37:49] referral and for the development permit
[37:51] if that goes through.
[37:53] >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Connley
[37:55] Councelor Levin go ahead.
[37:57] >> Yes. Um what is the anticipated increase
[37:59] in traffic volume and what type of
[38:01] traffic would be semi-truckss body jobs?
[38:04] >> Yeah, it would be
[38:05] >> very little like how how often would you
[38:08] be moving bins out of there?
[38:13] » Typically our bins are going to be out.
[38:19] This is for in the scenario that you
[38:23] know summer comes to a close and lots of
[38:26] projects are finishing. We would get a
[38:28] few bins back. So we would take these
[38:32] bins there. It would more or less be
[38:34] minimal traffic.
[38:36] >> Okay. And which route would you take to
[38:38] if if this went forward, which route
[38:40] would you take to get to that point?
[38:42] Would you go right through town or would
[38:43] you go around highway 11? would go I
[38:46] would go past the on Highway 11 staying
[38:48] out of town. Um just it's just easier as
[38:53] a semi-truck operator to go around town.
[39:00] >> Thank you.
[39:01] >> Okay. If there's no further discussion,
[39:03] uh we be looking for a motion for first
[39:06] reading or further discussion on this
[39:08] matter. Clarification. Councelor
[39:10] McCauley. Go ahead. I make the
[39:12] recommendation that staff or council
[39:14] consider granting first reading to bylaw
[39:16] number 26101 and proceed to a public
[39:19] hearing. Okay, we have a motion on the
[39:21] floor from councelor McCauley that
[39:23] council grant first reading to bylaw
[39:25] 26101
[39:27] and proceed to a public hearing. That is
[39:29] the motion on the floor. Seeing no
[39:31] further discussion, I'll call the
[39:31] question. All those in favor
[39:34] that motion is supported by council
[39:35] unanimously. Moving on to item thank you
[39:39] for coming into council this morning.
[39:42] Moving on in our agenda item 4.2
[39:45] bylaw 26102
[39:47] fire and rescue services on page 27
[39:58] to welcome Deputy Chief Stewart. Good
[40:01] morning and welcome.
[40:05] Ready
[40:09] to proceed? Okay. Uh good morning, good
[40:11] evening, council. Um here on behalf of
[40:14] Chief Hemrich, director of emergency
[40:16] services, presenting uh bylaw 2612
[40:20] as amended um by council's I believe
[40:26] July 27th strategic planning meeting.
[40:29] Just need to find my place here. My
[40:31] apologies.
[40:33] Here
[40:40] we go.
[40:44] Uh so for background council July 27th
[40:46] 2026 the uh strategic planning committee
[40:48] of the whole meeting emergency services
[40:50] presented the new fire rescue services
[40:52] bylaw uh number 26 uh102. After
[40:56] deliberations of the committee, uh,
[40:57] council approved the fire rescue
[40:59] services bylaw with amendments, uh, that
[41:01] align the fire permit requirements, uh,
[41:03] with the force and prairie protection
[41:04] act fire season specifically from March
[41:07] 1st to October 31st of each year. Um,
[41:12] uh, the amendment has been made
[41:13] resulting in the following changes. Um,
[41:15] the addition of the fire season uh
[41:17] definition, clarity written to the fire
[41:20] rescue services bylaw under section 155
[41:23] carrying uh clarifying when a fire
[41:25] permit is not required and specifying
[41:27] conditions of what is acceptable to burn
[41:29] outside the fire season and stating
[41:31] notification requirements. Uh supporting
[41:33] statements and clarification on the fire
[41:35] permit requirements for fire rescue
[41:37] services under section 161. Uh
[41:40] specifically clarifying the fire season.
[41:42] Uh attached is a uh redline text version
[41:46] of the bylaw that shows the changes uh
[41:49] after the strategic planning committee's
[41:51] deliberations. Um also uh if councelor
[41:56] were to approve this bylaw today uh it
[42:00] would repeal bylaw 106920 which is the
[42:03] legacy fire rescue services and fire
[42:04] control bylaw. Uh as well uh there is
[42:08] another uh item for council uh uh on
[42:12] condition of this bylaw 26102 uh being
[42:15] approved that there would need to be uh
[42:18] revisions and repealed of certain
[42:20] sections specifically section 8 of the
[42:22] village of Caroline's community
[42:23] standards bylaw as well.
[42:26] Uh so if council um remembers strategic
[42:29] planning uh meeting, we spoke um not at
[42:33] length, but we spoke uh about uh fire
[42:36] services request to modernize our fire
[42:39] rescue services bylaw uh here in
[42:41] Clearwater County. Uh specifically
[42:43] adding sections clarifying uh sale use
[42:46] of fireworks. Uh transitioning from only
[42:50] requiring notification to an actual fire
[42:52] permit system. Uh we had originally uh
[42:54] requested an annual permitting system.
[42:56] Uh with good discussion with council uh
[42:58] and clarity to land owners, uh we
[43:01] decided uh to ask for an amendment to
[43:04] change the structure of this bylaw to
[43:06] more uh closely align to Alberta
[43:09] wildfires fire season of March 1st to
[43:11] October 31st. Uh that is a large concern
[43:14] for uh us in in Clearwater County and to
[43:18] our residents of the uh fire protection
[43:21] area boundary and whether uh a neighbor
[43:24] can burn on one side versus a neighbor
[43:26] on the other side that cannot. This fire
[43:28] bylaw definitely does uh align with the
[43:31] forest fire protection act and make it a
[43:33] lot more uh understandable for
[43:36] residents. Uh legal did again tell us to
[43:39] remove specific language around uh uh
[43:42] burnable debris or prohibited debris
[43:44] which would be clarified in in county
[43:47] policy and be the forward- facing
[43:49] component when people are applying for burn permits. So that would be very
[43:53] clear on what burnable debris is.
[43:55] Essentially we left the bylaw uh uh
[43:58] written in a way that if the province
[43:59] were to change their legislation and add
[44:01] things to prohibit debris or remove
[44:03] things prohibited debris, we wouldn't
[44:04] have to amend the bylaw. We could simply
[44:07] amend county policy and change that
[44:09] forward facing uh information. Um again
[44:14] um council what administration is
[44:16] requesting today is that uh council
[44:19] reviews bylaw 26102
[44:21] uh complete with amendments and grants
[44:23] first and second readings and permission
[44:24] for third reading of bylaw 260012.
[44:29] >> Thank you. Deputy chief do have one
[44:31] question and the floor again is open up
[44:33] for council for discussion or comments
[44:34] questions. Uh just the just for clarity
[44:37] and and uh the difference between crown
[44:40] lands and forest protection area. Uh
[44:43] just there's a lot of people that have
[44:44] privately owned land that fall within
[44:46] the forest protection area, but uh I
[44:48] think sometimes there could be a
[44:49] confusion that maybe it's forest
[44:50] protection area is considered as crown
[44:52] land, but it's it actually extends out
[44:55] uh quite in significantly onto privately
[44:57] owned land in Clearwater County. I just
[44:59] wondered if you could provide a little
[45:00] bit of information and clarity for that
[45:01] for the viewers watching.
[45:03] >> Uh of course, Reef. Uh great question.
[45:05] Uh the the forest protection area is is
[45:10] a boundary set under the forest and
[45:12] prairie protection act. Uh specifically
[45:14] following man-made and natural features
[45:16] through the province that uh uh that
[45:19] allows the province to uh be the
[45:21] authority having jurisdiction for for
[45:23] forest management uh inside that area
[45:26] including wildfire management and
[45:28] permitting purposes. as where crownland
[45:31] uh is is a term used for u
[45:34] government-owned property at at really
[45:37] any provincial level. That can be
[45:38] provinially property, that can be
[45:40] federal lands. Uh there is private
[45:43] property within the forest protection
[45:45] area that is owned by private land
[45:47] owners. Uh for an example, the the
[45:50] Clearwater River is part of the forest
[45:52] pro uh forest protection area boundary.
[45:54] Anything west of the Clearwater River
[45:56] from the Clearwater store, Clearwater
[45:58] Trading Post up to where the Clear Water
[46:00] meets the North Saskatchewan River is
[46:03] inside the Porsche Protection Area. But
[46:05] there's large tracks of of private land
[46:07] in that area uh that is privately owned.
[46:10] Uh essentially uh that is some of the challenges with how we administer uh
[46:15] burn permitting systems and uh
[46:17] authorities having jurisdictions for
[46:18] wildfires, for example, fire bans and
[46:21] fire restrictions. Uh although it may be
[46:23] private land within Clearwater County
[46:25] because it is within the forest and
[46:27] prairie protection act that it is
[46:28] resides within the forest protection
[46:30] area uh the province is actually the
[46:33] authority having jurisdiction for fire
[46:35] permitting, fire bands, fire
[46:37] restrictions, fire advisories and uh
[46:39] wildfire management. Um so uh as we're
[46:44] just east of that river that uh that
[46:46] sole discretion lies with Clearwater
[46:48] County. So there is some very uh uh
[46:51] interesting overlapping of jurisdiction
[46:53] specifically around uh fire permitting,
[46:55] fire bands and fire response in those
[46:58] areas around wildfire specifically and
[47:00] wildland firefighting fuels. Uh and that
[47:03] is where a lot of confusion comes in and
[47:05] one of the big reasons why we wanted to
[47:06] revise this bylaw to make it more clear
[47:08] for land owners that crownland is not
[47:10] necessarily describing the forest and
[47:12] prairie or the forest protection area.
[47:14] That is a totally separate boundary.
[47:17] Thank you for that. Deputy Reeve McKay,
[47:20] go ahead, please.
[47:21] >> Thank you, Ree. Just have a question
[47:23] regarding the uh dates under fire
[47:26] permits
[47:27] and then a follow-up question after
[47:29] that. But uh in 161, it states that fire
[47:32] permits will be required during fire
[47:34] season from March 1st. Should that not
[47:37] be May 1st?
[47:39] If no permit is required from November
[47:41] 1st till April 30th, why would a permit
[47:44] be required from March 1st?
[47:49] Uh stand by councelor. I'm just uh
[47:50] finding that section here and that may
[47:53] be a revision that needs to be done to
[47:56] this bylaw. The fire uh season is
[47:59] clarified as March 1st to October 31st.
[48:03] Uh outside the fire season, November 1st
[48:05] to April 30th.
[48:08] uh that should say uh that April 30th
[48:12] should be brought back to
[48:15] um the end of February for an example.
[48:18] Um so that is actually an error in this
[48:21] bylaw. The fire season November 1st to
[48:24] April 30th notifications for burns prior
[48:25] to ignition must be made to the county.
[48:27] I believe that that's an error in the
[48:28] bylaw that would need to be revised
[48:30] before being approved. Uh the fire
[48:32] season is March 1st to October 31st and
[48:35] that is when permitting would would uh
[48:37] would take place if this fire permit was
[48:39] approved. That is when Alberta wildfire
[48:41] permits for uh so anytime outside of
[48:44] March 1st to October 31st would be
[48:46] outside the fire season and we would be
[48:48] asking for a notification and not a
[48:50] permit in that period of time.
[48:52] >> Okay, thank you for the clarification.
[48:54] Now that said, since it is March 1st,
[48:56] historically,
[48:58] um, a lot of egg producers are used to
[49:01] burning in March, like I would say 98%
[49:05] the burns done in this county are done
[49:08] in March. How are we going to relay to
[49:10] egg producers that they can no longer do
[49:13] that and they now require a permit to
[49:14] burn in March? That's going to require a
[49:16] significant media campaign and we're
[49:20] going to have to probably allow at least
[49:22] one year if not more of you know um
[49:28] reduction in fines or warnings instead
[49:31] of fines or something like we can't just change that when people
[49:36] have been doing it literally for a
[49:37] hundred years. So that I guess that
[49:40] that's a big concern that's been brought
[49:42] forward from the community that I wanted
[49:44] to express.
[49:45] And is there a plan to to deal with
[49:48] that?
[49:49] >> Uh Deputy McKay and council. Uh yes. Um
[49:53] and completely understanding that this
[49:54] is a a change that will impact um uh
[49:58] folks in our county that burn uh every
[50:01] year, specifically the agricultural and
[50:04] forest uh uh uh industries. Um, our plan
[50:08] of this year, uh, being that we are not
[50:10] past October 31st this year, if council
[50:12] were to approve, uh, this bylaw, the
[50:14] intent in the plan was to not bring
[50:17] permitting into force until next March
[50:19] 1st after a significant, uh, uh, media
[50:22] campaign, uh, public communications, uh,
[50:25] to go out with, um, to our land owners,
[50:28] to our industries. Uh, for an example,
[50:30] we would not enact the permitting
[50:32] portion in 2026. we would bring this
[50:34] into effect in March 1st, 2027.
[50:37] Um because of that specific reason, uh
[50:40] we also have new software to to manage
[50:42] permitting that uh uh is just being put
[50:45] into place now. Uh it would be intend to
[50:48] be ready for next year, not for the
[50:50] remainder of this year. And um
[50:52] enforcement of this bylaw is the
[50:54] discretion of the fire service uh based
[50:57] on us engaging our our community peace
[50:59] officers for bylaw enforcement. So, uh,
[51:01] because we're bringing in fines, uh, or
[51:04] municipal tags, uh, with this bylaw, uh,
[51:07] that is at our discretion to to fine and
[51:09] enforce those pieces. So, we can
[51:11] definitely, uh, and intend to give
[51:13] forgiveness for education purposes for land owners that may not have
[51:18] received the news uh, in time. Uh, we
[51:21] expect that to be the case. Uh, we do a
[51:23] ton of education now with land owners
[51:26] uh, even inside the forest protection
[51:27] area to this effect specifically. Um it
[51:31] happens today. Uh the the interesting
[51:34] piece is that outside the forest
[51:36] protection area, we have a lot of
[51:38] miscommunication with the public when
[51:40] they're asking for burn notifications,
[51:42] whether they need permits or not. It is
[51:43] very confusing. So I believe this will
[51:45] actually be easier to educate the
[51:48] public. It will be a basically one
[51:50] source of truth whether you need a
[51:52] permit based on time of the year or not,
[51:53] regardless of where you live in
[51:54] Clearwater County, as opposed to having
[51:56] two standards based on a line that
[51:58] nobody can see other than on a map. Uh
[52:00] so I believe this will bring more
[52:01] clarity over time. There will need to be
[52:03] education for sure. That is the plan and
[52:05] that we would not start uh the
[52:06] permitting process uh until March 1st of
[52:09] 2027 after that public media campaign
[52:12] would be uh assisted us with corporate
[52:14] communications etc. It would be a large
[52:16] portion of what we would do if this was
[52:19] approved between now and then.
[52:22] >> Thank you for that. And lastly, just to
[52:24] follow up on that, the permit itself,
[52:27] is the intention for it to only be
[52:29] available online
[52:31] or do we have another option?
[52:33] >> Uh, the intent is for the majority of
[52:35] them to be handled online, but we will
[52:37] always have the option for folks to call
[52:39] uh emergency services where our
[52:41] administrative staff would be able to
[52:42] assist individuals with uh completing
[52:44] the permitting process online. Um, so
[52:47] essentially we can build the permit for
[52:50] them in the new system uh over the
[52:52] phone. That is an option for sure that
[52:53] we intend to maintain for as long as
[52:56] it's a uh a need or a demand by the
[52:59] public.
[53:00] >> But I ask that because there are many
[53:02] older residents that would possibly be
[53:05] burning a brush pile or something would
[53:06] not have
[53:07] >> of course access.
[53:09] >> Thank you very much,
[53:12] >> Councelor Humphrey. Go ahead.
[53:15] Yes, I still have
[53:17] an issue with where what section is it
[53:20] for fire pits?
[53:23] >> Uh, Council Humphre, uh, that would be
[53:26] near the top where it defines um, uh,
[53:29] fire pits here. My apologies. I will
[53:30] find it for you.
[53:32] >> I'm I had it earlier, but I'm bouncing
[53:34] around here. Ah, there it is. Yes.
[53:38] >> So, there's there's really two places.
[53:40] There's one in definitions uh what
[53:42] describes uh a fire pit and then there
[53:45] is a full section with more details
[53:49] is
[53:49] >> right and and my concern with this is uh
[53:53] I understand for for hamlets
[53:57] uh that kind of thing but for our for
[54:01] our egg sector to be putting all this uh
[54:09] you where it says uh height does not
[54:12] exceed 60 cm. So what's that? That's 2
[54:15] ft. Uh can't be over 2 ft. Can't be a
[54:19] meter in width. Uh to have all those in
[54:22] there already where
[54:25] most of the county is already outside of
[54:29] that. Um many many uh residents in the
[54:34] county will take a
[54:36] be it a well cribbing or a culvert or
[54:41] a tank of it of some kind and cut a ring
[54:44] out of it and that's their fire pit and
[54:46] it might be 2 ft high it might be three
[54:49] feet high but it might be five feet
[54:51] across. So for us to put that limit in
[54:55] there,
[54:56] you know, and I I know this was talked
[54:59] about prior when we were in our
[55:01] strategic planning and uh was well it's
[55:04] always been like that, but just cuz it's
[55:06] always been like that doesn't make it
[55:07] right and it hasn't been enforced. It's
[55:10] still something that I believe should be
[55:12] addressed and
[55:16] removed
[55:18] from there. That
[55:20] again, we could we could have it for our
[55:22] hamlets or or our subdivisions, but when
[55:25] you get out to the to the egg sector, I
[55:29] just don't believe it should be in
[55:30] there. I don't know. I'd be looking for
[55:34] some uh ideas and thoughts on it from
[55:36] the rest of council. But
[55:39] if we go with that, half the fire pits
[55:42] in the county aren't legal according to
[55:44] this. And and to just say, well, that's
[55:46] okay. I I think we should have something
[55:49] to say somebody's not going to come
[55:51] along one day and say, "Oh, your fire
[55:54] pit's 4t. You need to remove it." You
[55:57] know, we shouldn't be putting in
[56:00] something that already doesn't fit for
[56:02] where all the counties or where a large
[56:05] portion of the county residents
[56:08] have that in place. And if they've been
[56:10] having fire pits in it for the last 40
[56:14] years and hasn't been an issue, I don't
[56:16] know why we would make it an issue now.
[56:20] >> Deputy Chief, go ahead, please.
[56:21] >> Uh uh thank you, Councelor Therie. Um, I completely understand the sentiment
[56:27] and uh it is a complex issue for sure.
[56:30] Our previous bylaw um like you said does
[56:33] have stipulations on what a legal fire
[56:36] pit looks like in Clearwater County and
[56:38] to this date uh we have not enforced
[56:40] that unless there's been a significant
[56:43] incident where that fire pit was uh
[56:46] through an investigation determined the
[56:49] cause of a major fire that left a
[56:51] property and caused significant damage
[56:53] where there was some kind of cost
[56:54] recovery injury and or death. Um
[56:59] really uh the language in this new bylaw
[57:02] is less restrictive on fire pits than
[57:04] our previous bylaw. So we've actually uh
[57:07] in the in the spirit of aligning the
[57:09] language in Clearwater County's bylaw
[57:11] because if council can can see the
[57:13] picture of our county, it's about a
[57:15] fifth of our county where this bylaw
[57:17] solely applies. The other four fifths of
[57:20] the county is in the forest protection
[57:21] area. And the language that's in this
[57:24] current bylaw mimics the the province's
[57:27] language around approved fire pits in a
[57:29] in the forest protection area. So as of
[57:32] today, four-fifths of Clearwater County
[57:34] is required to follow this standard for
[57:38] a fire pit. Uh only the eastern portion
[57:41] of Clearwater County outside the forest
[57:43] protection area, which is about a fifth
[57:44] of our area landwise, is uh falls solely
[57:48] under the discretion of old bylaw 1069.
[57:51] Uh this bylaw change would actually make
[57:54] the same rule appro apply east to west,
[57:57] north to south across Clearwater County
[57:58] for what a legal fire pit looks like.
[58:00] And we have no intention of inspecting
[58:02] or capacity to inspect fire pits on
[58:04] private property. It's really the fact
[58:07] that we need a definition in the bylaw
[58:10] of what a legal fire pit is. So that if
[58:13] there is a major incident that's causing
[58:15] some kind of significant property
[58:16] damage, injury, loss of life, where an
[58:19] investigation proves that that was the
[58:21] origin and cause of that fire, that we
[58:23] have some way to recover costs and to uh
[58:27] enforce penalties under the bylaw. If we
[58:29] don't have a definition of a of illegal
[58:31] fire pit across the board in Clearwater
[58:33] County, uh that's where if that
[58:36] situation were to happen, we wouldn't
[58:38] have any way of enforcing that that was
[58:40] a uh a a fire hazard or a fire risk that
[58:45] caused the fire that was not legal in
[58:47] the first place to have. So really uh
[58:50] understanding the sentiment uh we have
[58:52] not to this day enforced fire pits
[58:54] unless there's been a significant
[58:56] emergency where that's been deemed as
[58:57] the as the problem or people are burning
[59:00] illegally during a fire ban or fire
[59:02] restriction. Um and normally what
[59:05] happens is we enfor we we instruct them
[59:07] to extinguish the fire and that's really
[59:09] where today it stops because we don't
[59:11] have any uh teeth in our current bylaw
[59:14] to enforce any penalty whatsoever
[59:15] outside the forest protection area. Uh,
[59:18] and this actually gives county residents
[59:20] a consistent definition of a fire pit
[59:22] across the entire county.
[59:26] >> So, have we had,
[59:28] you know, an issue with a fire pit? I've
[59:31] never heard of one where a fire pit
[59:32] started, somebody was having a fire in
[59:35] their backyard fire pit and it burnt the
[59:38] area down. Did that happen?
[59:40] >> Yes, we have. I can't speak uh
[59:42] specifically to dates and times today,
[59:44] but in my 10 years 10 years here with
[59:46] Clearwater Regional Fire Rescue
[59:48] Services, we've had many fires that have
[59:50] either originated from a fire pit uh in
[59:54] someone's backyard. Uh we've had them in
[59:56] the town of Rocky Mountainhouse
[59:57] specifically where we've lost up to
[59:59] three homes from a fire pit not being
[1:00:02] attended, extending in someone's
[1:00:03] backyard to three properties. Uh we've
[1:00:06] had them uh where burn barrels have
[1:00:08] caused repeat uh responses to the same
[1:00:11] property three four times over the
[1:00:13] course of two years where someone using
[1:00:16] a burn barrel uncor incorrectly or not
[1:00:18] extinguishing it not monitoring it uh
[1:00:20] has caused a wildfire that has left
[1:00:22] their property and burned onto adjacent
[1:00:24] land owners properties damaged
[1:00:26] structures uh that that has happened in
[1:00:28] Clearwater County for sure.
[1:00:36] I'm still just not good with that one
[1:00:39] meter size when we know it's not doesn't
[1:00:42] fit for a lot of the residents. So, um I
[1:00:46] have an issue with that. Uh and and just
[1:00:48] for clarity, that is a consistent site
[1:00:51] across the entire province of Alberta,
[1:00:54] uh for for the entire forest protection
[1:00:57] area, any any municipality that you can
[1:01:00] find a a fire bylaw for, which is the
[1:01:02] majority of municipalities in Alberta
[1:01:04] that have fire control bylaws that
[1:01:05] stipulate uh sizes and restrictions on fire pits. That is a consistent size,
[1:01:11] and that's because that comes from uh
[1:01:14] the forest protection area specifically.
[1:01:16] It is consistent across provinces as
[1:01:17] well too. It's a fire fire service
[1:01:20] standard of that 3 ft by 3 ft by 3 ft or
[1:01:23] that one square or one cubic meter in
[1:01:26] size of burning material as a manageable
[1:01:28] size for an for any competent adult to
[1:01:32] uh control and extinguish effectively in most settings. Essentially there is a standard there. We're not
[1:01:39] going outside or deviating from uh you
[1:01:42] know municipal uh or industry best
[1:01:45] practice across the board in Canada, let
[1:01:46] alone in in the province of Alberta.
[1:01:50] >> Yeah, it it might be the standard. I
[1:01:53] still don't think it's right. I mean,
[1:01:54] just because a guy has a fire pit that
[1:01:57] was bigger doesn't mean he's building it
[1:02:00] a fire that big, if you know what I'm
[1:02:03] saying. Correct. We we do have the
[1:02:05] ability um under this bylaw to permit uh
[1:02:12] larger sized
[1:02:14] uh pits. For an example, there's many um
[1:02:18] commercial or not for-profit
[1:02:19] organizations. Visited one yesterday
[1:02:21] with Alberta. There is a a fire pit that
[1:02:24] would not meet this standard, but
[1:02:27] variances do exist. Um, if there is a
[1:02:30] pit that is larger in size that they can
[1:02:33] prove meets the intent of the bylaw and
[1:02:35] we go out and permit it, we have the
[1:02:38] discretion to do that. We can issue a
[1:02:40] permit for something that is larger than
[1:02:42] what is in this pit or in this bylaw.
[1:02:45] >> So, they would have to get a permit
[1:02:47] every time they had a fire in their fire
[1:02:49] pit.
[1:02:49] >> Well, I mean, they they could get
[1:02:51] similar to a burn barrel. A burn barrel
[1:02:53] is larger than the 3 ft by 3 ft. uh a a brush pile is bigger than the 3 ft by
[1:03:00] 3 ft. Um burn barrels can have a
[1:03:04] standing fire permit for the year. We
[1:03:06] can issue a fire permit in uh March 1st
[1:03:09] that is good for the entire year for
[1:03:11] them for that for that burn barrel once it's deemed that it meets the
[1:03:15] standard. Uh there's a potential that we
[1:03:17] can we can do that as well. We could we
[1:03:19] could permit a fire pit as long as it
[1:03:21] had the the grading on it and it met the
[1:03:23] size. that would create a a significant
[1:03:27] administrative burden for the fire
[1:03:28] services for sure. Uh something again
[1:03:31] that we we uh
[1:03:33] >> sounds like more red tape and I don't
[1:03:34] think we want that.
[1:03:36] >> I I I would I would tend to agree with
[1:03:38] council. I I don't believe that we want
[1:03:39] to endeavor down the path of of
[1:03:41] permitting things outside of this.
[1:03:43] Again, that the intent of having the
[1:03:45] definition in here is if you have a a
[1:03:47] fire of that size, you do not require a
[1:03:49] fire permit. If you have a fire in a pit
[1:03:52] that meets this bylaw, you don't have to
[1:03:53] have a fire permit. You can you can burn
[1:03:55] as long as there's no restriction or ban
[1:03:57] in that pit, burnable debris, whenever
[1:03:59] you so choose, uh, without requesting a
[1:04:02] fire permit. Um, it's only if you if you
[1:04:05] endeavor to burn something larger than
[1:04:07] that size in an in something that is not
[1:04:10] considered an acceptable pit where you
[1:04:12] would need a fire permit.
[1:04:14] So, we're not saying folks can't do
[1:04:15] that. Uh, but this bylaw would say that
[1:04:19] if they were if they were burning in in
[1:04:21] something that doesn't meet the standard
[1:04:22] of an acceptable pit and we responded to
[1:04:24] that to that home for a fire that
[1:04:27] escaped their fire pit that they may be fined under this bylaw for
[1:04:31] having a pit that doesn't meet the
[1:04:32] standard.
[1:04:34] >> For the comments, council
[1:04:37] >> still
[1:04:39] like I know there's residents out there
[1:04:41] that have this
[1:04:44] have fire pits. They've had them for
[1:04:45] years. And just seems to me like we're
[1:04:48] setting up something that you might not,
[1:04:51] but down the road somebody might come in
[1:04:53] and go, you know, don't like the color
[1:04:55] of his hair. Uh, his fire pit's too big.
[1:05:00] I think we should just not have that as
[1:05:02] being an issue, whether it be a a
[1:05:05] grandfather clause or what. There has to
[1:05:08] be some way around an issue like that
[1:05:10] for existing rather than just saying
[1:05:13] well I wouldn't do that but the next guy
[1:05:16] might just
[1:05:18] I think there should be something in
[1:05:20] here to address that issue. We know it's
[1:05:22] there. So I think we should address it
[1:05:25] not sweep it under the rug and say we
[1:05:28] won't.
[1:05:29] And then if it does happen, we've got
[1:05:33] residents that are
[1:05:36] basically
[1:05:38] mad because they've been burning in this
[1:05:41] fire pit in their backyard for their
[1:05:44] whole life and now they have to change
[1:05:45] it.
[1:05:47] Just
[1:05:48] I think we should address it somehow.
[1:05:51] I'm looking for some way to rather than
[1:05:54] saying
[1:05:55] we won't but we might.
[1:06:00] I'd have to
[1:06:01] >> I don't like we won't we won't but we
[1:06:02] might
[1:06:04] >> counselor I I I
[1:06:06] uh the request and I understand the
[1:06:07] sentiment. Um, I would I would uh
[1:06:11] endeavor to probably speak uh with legal
[1:06:16] on on if we could uh put some kind of
[1:06:20] clause in the bylaw where existing fire
[1:06:22] pits uh that don't meet the standard of
[1:06:25] this bylaw
[1:06:27] um uh could be exempt and only new fire
[1:06:30] pits going forward would have to meet
[1:06:31] the standard. the the complexity would
[1:06:33] be is that our current bylaw that has
[1:06:35] been in in in place for over a decade
[1:06:38] already makes those pits you're speaking
[1:06:40] about illegal in Clearwater County. Um
[1:06:45] this is this change is not going to make
[1:06:49] pits illegal. Uh this change will
[1:06:52] actually probably make some pits uh
[1:06:55] legal that weren't before because it's
[1:06:57] less restrictive than the current
[1:06:58] legislation that we have or current
[1:07:00] bylaw we have in place in Clearwater
[1:07:02] County. Um this is this change does not
[1:07:06] make a pit that's legal today illegal.
[1:07:09] Um there that would not be the case in
[1:07:10] Clearwater County at all. uh the the the
[1:07:13] current language in the draft bylaw is
[1:07:16] less restrictive than the current
[1:07:17] language in our current bylaw that is
[1:07:20] enforced today.
[1:07:24] » Okay. So, go ahead, councelor. would not
[1:07:26] make it illegal. Then for
[1:07:29] >> there there's there's no Clearwater
[1:07:31] County that is uh in in place anywhere
[1:07:35] today that is not already illegal that
[1:07:39] this bylaw would make illegal is what
[1:07:42] I'm saying. The the new language is less
[1:07:44] restrictive than the current language.
[1:07:46] So this this change would not make a a
[1:07:48] whole bunch more fire pits in Clearwater
[1:07:50] County illegal by any means. So, if we
[1:07:52] were to try and endeavor to build some
[1:07:54] language into this bylaw,
[1:07:57] um
[1:07:59] I don't know how I'd have to speak with
[1:08:01] legal on what that would look like. Uh
[1:08:03] because I don't know how we could do
[1:08:05] that with a current bylaw already in
[1:08:07] place that would make the pits you're
[1:08:09] speaking about uh legal because our
[1:08:13] current bylaw in place already makes
[1:08:15] them illegal. Um,
[1:08:19] and the the intent really I want to I
[1:08:21] want to refocus on the intent of having
[1:08:23] a standard in the bylaw so that we have
[1:08:26] a benchmark
[1:08:28] uh in case something happens. We can't not have a definition in the
[1:08:33] bylaw of what's
[1:08:35] legal as a fire pit. If we don't have
[1:08:37] that definition, all of the penalties
[1:08:40] and fees in the bottom of this bylaw
[1:08:41] that would relate to somebody having an
[1:08:43] uncontrolled fire get away from them on
[1:08:45] their property would be uninforceable.
[1:08:47] Uh and then the entire intent of this
[1:08:49] bylaw outside of the fireworks portion,
[1:08:52] for example, would would essentially
[1:08:54] become uninforceable. And and if it was
[1:08:56] challenged in any court of law, we would
[1:08:59] be directed that this those portions of
[1:09:01] this bylaw would be uninforceable. So we
[1:09:03] do need language in here that stipulates
[1:09:05] what is legal. Could we change that to
[1:09:08] something larger? Of course we can. Uh
[1:09:11] but we we selected the language in this
[1:09:14] bylaw to make it consistent for
[1:09:15] Clearwater County land owners. If we if
[1:09:18] we have a different uh definition of
[1:09:21] illegal fire pit in this bylaw, that
[1:09:23] would mean that 1if of Clearwater County
[1:09:26] has a different definition of what's
[1:09:27] legal and the other four-fifths are
[1:09:29] still uh legally responsible to follow
[1:09:33] what's in the Forest and Prairie
[1:09:34] Protection Act. That's the complexity in
[1:09:37] our county is that Alberta, the Alberta,
[1:09:39] the province of Alberta is responsible
[1:09:41] for telling us what's a legal fire pit
[1:09:43] in most of Clearwater County.
[1:09:47] So, we need to take this up to up a
[1:09:50] notch
[1:09:53] >> and and with with the amount of caused
[1:09:55] wildfires in Alberta, I I I don't
[1:09:58] believe there would be any appetite to
[1:10:00] make it less restrictive for burning in
[1:10:02] the forest protection area.
[1:10:04] >> If not, if they reopen that bylaw, you
[1:10:07] would probably see year round fire
[1:10:09] permitting be one of the first things
[1:10:10] that would happen. you would probably
[1:10:12] see more restrictions around uh what you
[1:10:15] can burn when and why. Um but it's not a
[1:10:19] problem that's getting easier to manage
[1:10:20] in the province of Alberta. And this is
[1:10:22] one of the reasons why we brought this
[1:10:24] bylaw forward is we are seeing the same
[1:10:26] challenges outside the forest protection
[1:10:28] area that the province is seeing inside
[1:10:30] the forest protection area with more
[1:10:33] larger wildfires, the vast majority of
[1:10:36] them humancaused escaping our ability to
[1:10:39] put them out quickly uh because of
[1:10:41] weather patterns and weather conditions
[1:10:43] that we're we're we're dealing with. And
[1:10:45] this is the entire intent of this bylaw
[1:10:47] is to increase the safety standard for
[1:10:50] Clearwater County residents while not
[1:10:52] making it restrictive that people can
[1:10:53] enjoy the rural lifestyle uh here in
[1:10:56] Clearwater County. I I also love to have
[1:10:58] a campfire in my backyard and I live in
[1:11:01] the forest pro uh forest protection area
[1:11:03] west of Dover Court and uh I I
[1:11:07] understand that uh there's different
[1:11:09] laws that I need to follow that my
[1:11:11] neighbor a few miles to the east across
[1:11:12] the clear water doesn't need to follow
[1:11:14] today.
[1:11:16] >> So yeah, and I I totally understand all
[1:11:20] of this. I just this thing just jumped
[1:11:23] out and because I know there there are
[1:11:28] situations where it just doesn't fit.
[1:11:31] Um, and I understand we've been in a
[1:11:34] drought basically for the last 8 years.
[1:11:37] So, we're dry as as can be out there.
[1:11:40] And and uh my my hats off to you guys
[1:11:44] for the job you do
[1:11:47] with our fire protection. So, um, and I
[1:11:51] understand why we're why we're doing
[1:11:53] this. I just had
[1:11:56] some questions. So, I'm I'm still not
[1:11:59] sure how I how I feel about it. Uh,
[1:12:07] guess that's why I'm why I'm sitting in
[1:12:09] this seat is to
[1:12:12] try and sort things out for the
[1:12:14] residents of Clearwater County. And I'm
[1:12:17] one of them. So, uh,
[1:12:20] try and make it make sense.
[1:12:23] >> Thank you, councelor Humphrey. What I'm
[1:12:25] hearing through this discussion, and
[1:12:26] this is a really important discussion
[1:12:28] regarding fire pits for the residents of
[1:12:29] Clearwater County, I hear from councelor
[1:12:31] Humphrey that he does not want to create
[1:12:32] any additional red tape or any
[1:12:34] burdensome legislation that or policy or
[1:12:37] bylaws that could have negative impacts
[1:12:39] on community members. And I think all of
[1:12:41] council would agree with that. I also am
[1:12:43] hearing from the deputy fire chief that
[1:12:46] uh there are already current bylaws in
[1:12:48] place that have restrictions and size
[1:12:49] requirements on existing fire pits.
[1:12:53] I do believe that the the landscape of
[1:12:55] Cleora County has also changed. We have
[1:12:57] many more short-term rentals and
[1:12:58] different users coming to the
[1:13:00] municipality. We have uh more campsites
[1:13:02] that have been designated on private
[1:13:04] land where we have more users. we've had
[1:13:07] uh so so that has changed the the users
[1:13:11] of fire pits and fire does have an
[1:13:13] impact especially when you have a
[1:13:14] wildfire event in the community. Uh burn
[1:13:17] notifications versus fire permits. We've
[1:13:19] already had many people in the community
[1:13:21] that have used burn notification process
[1:13:23] uh would just be now rather than a burn
[1:13:26] notification more a fire it would be a
[1:13:28] permit.
[1:13:30] So, with that being said, um there are
[1:13:33] some council members that would like to
[1:13:34] provide comments and we'll start with
[1:13:35] councelor Lewin.
[1:13:37] >> Yes. Um if you had a fire pit got out of
[1:13:40] control on you and burnt down your place
[1:13:42] and the neighbor's place, um you charge
[1:13:46] them or find them. Is that correct?
[1:13:49] >> Uh councelor Lewin, great question. And
[1:13:51] it's a complex one. It depends on where
[1:13:52] you are in Clearwater County. uh if that
[1:13:55] happens in the forest protection area
[1:13:57] and there was some kind of negligence or
[1:13:59] uh you know a fire pit that didn't meet
[1:14:01] the standard or somebody wasn't
[1:14:02] attending the burn uh under the forest
[1:14:04] and prairie protection act there's
[1:14:06] actually quite heavy penalties for that
[1:14:08] >> uh up to where that landowner can be uh
[1:14:11] build for the entire cost of the
[1:14:13] response.
[1:14:13] >> What about on your private property?
[1:14:15] That's what I was
[1:14:16] >> even on your private property if you're
[1:14:17] in the forest protection area if you
[1:14:19] have a fire that gets off your property
[1:14:20] and extends
[1:14:22] >> and there's any kind of wildfire
[1:14:23] response that if that wildfire response
[1:14:26] officer deems that there was some type
[1:14:27] of negligence or breach of the forest
[1:14:29] per protection act you could be fined
[1:14:31] under the for protection act and you
[1:14:33] could also be build for the cost of the
[1:14:35] response which can be on wildfire
[1:14:38] incidents astronomical. Uh there's been
[1:14:40] some very hefty bills to private land
[1:14:42] owners in other parts of the county uh in the millions of dollars uh to
[1:14:48] recover costs for wildfire response
[1:14:49] based on air tankers and helicopters and
[1:14:52] heavy equipment and crews. Uh there's
[1:14:54] also civil liability for that person
[1:14:56] they would carry uh where adjacent land
[1:14:59] owners and insurance companies could uh
[1:15:02] you know essentially through civil uh
[1:15:05] civil law uh try and recover damages and
[1:15:07] losses. Um, yes, you can be fined
[1:15:10] outside the force, uh, protection area
[1:15:13] in Clearwater County. Uh, our current
[1:15:16] bylaw and the language in this bylaw
[1:15:18] allows us as discretion to bill land
[1:15:21] owners. Uh, we do not bill for fire
[1:15:23] response for, uh, fires that are are not
[1:15:27] negligible in in nature. Uh, we can cost
[1:15:30] recover through insurance if we have the
[1:15:32] avenue to do that. Uh this bylaw
[1:15:34] specifically states in the fees and
[1:15:36] services in the bottom uh when we would
[1:15:38] bill and when we would not. Uh that
[1:15:41] aligns with our current county bylaw as
[1:15:43] well. Uh the 1069
[1:15:46] um for there is a specific section that
[1:15:49] talks about wildfires inside and outside
[1:15:51] the forest protection area. I think Jan
[1:15:54] is looking for it for us right now.
[1:15:56] I guess where I'm going with this one is
[1:15:58] if you did find uh residents with
[1:16:02] insurance that had insurance and they
[1:16:04] were fined for neglect or what whatever
[1:16:06] you find them with um their insurance
[1:16:08] would be null and void, wouldn't it?
[1:16:10] >> Uh or
[1:16:12] >> no. Um
[1:16:14] it it depends on your insurance. Okay.
[1:16:17] >> But uh personal liability insurance is
[1:16:20] in a lot of cases not necessarily no
[1:16:23] fault insurance. Uh sometimes your
[1:16:26] insurance will cover it, other times it
[1:16:28] will not. It depends solely on the
[1:16:29] insurance provider and your policy. Um
[1:16:32] but in certain situations, yes, that is
[1:16:35] the case. You could be insured and if
[1:16:37] you were doing something negligent,
[1:16:39] um your insurance company could hold you
[1:16:43] um
[1:16:43] >> responsible
[1:16:44] >> at responsible and and not cover those
[1:16:46] costs.
[1:16:46] >> Second,
[1:16:49] >> councelor Powell. Go ahead. I was just
[1:16:51] going to make a motion that council
[1:16:52] grants first reading to bylaw 26102
[1:16:56] complete with amendments.
[1:16:59] >> Okay.
[1:17:01] We have a motion for councelor Powell to
[1:17:03] grant first reading to bylaw 26102.
[1:17:08] Deputy Reef McKay. Go ahead.
[1:17:10] >> Thanks Ree. And just quickly before we
[1:17:12] vote on that motion, just regarding
[1:17:14] fireworks,
[1:17:16] a fireworks permit is being required
[1:17:18] year round now. I don't believe that was
[1:17:21] part of any other previous discussions
[1:17:24] that we had.
[1:17:28] Uh Deputy Reef, we that was not changed.
[1:17:30] That was original language in the bylaw.
[1:17:32] I'd have to clarify with Chief Hemrich
[1:17:34] when he's back or with wildfire, but I
[1:17:36] believe that fireworks permits
[1:17:37] specifically are required in the FBA
[1:17:39] year around year round. Fireworks are
[1:17:42] handled separately than than uh uh
[1:17:45] recreational fires and and and uh
[1:17:48] burning because they they there's a
[1:17:50] portion of the explosives act that
[1:17:51] applies um where it includes sale and storage as well. So, not only does
[1:17:59] the user uh in the forest protection
[1:18:01] area today, if you buy fireworks in
[1:18:04] Edmonton and drive to Clearwater County
[1:18:06] and decide you want to discharge
[1:18:07] fireworks at the um you know out by the
[1:18:10] Ram River in the FBA, you require a fire
[1:18:12] permit today from Alberta Forestry,
[1:18:14] >> right? And um I understand that, but
[1:18:17] this isn't only applying to the FBA.
[1:18:19] This is applying to Clearwater County.
[1:18:21] >> Correct. Yeah. So to tell someone on the
[1:18:23] east side of Clearwater County they
[1:18:25] require a permit for fireworks for New
[1:18:29] Year's Eve when there's 3 ft of snow on
[1:18:31] the ground. Ridiculous isn't the right
[1:18:33] word to describe that.
[1:18:35] >> Understood, counselor. And and I can
[1:18:36] clarify that. Um I I believe and uh that
[1:18:40] fireworks permits are required year
[1:18:43] round in the FBA today.
[1:18:46] >> Right. In like in the fire protection
[1:18:48] area for sure. and and part of the
[1:18:50] reason why the language says that in in
[1:18:52] this bylaw was to align with what the
[1:18:55] province is doing. So again, we don't
[1:18:56] have two standards depending on where
[1:18:58] you live in Claywater County. Um and
[1:19:00] part of the permitting uh with fireworks
[1:19:02] isn't necessarily around just the fire
[1:19:04] risk, it's around the the human danger
[1:19:06] as well. Um there is a lot of injuries
[1:19:10] and deaths annually in Canada and the
[1:19:11] United States due to improper use of
[1:19:13] recreational fireworks. It's probably uh
[1:19:16] the commercial grade fireworks shows are are less so problematic. Usually you
[1:19:20] have pyro technicians standards experts
[1:19:24] dealing with them, but it's the it's the
[1:19:26] ability for somebody to buy fireworks at
[1:19:28] their store and drive out west and set
[1:19:30] off a whole bunch of fireworks in
[1:19:34] vicarious ways. Uh that we see lots of
[1:19:38] injuries, serious injuries, significant
[1:19:39] injuries, losses of limbs, losses of
[1:19:41] vision, things like that. So part of the
[1:19:43] permitting on fireworks isn't
[1:19:44] necessarily just the fire hazard. It's
[1:19:46] also the the safety and human risk to
[1:19:49] them. Um they may not create a wildfire,
[1:19:52] but they may cause a structure fire
[1:19:53] based on how you you're discharging
[1:19:55] them, how you uh store them, things like
[1:19:58] that. They can create undue fire risk
[1:19:59] and explosion risks uh if they're stored
[1:20:02] in in at length. Uh so it's not
[1:20:05] essentially just the wildfire risk on
[1:20:07] why we'd be permitting fireworks.
[1:20:09] There's other risks there as well on why
[1:20:11] that's an annual permitting process and
[1:20:13] not just this bylaw isn't specifically
[1:20:16] around the wildfire risk in Clearwater
[1:20:18] County. This is the fire services bylaw
[1:20:21] that that handles everything we we deal
[1:20:23] with, not specific to wildfire risk. So
[1:20:26] the the fire permitting for fireworks is
[1:20:29] not solely on the wildfire risk. So
[1:20:31] understanding there's no risk for a
[1:20:32] wildfire for New Year's when you're
[1:20:34] discharging fireworks. There's other
[1:20:35] risks on why we would permit them
[1:20:36] annually.
[1:20:43] and and for clarity's sake, um the
[1:20:46] Explosives Act changes two years ago um
[1:20:52] came into force and basically in in our
[1:20:55] in Canada, if a municipality doesn't
[1:20:57] have a a fireworks bylaw or a bylaw
[1:21:01] allowing fireworks to be sold or
[1:21:03] discharged, they're actually blanketly
[1:21:05] illegal. Uh so currently our current
[1:21:08] fire control bylaw does not allow the
[1:21:10] use of fireworks at all because there's
[1:21:13] nothing in there that speaks about it.
[1:21:14] So the explosives act is now in force
[1:21:16] which means that everywhere that sells
[1:21:19] fireworks today in Clearwater County,
[1:21:21] anybody discharging fireworks anywhere
[1:21:23] in Clearwater County today is doing so
[1:21:25] technically illegally because we don't
[1:21:27] have a bylaw permitting their use. So
[1:21:30] this actually cleans that piece up. This
[1:21:32] was something that I believe previous uh
[1:21:34] fire administration was attempting to
[1:21:36] get in front of council for some time
[1:21:37] now is that since the changes of the
[1:21:40] explosives act at the federal level um
[1:21:43] fireworks use in Clearwater County has
[1:21:45] essentially become illegal until we put
[1:21:47] a a a system in place here that allows
[1:21:49] their use. So this would actually
[1:21:53] now increase administratively the fact
[1:21:55] that we would need to go and permit the
[1:21:56] places that are selling them. We would
[1:21:58] need to permit those places would need
[1:21:59] to have a structure in place for uh
[1:22:02] requiring checking age uh of who is of
[1:22:05] buying the fireworks. Uh and then we
[1:22:08] would they would have to have a permit
[1:22:09] from us to discharge them. Which in that
[1:22:11] case if we were to put a restriction or
[1:22:13] a ban on we could then contact those
[1:22:15] individuals and say you no longer can
[1:22:16] discharge your fireworks because the
[1:22:17] fire risk is too high fireworks because
[1:22:20] the fire risk is too high. Uh but as it
[1:22:22] stands today, um if any law enforcement
[1:22:26] uh agency catches somebody discharging
[1:22:29] fireworks in Clearwater County, they can
[1:22:31] find them today because it is
[1:22:32] technically illegal under the Explosives
[1:22:35] Act because we don't have a bylaw
[1:22:36] permitting their use.
[1:22:38] >> Thank you for that, Deputy Chief. So the
[1:22:40] dis uh discharging of fireworks in the
[1:22:43] past or by any resident in Clearwater
[1:22:45] County has done so illegally, but
[1:22:48] >> that's correct.
[1:22:49] >> Correct. Yeah.
[1:22:51] allegedly. I
[1:22:53] >> Go ahead, Deputy Reef.
[1:22:56] >> I'm not familiar with the National
[1:22:58] Explosive Act. I mean, I'm not
[1:23:00] registered,
[1:23:03] but uh to believe that fireworks that
[1:23:06] can be purchased at any store in
[1:23:08] Clearwater County, literally any store
[1:23:11] and any store across the entire
[1:23:13] province, are now illegal.
[1:23:17] I find that tough.
[1:23:20] and the fact that we're going back to
[1:23:22] the argument that unless we say it's
[1:23:24] legal, it's illegal, that's a very tough
[1:23:27] position to negotiate from.
[1:23:30] >> I understand brief that this was a
[1:23:32] massive discussion at the Alberta Fire
[1:23:34] Chiefs Association for the last uh many
[1:23:37] years. Um it is a uh an NRCAN direction
[1:23:42] when they changed the explosives act
[1:23:44] that made it very clear on that uh
[1:23:47] specific law enforcement agencies were
[1:23:49] the only agencies allowed to enforce the
[1:23:50] explosives act. They pulled it out of
[1:23:52] the national fire code uh and put it
[1:23:54] into the explosives act. There were some
[1:23:57] very large code changes at the national
[1:23:59] level when uh Alberta in 2019 adopted
[1:24:02] the national fire code and now the the
[1:24:03] 2023 Alberta edition of the national
[1:24:05] fire code where they removed everything
[1:24:08] but storage of fireworks out of the fire
[1:24:10] code and took it out of the
[1:24:11] municipalities hands on to manage at the
[1:24:14] fire inspection level. uh those changes
[1:24:18] put into a into motion a situation
[1:24:21] legally where unless a municipality in
[1:24:23] Canada has a bylaw allowing fireworks uh
[1:24:27] to be sold, stored and discharged that
[1:24:30] uh they were not legal to be sold,
[1:24:33] storage, and discharged. And that was
[1:24:34] the legal opinion based on the changes
[1:24:36] to the codes al the fire code and the
[1:24:38] national fire uh the national explosives
[1:24:40] act. Um, and it's been a massive
[1:24:42] discussion at the Alberta fire chiefs
[1:24:44] and the office of the fire commissioner
[1:24:46] levels across the country, specifically
[1:24:48] here in Alberta. And I I understand uh
[1:24:51] we we live in a province where there is
[1:24:54] a lot of acts uh that are uninforced
[1:24:57] today that exist. There's a lot of law
[1:24:59] in place that are completely uninforced
[1:25:02] um or uh enforced very little,
[1:25:05] especially in rural Alberta. the
[1:25:08] province is is is being a lot less um
[1:25:12] sympathetic to rural municipalities for
[1:25:14] not enforcing things like the building
[1:25:16] code, the fire code, the explosives act.
[1:25:19] Uh and we are in a position of liability
[1:25:21] when we when we do not enforce
[1:25:23] provincial and national legislation. We
[1:25:25] are we are in that position of of
[1:25:27] liability. Um this the intent of this
[1:25:30] bylaw is to try and close some of those
[1:25:32] liability gaps for Clearwater County and
[1:25:34] start to uh align with our partners in
[1:25:37] the province uh specifically the forest
[1:25:39] prepare uh and protection area so that
[1:25:41] our our residents have one standard set
[1:25:44] of rules to follow and they're not
[1:25:45] flipping through multiple documents
[1:25:47] based on where they live to figure out
[1:25:48] if something's legal or not.
[1:25:51] That is the intent. Um I I can
[1:25:54] definitely uh uh find some more detail
[1:25:58] on the fireworks portion and provide
[1:25:59] some clarity to council at a future
[1:26:00] council meeting as well uh on those
[1:26:02] changes and how they impact the county.
[1:26:04] Uh we can uh get separate legal opinion
[1:26:07] as well if that's if that's the the
[1:26:09] desired council.
[1:26:11] >> Thank you. And I I truly do appreciate
[1:26:13] the intention of creating an act that is
[1:26:17] equal across the county. I understand
[1:26:19] that. However,
[1:26:22] the overreach that has found its way
[1:26:24] into this act, whether intentional or
[1:26:28] not, really puts this council in a very
[1:26:30] difficult position because for me to
[1:26:33] explain that now anyone just using
[1:26:37] recreational fireworks such as Roman
[1:26:39] candles, which we all know are incapable
[1:26:42] of harming anyone, is now illegal in
[1:26:45] Clearwater County because we created a
[1:26:48] bylaw that said it
[1:26:52] Just just for clarity, um this bylaw
[1:26:55] actually permits the use with a permit.
[1:26:57] >> Well, with a permit.
[1:26:59] >> Yeah.
[1:27:00] >> Go ahead.
[1:27:00] >> Where go for a permit?
[1:27:04] >> Where do you go for a permit?
[1:27:05] >> That same place that somebody would get
[1:27:06] a a fire permit for burning a brush
[1:27:09] pile. You would receive it. If if you're
[1:27:11] in the if you're in the forest
[1:27:12] protection area today, you have to go to
[1:27:14] Alberta Forestry request firework. I
[1:27:16] don't need a permit to burn a brush pile
[1:27:18] the size of your house in December. But
[1:27:21] now I need a permit to use recreational
[1:27:23] fireworks on New Year's.
[1:27:26] >> Yes, correct. That is the that was that
[1:27:29] was how the bylaw is written.
[1:27:30] >> If if I may
[1:27:31] >> saying that deputy chief, I just have
[1:27:33] one question. So with the but the
[1:27:34] fireworks were they were illegal like
[1:27:38] 365 days of the year prior to they were
[1:27:40] illegal
[1:27:40] >> allegedly,
[1:27:42] >> right?
[1:27:42] >> But they're still sold here. They're
[1:27:45] sold, but discharging them was illegal.
[1:27:47] But now you would be able to obtain a
[1:27:48] permit to discharge fire fireworks.
[1:27:51] >> Correct. As of today, with the current
[1:27:52] bylaw in place, the only place that we
[1:27:55] have uh authority to manage anything to
[1:27:57] do with uh fireworks in Clearwater
[1:27:59] County is either the province through
[1:28:01] Alberta Forestry whenever somebody wants
[1:28:03] to discharge fireworks in their forest
[1:28:04] protection area or through fire
[1:28:06] inspections of those places that are
[1:28:08] selling them. We can tell them whether
[1:28:09] or not they're storing them correctly as
[1:28:11] per the fire code. Uh the explosives act
[1:28:14] today requires those people selling them
[1:28:17] to um take a license for whoever's
[1:28:20] selling them, take their name and their
[1:28:21] phone number, all kinds of things. I'm
[1:28:23] not sure if that's being enforced at
[1:28:24] all. Um this isn't wouldn't be our
[1:28:27] intention either, but there's other
[1:28:28] pieces in the explosives act that I'm
[1:28:30] sure are not being followed across the
[1:28:31] province of Alberta, not just in
[1:28:33] Clearwater County, that came into force
[1:28:35] when they changed the explosives act in
[1:28:37] the fire code.
[1:28:38] I have one more question and I
[1:28:40] absolutely understand where Deputy Reev
[1:28:42] M is coming from with the permitting
[1:28:44] process for fireworks with that with the
[1:28:46] number of the number of CRA and CR
[1:28:49] parcels that have been subdivided in the
[1:28:51] past when now a permit is being
[1:28:56] requested. Would it be would it consider
[1:28:58] neighboring agricultural operations and
[1:29:01] impacts on livestock for the discharging
[1:29:04] of those fireworks because they can have
[1:29:06] an impact on on cattle or livestock. So
[1:29:08] would would that be considered in the
[1:29:10] permit? So with the number of uh small
[1:29:13] parcel holders potentially setting off
[1:29:15] firework display having a negative
[1:29:16] impact on a cattle producer for instance
[1:29:19] would would that be considered in the
[1:29:20] permitting process? It
[1:29:21] >> it can definitely be part of our our
[1:29:23] policy on how we consider fireworks
[1:29:25] permits in Clearwater County. If if uh if that was uh a priority of council
[1:29:32] for sure, we could we could look at that
[1:29:33] and based on approving a lot of these
[1:29:36] permits if there's no wildfire risk at
[1:29:38] the time would be essentially
[1:29:40] automatically approved uh subject to
[1:29:42] size and what they're burning. Um
[1:29:45] >> okay. No, I just wanted to bring
[1:29:47] awareness to that. sometimes said in the
[1:29:49] past that it's uh you'd have the right
[1:29:50] to do what you want on your land, but
[1:29:52] sometimes doing on your land does have a
[1:29:54] negative impact or an impact on the
[1:29:55] neighboring land owner. So, with that
[1:29:57] said, we do have a motion on the floor
[1:29:59] for first reading from councelor Powell
[1:30:00] to grant first reading to bylaw 26102.
[1:30:06] Seeing no further discussion on that
[1:30:07] item, I'll call the question. All those
[1:30:09] in favor
[1:30:12] and those opposed.
[1:30:15] Okay, that motion is supported for first
[1:30:16] reading.
[1:30:19] Moving on to further discussion or
[1:30:21] motion for second reading to bylaw
[1:30:24] number 26102.
[1:30:29] Councelor Surmarmac,
[1:30:31] >> do I do I understand this correctly that
[1:30:35] 1ifth of our county is more restrictive
[1:30:39] than four fifths of our county
[1:30:42] at the present time in our fire in our
[1:30:46] fire bylaw?
[1:30:48] >> Uh, councelor Surerac uh specifically
[1:30:51] when it comes to uh fire pit uh size and
[1:30:56] construction. Yes. Um, this bylaw is
[1:31:00] actually less restrictive. The language
[1:31:02] in this bylaw is less restrictive than
[1:31:04] our pre our current uh bylaw in place.
[1:31:07] However, our we are not the authority
[1:31:10] having jurisdiction for what a fire pit
[1:31:12] looks like in four-fifths of our county.
[1:31:14] Rough numbers based on the size of the
[1:31:16] eastern portion that's outside the FBA.
[1:31:19] Uh the majority of our population
[1:31:20] therefore in Clearwater County is in
[1:31:22] that 1/5if of the county that is outside
[1:31:25] the forest protection area. Um but the
[1:31:28] other portions of Clearwater County are
[1:31:30] less restrictive for fire pits for sure.
[1:31:32] They are more restrictive currently for
[1:31:34] permitting. Uh they are more restrictive
[1:31:37] for um fines and penalties uh based on
[1:31:41] uh negligent burning or burning during a
[1:31:44] uh a banner or a restriction. the the
[1:31:47] Force and Prairie Protection Act uh is very clear uh and it is it it is
[1:31:53] enforced by Alberta Wildfire quite
[1:31:55] frequently in the western portions of
[1:31:56] Clearwater County for uh for things like
[1:31:59] that, but their pit description is less
[1:32:01] restrictive than our current bylaw is.
[1:32:03] So, this language in this new bylaw
[1:32:05] would bring us into alignment with the
[1:32:07] rest of the county for fire pits uh for
[1:32:10] permitting uh for fees and and um and
[1:32:13] penalties.
[1:32:16] I thank you for bringing that forward to
[1:32:18] making our county the same whether you
[1:32:21] live in a in a green area or if you live
[1:32:24] in a in a on in the farming area. And
[1:32:28] this this is the this here the map
[1:32:30] that's pulled up is is the def is the
[1:32:32] difference. So essentially the yellow
[1:32:34] area is outside the forest protection
[1:32:36] area. The brown area is within it. Uh we
[1:32:38] are the sole authority having
[1:32:40] jurisdiction for everything fire in that
[1:32:42] yellow area.
[1:32:44] uh we are the authority having
[1:32:46] jurisdiction for structure fires,
[1:32:48] vehicle fires uh in the Brown area, but
[1:32:51] when it comes to wildland fires, fire
[1:32:53] permitting for burning um and fees and fines related to the forest repair
[1:32:59] protection act, that brown area, Alberta
[1:33:01] Forestry and Parks is the authority
[1:33:02] having jurisdiction. And right now we
[1:33:04] have two sets of rules based on brown
[1:33:06] and yellow. We're trying to make them
[1:33:08] consistent across the board. That red
[1:33:10] line that roughly from the south follows
[1:33:13] Highway 22 just south of Cran. It it
[1:33:16] sneaks across to the east of 22 and
[1:33:18] steals a portion of timber there. It
[1:33:20] comes up to just south of Caroline and
[1:33:22] runs west to uh essentially just south
[1:33:25] of Highway 22, comes up and follows the
[1:33:27] Clearwater River all the way into Rocky
[1:33:29] Mountain House and then north of Rocky
[1:33:30] Jags out to Pinoa County essentially is
[1:33:34] the is the boundary. So,
[1:33:37] it's it's there's some very recognizable
[1:33:40] features. It's very easy to enforce
[1:33:41] along the Clear Water. Do you live west
[1:33:43] or east of the Clear Water River, north
[1:33:45] of Rocky Mountain House, uh south of
[1:33:47] Caroline? It can be you can live on a
[1:33:50] range and your neighbor across the
[1:33:52] street can or can't burn and you can or
[1:33:54] can't or they will have a fine and you
[1:33:57] won't or they can have a pit this way
[1:33:59] and you can't. Uh so, it's very
[1:34:01] confusing for residents and land owners
[1:34:03] for sure.
[1:34:05] Thank you for making it the same for the
[1:34:08] whole country. I think it's important.
[1:34:11] Thanks.
[1:34:12] >> Thank you, Council Turac. At this point
[1:34:13] in time, we've had a significant amount
[1:34:15] of discussion regarding fireworks,
[1:34:17] uh,
[1:34:19] fire pits. Uh, a lot of discussion on
[1:34:21] bylaw 26102, fire rescue services bylaw
[1:34:24] and item 54.2 on today's agenda. But at
[1:34:26] this point in time, we're going to take
[1:34:27] a 10-minute recess return at 10:25.
[1:46:55] Welcome back from our recess and welcome
[1:46:57] back to the Clearwater County regular
[1:46:58] council meeting for August 25th, 2026.
[1:47:02] We've had significant discussion on item
[1:47:04] 4.2, bylaw 26102 for fire rescue service
[1:47:08] bylaw. First reading was passed on this
[1:47:10] bylaw and I'll continue to open the
[1:47:12] floor for discussion and uh potential
[1:47:14] motions for second reading. Councelor
[1:47:16] Humphrey, go ahead, please.
[1:47:20] » No comments from councelor Humphrey.
[1:47:23] >> Go ahead, councelor.
[1:47:24] >> Yes, see as I see as I do have it.
[1:47:27] >> Go ahead.
[1:47:27] >> Have the mic. It it just seems like
[1:47:30] we're uh
[1:47:34] we want to keep in mind that our our
[1:47:37] county
[1:47:38] I'm not sure on the exact
[1:47:41] uh numbers but as you can see that
[1:47:43] yellow area that's that's 15th of the
[1:47:46] area but it's probably
[1:47:50] 90% or more of the population.
[1:47:55] So, and we seem to be worried a lot
[1:47:57] about
[1:47:59] making it all the same for the whole
[1:48:01] county. And I'm not sure that's really
[1:48:03] an issue we need to
[1:48:06] worry about. We should
[1:48:09] maybe think more about what are what is
[1:48:11] the effect to the all of our residents
[1:48:13] or the majority of our res residents
[1:48:17] cuz yeah we have a we live in a huge
[1:48:19] county but the fire protection area
[1:48:23] encompasses as as has been said like
[1:48:26] four four fifths or or larger but our population is
[1:48:33] largely centered in the yellow portions
[1:48:36] of that and what we're the stuff we're
[1:48:39] talking about and deciding on here today
[1:48:41] is is affecting 90% of our population
[1:48:46] and I just feel we maybe need to have a
[1:48:48] little more time a little more time on
[1:48:51] the drawing board for some of these
[1:48:53] issues. Thank you, Councelor Humphrey.
[1:48:56] I'm going to defer to CEO Simpson. Go
[1:48:58] ahead, please.
[1:48:59] >> Thank you, uh, Mr. Reev. I I I want to
[1:49:02] throw three words out in front of
[1:49:03] council that should maybe help
[1:49:06] I would hope set your minds at ease on
[1:49:08] the application of this bylaw. Um one
[1:49:11] being uh negligence, one being the
[1:49:14] reasonable standard and one being
[1:49:16] enforcement because all of the
[1:49:17] conversations that we're having back and
[1:49:19] forth deal in those three key areas. Um
[1:49:24] while it's been mentioned many times
[1:49:25] that the brown area has a predefined
[1:49:28] reasonable standard and the yellow area
[1:49:30] has an actually a tougher reasonable
[1:49:33] standard under the current bylaw
[1:49:34] respecting say fire pit sizes. Um
[1:49:38] the uh the reasonable standard that
[1:49:41] we're trying to set here in the I guess
[1:49:45] to tie in with the province's reasonable
[1:49:47] standards regarding fire pit sizes. We
[1:49:50] do need to set one. But the enforcement
[1:49:54] piece, Council Humphrey, was one that
[1:49:55] you spoke to. You know, you you you gave
[1:49:58] the example of, "I don't like the color
[1:49:59] of your hair. Your fire pit's too big.
[1:50:00] Now I'm giving you a ticket." Right. So,
[1:50:04] we'll dive over into the word
[1:50:05] negligence, which is usually something
[1:50:08] that a judge would arrive at in a court
[1:50:10] proceeding after measuring whether there
[1:50:13] was a deviation from the reasonable
[1:50:14] standard, right? Which is defined as
[1:50:16] what would a normal rational person do?
[1:50:19] Um, currently the reasonable standard is
[1:50:21] defined in the bylaw and it's pretty
[1:50:24] rigid, but if you go to your definition
[1:50:27] section for this new draft bylaw, so 2B7
[1:50:32] and 2 C7,
[1:50:36] there is also another definition or
[1:50:38] another test for reasonable when a
[1:50:41] professional is being involved. So
[1:50:43] specific to the to the example of abuse
[1:50:46] of power in issuing tickets for
[1:50:48] oversized fireplaces or fire pits or
[1:50:50] fireplaces because they're both covered
[1:50:52] under that. Um we we lay out in all of
[1:50:56] section 2B 1 through six what we would
[1:51:00] consider a reasonable standard that is
[1:51:02] used widely across the province for
[1:51:04] characteristics of how to safely place a
[1:51:07] fire pit. However, the the folks who
[1:51:10] you've inoned would have variations of
[1:51:13] that. Um, we kind of catch that in
[1:51:17] subsection 7 where we use the language
[1:51:19] as may otherwise be determined by the
[1:51:21] fire chief having regard to health,
[1:51:24] safety, hazards, and risks. Now, the
[1:51:26] fire chief would be meeting under a
[1:51:28] different test if somebody felt they
[1:51:30] were being unfairly treated for the size
[1:51:32] of their fire pit because of the fire
[1:51:34] chief's determination. The professional
[1:51:36] test would be um someone having
[1:51:38] specialized skills and relying upon
[1:51:40] those skills to make a determination. So
[1:51:43] in the case of something having a three
[1:51:45] and a half or four foot crusher cone in
[1:51:47] their backyard and they were feeling a
[1:51:50] little adamant that they shouldn't have
[1:51:51] to conform, the language exists in this
[1:51:54] new bylaw for the fire chief to give
[1:51:56] them that variation, but it allows the
[1:51:58] fire chief to exercise his professional
[1:52:00] skills in determining that the fireplace
[1:52:03] or fire pit either or is cited
[1:52:06] correctly. that being away from
[1:52:07] combustibles, uh, being away from wires,
[1:52:10] being a certain distance from buildings
[1:52:12] and so forth. So, it's not as though in
[1:52:16] putting this into place, administration
[1:52:18] suddenly is granted the authority to
[1:52:21] unfairly exercise its power and issue
[1:52:23] tickets. Typically, these definitions
[1:52:25] would be used at the back end of an
[1:52:27] incident when something has happened and
[1:52:29] then the court would look to our bylaw
[1:52:31] to see if we had a reasonable standard
[1:52:33] defined. We need to have one of those in
[1:52:37] bar none. Whatever it winds up being, we
[1:52:39] need to have something. The the default
[1:52:42] position for administration to do this
[1:52:43] in a way that we think is I would say
[1:52:45] industry standard is to follow the
[1:52:47] provincial guidelines that are
[1:52:49] established in the forest protection
[1:52:50] area there. Um but also jumping forward
[1:52:53] to enforcement which you know can be
[1:52:56] applied to the conversation and comments
[1:52:57] around fire pits, fireplaces and it can
[1:52:59] be applied to the conversation around
[1:53:02] fireworks permits. Um, unless council
[1:53:05] expressly tells us to proactively go out
[1:53:08] and begin investigating fire pit sizes
[1:53:11] or asking people if they have fireworks
[1:53:14] on their property and if they have a
[1:53:15] permit, I don't believe administration's
[1:53:17] intention would be to go out and begin
[1:53:19] policing that immediately. It's more of
[1:53:22] a case of when there's a complaint, we
[1:53:24] would come out and check. The passing of
[1:53:27] this bylaw with these sizes defined
[1:53:29] creates um a a bit of a good touch point
[1:53:33] actually between the public and the fire
[1:53:34] services where if somebody's not sure
[1:53:36] now where does my fireplace or fire pit
[1:53:39] sit, can the chief send someone out with
[1:53:41] those same professional skills to come
[1:53:43] out and look at this thing and tell me
[1:53:45] if I'm missing any hazards in how I've
[1:53:48] identified where I should put it so that
[1:53:50] they can still have it. But it would be
[1:53:53] great if we on the admin side would send
[1:53:56] someone out from fire services with
[1:53:58] those professional skills to just take a
[1:53:59] look and make sure that they're safe. So
[1:54:03] it doesn't automatically trigger
[1:54:05] penalties for them based on the size of
[1:54:07] it. There is a means by which we could
[1:54:09] issue that variance that Deputy Chief
[1:54:11] Stewart was talking about. And all of
[1:54:14] that sort of creates that that legal
[1:54:17] balance that we would need in the event
[1:54:19] that there is a fire. it gets out of
[1:54:21] control and negligence is the thing that
[1:54:24] we're looking to have determined so that
[1:54:26] we can appropriately recover costs from
[1:54:28] someone who was negligent or we can
[1:54:30] determine no they weren't being
[1:54:31] negligent, it was um circumstances
[1:54:33] beyond their control or it was not their
[1:54:35] fault. And I guess the same would apply
[1:54:37] to fireworks permits. I I don't believe
[1:54:41] that we're going to be sending peace
[1:54:42] officers out at night trying to figure
[1:54:43] out where the flashbang went off and
[1:54:46] then chasing the ark back down to the
[1:54:47] quarter section and checking for a
[1:54:48] permit. But it does create
[1:54:52] an opportunity for people to reflect on
[1:54:54] their practice and whether they are
[1:54:56] being safe unto themselves and in
[1:54:58] consideration of their neighbors if
[1:55:00] that's of of any help to council.
[1:55:03] >> Thank you.
[1:55:04] for that information. CEO
[1:55:05] Simpson. Councelor, go ahead.
[1:55:09] >> Yes. And thanks thanks for all that CO
[1:55:12] Simpson. Um,
[1:55:14] I guess I have one more
[1:55:17] question on it and and I just feel that
[1:55:22] now is the time for us to ask the
[1:55:25] questions and and try and and get get
[1:55:29] the answers for this. What about uh
[1:55:33] insurance
[1:55:35] around stuff like that if we if we know
[1:55:38] that they're out there? Um, and whether
[1:55:43] uh a fire gets away from somebody and
[1:55:45] it's not negligent, it's just from
[1:55:48] unseen circumstances. If it was in a in
[1:55:52] a 3-FFT fire pit and that happened
[1:55:57] and they burnt their house down.
[1:56:02] Now, if it was in a 3 and 1/2t fire pit
[1:56:05] and it burned their house down, same
[1:56:07] circumstances. Is the insurance company
[1:56:09] going to going to go, "Oh, but you guys
[1:56:13] had an illegal fire pit."
[1:56:16] >> Do you have any further comments,
[1:56:18] Council?
[1:56:20] >> Yeah. No. Excellent. I'm going to defer
[1:56:22] to CEO Simpson. Go ahead, please.
[1:56:23] >> Uh, I guess I'll give you the lawyer's
[1:56:25] answer. It depends. Um, and an insurance
[1:56:28] company would probably perform a robust
[1:56:31] investigation, which would encompass
[1:56:32] several factors. One of which may be was
[1:56:36] their fire pit in regulation size or did
[1:56:38] they have a variant according to the
[1:56:39] bylaw that we have. They would look at
[1:56:41] that, but they would also look at other
[1:56:43] things. Um, were you intoxicated? Uh,
[1:56:46] what was the weather conditions? Was
[1:56:48] there a burn advisory or a fire ban in
[1:56:51] effect at the time? Uh, it would be a
[1:56:53] number of things and it would also
[1:56:55] depend on the type of coverage they
[1:56:56] purchased as well.
[1:56:58] So if they had a no fault insurance as I believe was mentioned um then you
[1:57:04] know insurance may not be happy and they
[1:57:05] may pay the claim. But if there were
[1:57:07] certain caveats on that insurance policy
[1:57:09] that you know you had to be exercising
[1:57:12] due care and you know you had to follow
[1:57:16] all the rules of the county or the
[1:57:17] municipality just as an example then
[1:57:19] they may have a way out of paying that
[1:57:21] claim. So, it would be hard to say that
[1:57:25] the size of the fire pit alone would
[1:57:27] determine whether they would be covered
[1:57:28] under their own policy uh or not because
[1:57:31] there's a lot of other factors that
[1:57:33] would have to be considered.
[1:57:35] >> Thank you again, CEO Simpson. Deputy
[1:57:37] Chief Stewart,
[1:57:38] >> thank you Reef. And just to dovtail on
[1:57:41] CEO Simpson's comments, I have a lot of
[1:57:42] experience in whether insurance
[1:57:44] companies will cover a fire loss or not.
[1:57:47] So, just to describe to council, we have
[1:57:49] a a a a property loss or injury causing
[1:57:52] fire in Clearwater County. Let's say a
[1:57:54] home burns down. The initial authority
[1:57:56] for the investigation actually lands
[1:57:58] with us as Clearwater Regional Fire in
[1:58:00] Clearwater County. Uh because we're
[1:58:02] accredited under the Safety Codes Act
[1:58:03] for the fire discipline for inspections
[1:58:05] and investigations. So, our duty officer
[1:58:08] that is on shift, uh we're all safety
[1:58:11] codes officers. uh the majority of us
[1:58:13] are qualified C1 or C2 investigators
[1:58:16] under the provincial safety codes act.
[1:58:18] We have a responsibility within 30 days
[1:58:20] to tell the province where the area of
[1:58:22] origin was and what the probable cause
[1:58:24] was. If there's a death or an injury, we
[1:58:27] have to notify the office of the high
[1:58:28] fire commissioner immediately. if it's
[1:58:30] suspicious in any way or we're
[1:58:32] suspecting arson or foul play play that
[1:58:34] we have to refer that to the RCMP as a
[1:58:36] potential crime where then they would
[1:58:38] issue a warrant for us to continue the
[1:58:40] investigation on their behalf as a
[1:58:42] subject matter expert or we would engage
[1:58:44] a third party as Clearwater County to
[1:58:46] come in and do the investigation for us
[1:58:48] to determine origin and cause and then
[1:58:51] what happens after we're done that
[1:58:53] investigation sometimes concurrently is
[1:58:56] that landowner has engaged their their
[1:58:58] insurance company and says they've had a
[1:58:59] loss
[1:59:00] uh that insurance company will send an
[1:59:02] adjuster and usually an investigating uh
[1:59:05] an investigator out, usually a third
[1:59:06] party investigating company. There's
[1:59:08] many across the province. Uh they will
[1:59:10] send a a fire and origin cause
[1:59:12] investigator out to that fire and they
[1:59:13] will do a parallel or subsequent
[1:59:15] investigation on their own purely from
[1:59:17] an insurance perspective.
[1:59:19] Most times, unless there's proven malice
[1:59:24] uh or proven fraudulent circumstances,
[1:59:27] accidental fires are covered under
[1:59:29] insurance. Um, for example, many fires
[1:59:32] that I've been to is somebody
[1:59:35] um puts a cigarette butt out in their
[1:59:38] recycling bin that's in their garage.
[1:59:42] They are they are the cause of the fire,
[1:59:45] right? It was unsafe fire behavior. it
[1:59:47] was all kinds of things, right? Uh their
[1:59:50] insurance company covers them for that.
[1:59:53] Accidental fires are are almost always
[1:59:56] covered under insurance policies in
[1:59:58] their in their liability process until
[2:00:01] some type of malice intent or uh
[2:00:04] fraudulent circumstance is suspected or
[2:00:06] uncovered. That's when insurance
[2:00:08] companies start withdrawing their
[2:00:10] coverage unless it's clearly defined in
[2:00:12] their in their policy that they wouldn't
[2:00:14] be covered for something specifically.
[2:00:16] Most accidental fires are covered
[2:00:18] regardless of how silly the
[2:00:20] circumstance. Um, a lot of people fear
[2:00:23] that that they're not going to be
[2:00:24] covered, but accidental fires are
[2:00:25] covered. A candle, for example, you
[2:00:27] leave a candle burning in your home, uh,
[2:00:29] up against a window curtain and you
[2:00:31] leave and you forget to blow it out and
[2:00:33] you drive away and 8 hours later that
[2:00:36] candle burns your entire house down. And
[2:00:37] we prove that that was the cause. You
[2:00:39] are liable for that fire. You were the
[2:00:41] cause. Your insurance company will cover
[2:00:43] you for that. it's an accidental fire.
[2:00:45] So, it really depends on whether they
[2:00:47] can they can prove and determine if you
[2:00:50] did it for some intention of of
[2:00:52] fraudulent circumstances or to obscure
[2:00:54] some other crime or a crime was
[2:00:56] committed in the conduct of that. So,
[2:00:59] fire I I have never seen an insurance
[2:01:01] company today look at municipal bylaw on
[2:01:04] whether someone is covered or not based
[2:01:07] on uh fire insurance. I have not seen
[2:01:10] that.
[2:01:12] Thank you, Deputy Chief.
[2:01:14] >> Okay, councelor
[2:01:14] >> I'm Go ahead.
[2:01:15] >> Thank you. Uh, okay. Because that was a concern that I had was it
[2:01:21] because we don't have a bylaw against
[2:01:24] having a candle in your window
[2:01:27] next to your curtains. I would hope we
[2:01:29] never get to that never get to that
[2:01:32] point, but me too. But apparently, but
[2:01:35] we do have
[2:01:37] around fire pit size and that's why it
[2:01:40] just
[2:01:43] >> seemed like we wanted to fix it. Maybe
[2:01:45] it's not an issue. Maybe it's just
[2:01:50] me thinking that it's
[2:01:52] >> and and I I I
[2:01:55] hear the spirit of of council and great
[2:01:58] conversations.
[2:01:59] fire and uh fire rescue services,
[2:02:01] emergency services definitely does not
[2:02:03] want to make council uncomfortable with
[2:02:04] this. This is an important bylaw for us.
[2:02:07] Um it is uh very important that we get
[2:02:10] this right and it's very important in in
[2:02:12] my opinion that uh council is
[2:02:15] comfortable with uh with at least how
[2:02:18] it's worded and how it's going to be
[2:02:19] applied. Um
[2:02:22] I I want to reiterate that I believe
[2:02:24] that uh this bylaw is again the
[2:02:27] intention is to set a minimum standard.
[2:02:30] It is to make sure that we are
[2:02:32] decreasing the red tea for Clearwater
[2:02:34] County residents as much as possible in
[2:02:37] the spirit of making sure that there's
[2:02:39] one standard set of rules for everybody
[2:02:42] uh that is common across the board.
[2:02:44] understanding that the majority of
[2:02:45] Clearwater County's population, I'm not
[2:02:47] sure if it's 90% but it's probably
[2:02:49] close, lives outside the FPA, we do have
[2:02:51] large portions of our our population
[2:02:54] that live in Frier Frier acres uh around
[2:02:57] Crimson Lake, Twin Lakes, the Brower
[2:02:59] subdivision for an example, Everddell,
[2:03:03] uh Meadow Ponds, um Diamond Valley,
[2:03:06] Recinus, um west of Caroline, south of
[2:03:09] Caroline that is in the forest
[2:03:11] protection area. um the Beaverrun
[2:03:14] subdivision just north of the Summer
[2:03:16] Village at Bernstick Lake. We have
[2:03:18] significant amounts of people that live
[2:03:20] inside the forest protection area in
[2:03:21] Clearwater County. Uh for sure. Um is
[2:03:25] there more outside? Yes, there is. Um
[2:03:29] however, fires fires do not stop at the
[2:03:33] imaginary line on the map. They really
[2:03:35] don't. And many of the problems we have
[2:03:38] are immediately on that forest
[2:03:40] protectionary boundary or near it.
[2:03:42] simply because that boundary was put
[2:03:44] into place following where those hazards
[2:03:46] and those risks are. Um, generally
[2:03:49] speaking, uh, so we have the interface
[2:03:52] of the heavier timbers to the to our
[2:03:54] agricultural lands traditionally with
[2:03:56] some exceptions to that across the line
[2:03:59] for sure. There are tracks of forest in
[2:04:01] the non-FFPA and there is tracks of
[2:04:03] agricultural land in the FBA, but
[2:04:05] generally speaking, it followed that
[2:04:06] line for a reason. And I I do also want
[2:04:09] to reer that there is no cost for any of
[2:04:11] these permits. Like we're not we're not
[2:04:13] trying to create a a a
[2:04:17] cost recovery system or a cash cow for
[2:04:20] Clearwater County. Whether it's a fire
[2:04:22] permit or a fireworks permit, they are
[2:04:24] at no cost. Uh that is the way the bylaw
[2:04:26] is written. It wouldn't cost the
[2:04:28] resident or a visitor anything to to get
[2:04:30] one of these permits. um that
[2:04:34] administrative burden is on fire
[2:04:35] services u on on administering the
[2:04:38] permitting system. Um and and really um
[2:04:43] it's it's about setting a minimum
[2:04:45] standard so that we can maintain safety
[2:04:47] of the public as best as possible. Uh at
[2:04:49] the same time balancing uh risk to
[2:04:52] council uh legal risk to council and to
[2:04:55] Clearwater County. uh at the same time
[2:04:58] uh not creating red tape but making sure
[2:05:01] that we have a standard set of rules
[2:05:02] that's easier for our residents and our
[2:05:05] visitors to understand because that
[2:05:08] alone creates a lot of administrative
[2:05:09] burden for regional fire and uh Alberta
[2:05:12] wildfire today is simply explaining the
[2:05:14] differences and where that boundary is
[2:05:16] and whether they need a permit or not
[2:05:18] and and it's it is quite quite a
[2:05:21] consuming process today because we have
[2:05:23] two different sets of standards for what
[2:05:25] everybody considers Clearwater county. A
[2:05:27] lot of residents and visitors actually
[2:05:29] don't even understand the FBA exists or how it's applied. It's uh it's
[2:05:33] something that we do a ton of education
[2:05:35] on today.
[2:05:37] >> Thank you for all that information.
[2:05:39] Again, Deputy Chief Stewart. Um
[2:05:42] Councelor Surac, go ahead.
[2:05:43] >> Yes. I would like to make a motion that
[2:05:46] council grants second reading to bylaw
[2:05:49] 26/103
[2:05:52] and by law 2019
[2:05:56] 007.
[2:05:59] Okay. So that'll be bylaw 26102.
[2:06:06] Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
[2:06:07] from councelor Serach that council grant
[2:06:09] second reading to bylaw 26102.
[2:06:14] That is motion on the floor from
[2:06:15] councelor Humphrey. Councelor Powell,
[2:06:18] you have no comments. Okay,
[2:06:24] seeing no further discussion. Are there
[2:06:25] any council members that have any
[2:06:27] comments, questions?
[2:06:29] Seeing none, I'll call the question. All
[2:06:31] those in favor
[2:06:34] and those opposed.
[2:06:36] And that motion is supported by council.
[2:06:42] We'd be looking for a motion for consent
[2:06:44] for third reading. Before that,
[2:06:47] councelor Pal, go ahead.
[2:06:48] >> Just it was just a comment on the
[2:06:50] population. When you look at the map and
[2:06:51] when we're talking about this um area
[2:06:54] that needs to change to all align as
[2:06:56] one, it actually if you look like ward
[2:06:59] one, ward five, ward four and ward six,
[2:07:02] the majority of those wards are actually
[2:07:04] in the um forest protection area. And if
[2:07:07] we go by wards, the amount of population
[2:07:10] is actually divided fairly evenly in our
[2:07:12] wards. So it actually is quite a high
[2:07:14] population out there. It actually in is
[2:07:17] only 2, three, and seven that sit on the
[2:07:20] other side. The majority of the other
[2:07:21] four wards are in the forest protected
[2:07:23] area. So we actually do have quite a
[2:07:25] substantial amount of population. It
[2:07:27] isn't 90%. Um I would have to disagree
[2:07:30] with that. It is a significant chunk of
[2:07:32] Clearwater County residents that are in
[2:07:34] the forest protected area.
[2:07:37] Thank you, councelor Powell. I'm just
[2:07:39] going to look for I'm going to defer to
[2:07:41] Miss Hate. Uh permission or is unanimous
[2:07:45] consent required to proceed to third
[2:07:47] reading at this time?
[2:07:48] >> Unanimous consent is is required.
[2:07:51] >> Okay, thank you for that clarification.
[2:07:52] Deputy Ree, go ahead.
[2:07:54] >> Thanks. Just I guess to follow up on uh
[2:07:57] an excellent point by councelor
[2:08:01] Powell there. Do we have a statistics on
[2:08:04] the population that is in the FPA and
[2:08:06] the population that isn't within
[2:08:07] Clearwater County?
[2:08:10] >> Deputy Chief, go ahead.
[2:08:12] >> I I do not, Deputy Reef. I am not aware
[2:08:14] of of uh that of survey that Clearwater
[2:08:18] Regional Fire Rescue Services has. I can
[2:08:21] I could show council a heat map of our
[2:08:23] emergency responses on where we get
[2:08:26] generally dispatched to emergencies. Um
[2:08:29] I can say that um I I I have no idea
[2:08:32] what the separation is. There is a
[2:08:34] significant portion simply because when
[2:08:36] we talk about for us as a regional fire
[2:08:38] service 7,000ish in the town of Rocky
[2:08:41] Mountainhouse, Lesieville, Condor,
[2:08:44] Alhhamra, Withro, uh Caroline, uh some
[2:08:47] of the subdivisions um in the eastern
[2:08:50] portion of Clearwater County as we
[2:08:52] commonly refer it to the nonFP area.
[2:08:53] There is a lot of people that live in
[2:08:55] that chunk of land. But I do agree with
[2:08:57] councelor Powell that we have a
[2:08:59] significant portion of Clearwater County
[2:09:01] that is inside the FBA. Uh we have a lot
[2:09:04] of our visitors. That's another piece.
[2:09:07] When people visit Clearwater County,
[2:09:09] they're generally not visiting the
[2:09:10] non-FBA portion of Clearwater County. So
[2:09:12] any long weekend in the summer, uh when
[2:09:15] we get 10 20,000 visitors to the county,
[2:09:19] they're generally in that brown non-FBA
[2:09:22] area. Uh so fire permits and fireworks
[2:09:24] permits and that risk shifts to there.
[2:09:28] Uh so it's not only for our residents,
[2:09:30] it's also for um the visitors.
[2:09:34] Significant visitation that we have to
[2:09:36] this area for recreation is large. Um
[2:09:40] our our response uh extends into that
[2:09:43] non-FFPA for emergency situations quite
[2:09:45] a bit. That Highway 11 corridor all the
[2:09:47] way out to Abraham Lake. Uh we were out
[2:09:50] there yesterday for a RV on fire uh near
[2:09:54] the Big Horn. It's we're everywhere for
[2:09:56] sure. Um
[2:09:59] but I don't have stats specifically on
[2:10:02] that separation.
[2:10:03] >> Thank you, Deputy Chief. And again, I
[2:10:05] just I want to make it quite clear that
[2:10:06] I 100% support
[2:10:10] the the FPA regulations within that area
[2:10:15] and I really understand your intention.
[2:10:18] It's just the question is it right to apply those same
[2:10:26] regulations
[2:10:27] to this portion of the county right
[2:10:31] because they are
[2:10:33] rather strict. So is that what's best
[2:10:36] for the residents is what we have to
[2:10:39] weigh here.
[2:10:41] Deputy Reeve understood. I I believe
[2:10:44] from my professional opinion that this
[2:10:46] bylaw uh would meet that intent that it
[2:10:50] is from a safety perspective a clarity
[2:10:53] of expectations for all of our
[2:10:55] residents. I believe that the way this
[2:10:56] bylaw is written uh is in the best
[2:10:59] interest of our residents um and uh and
[2:11:02] their safety specifically. I I do
[2:11:04] believe that.
[2:11:07] >> Thank you for that for deputy chief. So,
[2:11:09] this bylaw would also create more
[2:11:11] flexibility if from everything that I've
[2:11:13] heard that uh residents could actually
[2:11:16] get a permit to legally have fireworks
[2:11:20] or discharge fireworks. With this said,
[2:11:23] uh if unanimous consent, I'm quite
[2:11:27] evident it's it's there's a a divide on
[2:11:31] council on this item. So, I'm I'm quite
[2:11:33] uh there would be a a motion required
[2:11:35] for unanimous consent. I don't know if
[2:11:37] that motion will pass from the first and
[2:11:39] second readings that have taken place
[2:11:42] already at this point in time. Third
[2:11:44] reading would just come it would uh
[2:11:46] third reading will be at a future
[2:11:48] council meeting and would allow council
[2:11:49] to have more time for cons to consider
[2:11:51] this bylaw. Is that correct? Okay. So,
[2:11:55] we'd be looking for a motion for um
[2:11:58] unanimous consent.
[2:12:04] Um,
[2:12:07] I'll make the motion I'll move that uh
[2:12:09] council grant unanimous consent to
[2:12:12] proceed to third reading to bylaw number
[2:12:15] 26102.
[2:12:19] So, as there is a divide amongst
[2:12:21] council, I won't be supporting the
[2:12:22] motion. I would like to have more time
[2:12:23] for council's consideration on this
[2:12:25] agenda item. So, if there's no
[2:12:28] discussion on that right now, the motion
[2:12:29] for is for unanimous consent to proceed
[2:12:32] to third reading.
[2:12:34] Does anybody need any clarity? Seeing
[2:12:37] none,
[2:12:39] I'll call the question. All those in
[2:12:41] favor
[2:12:44] and those opposed.
[2:12:47] And that motion is defeated.
[2:12:50] This uh bylaw will be at a future
[2:12:52] regular council meeting for council
[2:12:53] consideration in the future. Thank you
[2:12:56] again, Deputy Chief, for your time and
[2:12:57] staff for all the information.
[2:13:02] Moving on to item 4.3
[2:13:07] in today's
[2:13:08] Miss A. Go ahead, please.
[2:13:10] >> See this that third reading for um for
[2:13:14] the uh fire bylaw has been postponed to
[2:13:18] a future council reading. This next
[2:13:20] agenda item is not required at this
[2:13:23] time.
[2:13:26] So,
[2:13:27] I would recommend that uh item
[2:13:31] um what is it? 4.3
[2:13:34] is postponed
[2:13:38] to a future council meeting.
[2:13:40] >> Thank you for that, Miss Hate.
[2:13:42] Council member looking for discussion on
[2:13:45] this item or councelor McCully. Okay.
[2:13:47] Councilor McCauley makes a motion to
[2:13:48] postpone today's uh item 4.3 bylaw
[2:13:52] 260103
[2:13:55] revising the former village of Caroline
[2:13:57] community standards bylaw to future
[2:13:59] regular council meeting.
[2:14:02] That is the motion on the floor. I'll
[2:14:03] call the question. All those in favor?
[2:14:05] That motion is supported by council.
[2:14:07] Thank you, Miss Hate. Moving on to item
[2:14:11] section five, new business. Item 5.1.1
[2:14:14] budget adjustment fire capital code F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F
[2:14:16] FRS026
[2:14:18] on page 89 and again pass it floor over
[2:14:20] to Deputy Chief Stewart.
[2:14:23] >> Thank you Raven Council. Uh it's great
[2:14:25] to see you this morning again. Uh this
[2:14:28] uh budget item in front of council today
[2:14:30] or sorry this agenda item in front of
[2:14:32] council today is related to a fire
[2:14:34] capital uh purchase that was approved in
[2:14:36] the uh 2025 budget deliberations by
[2:14:40] council for replacement of unit 513
[2:14:42] which is a engine in uh Clearwater
[2:14:45] Regional Fire Rescue Services that is
[2:14:47] due for replacement in 2028.
[2:14:50] Um because of uh the time to spec and
[2:14:54] build fire apparatus in today's economy,
[2:14:57] uh there was a budget request for a 10%
[2:14:59] deposit of this year for a 2-year build
[2:15:02] time for this apparatus to be delivered
[2:15:04] in 2028.
[2:15:07] Um that budget was approved at a 10%
[2:15:10] deposit in 2026 of 150,000. uh and at
[2:15:13] the time of budget deliberations, it was
[2:15:15] discussed with council that that then
[2:15:17] essentially means an approval of a of
[2:15:19] the remainder of the balance of that
[2:15:21] cost in the uh delivery year of 2028,
[2:15:24] which was an additional $1.35 million.
[2:15:28] Um what I can say is that the reason uh
[2:15:30] we're in front of council today is that
[2:15:32] uh that $ 1.5 million ask is proven to
[2:15:36] be shy of what we can purchase an
[2:15:38] apparatus of this spec uh to replace
[2:15:41] this truck. um by about 5%. So, uh the background information here uh given
[2:15:49] to council uh specifically speaks to a
[2:15:52] massive increase in not just fire
[2:15:54] apparatus, but pretty much any mobile
[2:15:55] equipment in uh cost and delivery times
[2:15:58] across the board. Public works sees this
[2:16:00] as well with a lot of fleet replacements
[2:16:02] where they're taking longer and costing
[2:16:03] quite a bit more than they did. However,
[2:16:05] fire apparatus since uh the pandemic has
[2:16:08] seen a hundreds of percent increase in
[2:16:10] cost. So, an apparatus that uh would
[2:16:13] have cost us $600,000 in 2019 is
[2:16:17] generally around the $ 1.5 to $1.4
[2:16:20] million range to replace. Now this
[2:16:23] specific apparatus we did engage with uh
[2:16:26] all of the uh prevetted vendors uh
[2:16:28] within the RMA source well process uh
[2:16:31] which is a uh process that allows us not
[2:16:34] to go to RFP or go to tender but to
[2:16:37] speak with prevetted uh fire apparatus
[2:16:39] vendors and for council's information
[2:16:41] there's really three large fire
[2:16:43] apparatus conglomerates in Canada and
[2:16:45] the United States that own the majority
[2:16:47] of companies that build fire apparatus
[2:16:49] so there is a difficulty there in in
[2:16:51] hitting costs across the board. Those
[2:16:53] three major vendors are listed under
[2:16:55] Sourcewell. So, there's no
[2:16:57] administrative reason why we would go to
[2:16:59] RFP or tender for an apparatus like
[2:17:01] this. Uh, but the request today is to
[2:17:04] let uh council know that we went to
[2:17:05] three vendors. We've got official
[2:17:07] pricing from one and unofficial verbal
[2:17:09] pricing from a second that $1.5 million
[2:17:12] will not replace that apparatus today.
[2:17:14] However, in the official pricing um from
[2:17:17] one of the vendors uh that best meets
[2:17:20] our our spec, there's a prepayment
[2:17:22] option. So, the the request today in
[2:17:25] front of council is that council uh uh
[2:17:28] considers uh moving the $1.3 million
[2:17:32] from fiscal year 2028 uh forward to
[2:17:35] fiscal year 2026 where if we prepay for
[2:17:38] the apparatus uh we actually save
[2:17:41] $105,000 on the overall cost. So that
[2:17:43] truck would come in under $1.5 million.
[2:17:46] If we pay the deposit today and wait to
[2:17:49] pay the remainder on delivery, that
[2:17:51] apparatus will cost us roughly $79,000
[2:17:54] more uh than what's budgeted currently.
[2:17:58] So, two options for council would be to
[2:18:00] approve an increase in in capital cost
[2:18:03] uh for this year of $7,934
[2:18:07] in 2026 to achieve the 10% deposit with
[2:18:10] a remaining uh 92,000 in 2028. Uh that
[2:18:14] was a round number of $100,000 to make
[2:18:16] sure that we could cover off the cost of
[2:18:19] the apparatus. um or move the 1.3
[2:18:22] million forward to fiscal year 2026 and
[2:18:25] save uh 1.5 or sorry 105,000 on the
[2:18:29] overall cost of the apparatus.
[2:18:32] And I'll leave the floor open for uh
[2:18:35] questions uh from councel.
[2:18:37] >> Thank you, deputy chief. Council
[2:18:39] questions, comments, or motions at this
[2:18:43] time?
[2:18:45] >> Councelor Lewin, go ahead.
[2:18:46] >> So this is the new firetruck replacing
[2:18:48] an old one. Is that correct?
[2:18:50] >> Correct,
[2:18:50] >> sir. Yes.
[2:18:51] >> And what year is the old one?
[2:18:52] >> Uh, the old one was a 2008.
[2:18:55] >> 2008.
[2:18:56] >> So, it'll be due for replacement in 2028
[2:18:59] after it 20-year service life, which is
[2:19:01] our standard replacement cycle for large
[2:19:03] fire apparatus.
[2:19:05] And that's about 5 years on the industry
[2:19:08] best uh best practice, which the
[2:19:10] industry recommends replacing frontline
[2:19:12] fire apparatus in 15 years. We take them
[2:19:14] to 20 here in Clearwater County.
[2:19:17] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[2:19:24] Deputy Grief McKay, go ahead.
[2:19:26] >> Thank is there a home for this large
[2:19:28] apparatus somewhere else within the
[2:19:29] county or would it have to be sold at
[2:19:31] auction?
[2:19:33] >> Uh the replacement apparatus debut reef
[2:19:35] the one that's coming
[2:19:36] >> that we're replacing like for old 513.
[2:19:38] Does it have a home somewhere else
[2:19:40] within the fleet?
[2:19:41] >> Uh correct. Uh the the plan here today
[2:19:43] is that 513 would come out of Nordic and
[2:19:46] be uh stationed here in in headquarters.
[2:19:49] Actually we have a old 2011, the one
[2:19:53] fire engine that uh used to be in Condor
[2:19:55] is currently being utilized by the
[2:19:56] Wildland urban interface team. Uh it is
[2:19:59] well beyond its 20-year life cycle. So
[2:20:01] that 513 apparatus would come in here to
[2:20:04] headquarters, be utilized as the
[2:20:05] wildland urban interface team's primary
[2:20:06] response engine uh for for the
[2:20:10] foreseeable future as long as we can
[2:20:11] maintain it safe on the road as a third
[2:20:13] line apparatus and potentially a
[2:20:15] mechanical spare uh if we have an engine
[2:20:17] that goes out of service for significant
[2:20:19] period of time.
[2:20:21] >> Okay.
[2:20:21] >> But it does have a home uh or it could
[2:20:24] be uh dispersed uh as an asset through
[2:20:27] the county's uh asset dispersement
[2:20:29] policy. It could be we could recover
[2:20:31] some cost on that truck if that was
[2:20:33] council's direction,
[2:20:37] » right? Or we could just disperse the old
[2:20:39] condor truck and
[2:20:42] >> correct.
[2:20:42] >> It would probably be more beneficial to
[2:20:45] fire services to do it that way.
[2:20:47] Correct.
[2:20:47] >> So, the sooner we can get our hands on
[2:20:49] this apparatus, the better it is. Not
[2:20:52] just for cuz this would go to Nordic.
[2:20:54] Correct. Uh this engine actually u it's
[2:20:57] to replace 513 in Nordic. The intent
[2:21:00] would be that we would remove we would
[2:21:01] move one of our engines in Rocky that is
[2:21:04] uh been used really well out to Nordic.
[2:21:07] Uh it better suits their needs out there
[2:21:08] and then this engine would probably
[2:21:10] replace that engine in Rocky
[2:21:11] Mountainhouse. So although that capital
[2:21:12] wise we're replacing the engine in
[2:21:14] Nordic, we would be doing some fleet
[2:21:15] adjustments when this new engine came
[2:21:17] in. uh it would be going to our busiest
[2:21:19] fireh hall and one of our engines that
[2:21:21] was built in 2017
[2:21:23] uh would be going out to Nordic to to be
[2:21:26] stationed at station 50. It just better
[2:21:28] operationally suits the needs of Nordic
[2:21:30] than uh the truck we're we currently
[2:21:32] have out there.
[2:21:34] >> Okay. So by moving this to
[2:21:39] 2026 as you said and allowing us to save
[2:21:41] those funds would that get us the
[2:21:43] physical equipment any sooner?
[2:21:45] >> No, it would not.
[2:21:49] Okay, the build queue would not change
[2:21:52] from those manufacturers and that
[2:21:53] two-year time period is probably as
[2:21:56] quick as we'll see in today's uh
[2:21:58] building environment. Some
[2:21:59] municipalities are seeing through
[2:22:01] certain vendors up to a four-year build
[2:22:03] time for a fire apparat.
[2:22:06] >> Okay. Thank you,
[2:22:09] >> Councelor Humphrey.
[2:22:12] A question I have is if if we make this
[2:22:16] uh
[2:22:18] we make this adjustment and prepay it.
[2:22:22] So we're prepaying it. We lock in the
[2:22:24] price. If we don't prepay it, is the
[2:22:27] price still locked in or not? Can it go
[2:22:30] up? Cuz two years till we get the fire
[2:22:32] truck, it's not locking it in. It could
[2:22:35] go up hundreds of thousands of dollars.
[2:22:39] In the past, uh, fire, uh, apparatus
[2:22:43] manufacturers have have honored the
[2:22:46] price, uh, whether we prepay or we do a
[2:22:49] 10% deposit after quotation.
[2:22:53] There is there is word in the fire
[2:22:56] industry that that is going to change
[2:22:58] because of the these manufacturers are claiming that uh their supply chain
[2:23:05] problems uh specifically the weak
[2:23:08] Canadian dollar and
[2:23:10] um uncertainty in the Canadian and US
[2:23:14] markets with the current environment
[2:23:15] we're in that that may change and if we could see u them coming back and
[2:23:21] enforcing ing some of the force majour
[2:23:23] clauses in these agreements when we
[2:23:25] prepay the 10% only that they may come
[2:23:28] back and give us a letter and say we're
[2:23:30] not giving you this truck for that
[2:23:31] anymore because things have changed and you need to give us more money. That
[2:23:35] is the word on the street today and that
[2:23:37] has to do a lot with the current
[2:23:39] environment between Canada and the US
[2:23:41] trade-wise.
[2:23:43] Um it is my understanding uh that if we
[2:23:46] prepay for this apparatus that that
[2:23:48] price is locked in uh up until we
[2:23:50] deliver that truck. If the 10% only is
[2:23:53] paid, we run the risk that things could
[2:23:55] change.
[2:23:57] Um go ahead, council. I'd like to make a
[2:24:01] motion that we uh approve
[2:24:07] option two with the condition that it's
[2:24:11] locked in. Of course, that's that we
[2:24:15] lock in that price that we get
[2:24:17] confirmation that they're not going to raise it.
[2:24:28] » Go ahead, counselor. probably asking me
[2:24:31] have funds somewhere to do this.
[2:24:35] Miss Saran, go ahead.
[2:24:37] >> Yes, currently in the restricted surplus
[2:24:39] account for fire apparatus is just over
[2:24:41] $2 million. However, um there would need
[2:24:45] to be some
[2:24:47] uh additional funds going into there to
[2:24:50] fund future things. Um there is some
[2:24:54] more discussion that needs to happen
[2:24:55] around restricted surplus but to make
[2:24:57] this happen there is funds there this
[2:24:59] year.
[2:25:00] >> Thank you Mr. Saran for that. Councelor
[2:25:02] Maui do you
[2:25:04] >> no okay um I do have one question uh
[2:25:09] councelor Mack do you have comments?
[2:25:11] Yeah, I was just wondering if if we the
[2:25:16] interest on the 1.3
[2:25:20] 1.35
[2:25:23] would we get more interest if we put
[2:25:25] that into a bank instead of paying them
[2:25:27] the 105
[2:25:29] which would be
[2:25:32] more beneficial to us? Would we make
[2:25:35] more interest on that money if we kept
[2:25:37] it for the two years or would we pay
[2:25:40] more if we paid the 105?
[2:25:44] >> Mir, do you know what I'm saying?
[2:25:47] >> Yes. Director Hemark and I did have a
[2:25:49] conversation about that and it is uh
[2:25:51] slightly more beneficial to pay upfront
[2:25:54] than the interest that would be received
[2:25:56] on that money.
[2:25:57] >> So, we would save money if we paid it up
[2:25:59] front.
[2:25:59] >> Yes.
[2:26:00] >> Thank you. That's what I needed.
[2:26:03] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:26:07] » Okay, that answers your question.
[2:26:08] Council Serach, I do have one question
[2:26:10] and it's uh regarding the color of this
[2:26:13] equipment. Will it be red or white and
[2:26:16] what are the implications of having
[2:26:18] white emergency services?
[2:26:21] >> Uh Reev, that one catches me off guard.
[2:26:24] My apologies, but uh currently
[2:26:26] Clearwater County has a policy in place,
[2:26:29] our vehicle and equipment use policy I
[2:26:31] believe that requires fire apparatus
[2:26:32] fleet to be white in color predominantly
[2:26:36] um and have a specific decal uh down the
[2:26:39] side of them that is indicative of our
[2:26:41] 5-year service ribbon. Um so as uh
[2:26:45] regional fire management, we would be
[2:26:47] following that policy today and that
[2:26:49] truck would be specked as white with
[2:26:50] that ribbon on it. If we wanted to color
[2:26:52] that truck differently, I would need to
[2:26:54] ask council to change a policy.
[2:26:58] >> Thank you very much for that, Deputy
[2:26:59] Chief. I'm just wondering if there's a
[2:27:00] cost savings by having the equipment
[2:27:02] white or is there an additional cost for
[2:27:04] that be being white?
[2:27:06] >> Uh,
[2:27:07] so um I can't say from this specific
[2:27:12] manufacturer that that cost would be
[2:27:13] more to be white. We have paid more for
[2:27:15] white apparatus in the past. Um, we have
[2:27:19] had to buy spec apparats off the lot
[2:27:21] that are already red and we've had to
[2:27:23] paint them uh white to meet county
[2:27:24] policy. Um, so we have in the past paid
[2:27:28] more. Um,
[2:27:31] yes. Um,
[2:27:33] there is there's an interesting history
[2:27:35] dynamic behind that in Clear Water
[2:27:37] Regional Fire Rescue Services that I I
[2:27:38] would not endeavor to get into with
[2:27:40] council, but we have paid more for uh,
[2:27:43] wide fire apparatus in the past. We have
[2:27:45] also bought lots of white apparatus that
[2:27:46] did not cost any more than if we would
[2:27:48] have specked them red. There's generally
[2:27:50] certain color band that causes us to
[2:27:53] that manufacturers have that there's
[2:27:55] really no cost. Uh so if we spec these
[2:27:57] apparatus in advance, they don't. Um
[2:28:01] right now there's one study that says
[2:28:03] that the that there's uh color benefits
[2:28:05] to having fluorescent green fire
[2:28:07] apparatus. Uh, and there's one study
[2:28:10] that says that your fire apparatus
[2:28:11] should be the color your public expects
[2:28:14] them to be. And I would endeavor that if
[2:28:16] we pulled the majority of our public,
[2:28:18] they would expect our fire apparatus to
[2:28:19] be red. However, we have a mixed fleet
[2:28:21] today where we have red apparatus and we
[2:28:24] have majority white apparatus. So, it is
[2:28:26] a complex problem. Right now, if we're
[2:28:27] building fire trucks, we are building
[2:28:30] them white simply because that is we are required to do that under county
[2:28:34] policy.
[2:28:36] Good.
[2:28:39] Thank you for that information. I'm sure
[2:28:40] there's going to be more discussion on
[2:28:41] this, but uh councelor Powell, go ahead,
[2:28:43] please.
[2:28:44] >> I don't understand. I'm feeling a little
[2:28:46] lost and caught off guard. Why are they
[2:28:48] Why do they have to be white?
[2:28:50] >> It's under current policy at this point
[2:28:53] in time.
[2:28:54] >> Can I Can we see the policy? Like, I'm
[2:28:56] not I'm totally lost.
[2:28:57] >> And this may be a discussion or a motion
[2:28:59] required from council to have a review
[2:29:01] of this policy.
[2:29:04] >> Councelor Pal, do you have any further
[2:29:05] comments? I always thought fire trucks
[2:29:07] were red.
[2:29:09] >> Thank you, Council Pal. Councelor Lewin,
[2:29:11] go ahead, please.
[2:29:12] >> Well, what size of this new fire truck
[2:29:14] we're getting
[2:29:15] >> because I've seen all different sizes of
[2:29:17] fire trucks throughout the county.
[2:29:19] >> Correct.
[2:29:20] >> This kind of money. I just wondering
[2:29:22] what the weight is, axle size.
[2:29:25] >> Uh, I can pull up exact specifications
[2:29:27] for you, counselor, um, based on a
[2:29:30] proposal we received. Uh, this truck is
[2:29:32] a what we considered a type one fire
[2:29:34] engine. So, it meets the NFPA and
[2:29:37] CANCF515
[2:29:39] uh standard for a first frontline pumper
[2:29:42] truck essentially is what it is. This is
[2:29:44] a single axle pumper truck, not a dual
[2:29:46] axle. So, it's not a one of our our
[2:29:49] rural fire engines like you would see in Leyville that has two axles and
[2:29:53] carries 2,000 gallons of water. It is
[2:29:55] designed to be shorter single axle base.
[2:29:58] It's it it uh based on the stations
[2:29:59] it'll go into either replacing the truck
[2:30:01] in Northern Rocky Mountainhouse. It
[2:30:03] allows us to have a a lower driving
[2:30:05] license class for the operators. It
[2:30:07] allows us to operate that truck over
[2:30:09] more restricted bridges and roadways. It
[2:30:11] is supported by a fire tender that
[2:30:13] brings lots of water if required. This
[2:30:16] has a 750 gallons of onboard water. Um
[2:30:19] it is a large pump that meets
[2:30:21] firefighting capacity of 1500 gallons
[2:30:24] per minute pumping capacity. requires
[2:30:26] all the requisite uh or carries all the
[2:30:28] requisite firefighting equipment. So uh
[2:30:30] SCBAs, uh selfcame breathing apparatus,
[2:30:34] uh hand tools, power tools, you name it.
[2:30:37] seats five firefighters in the cab.
[2:30:40] Um yeah, it would be similar to uh if
[2:30:43] you went down to Nordic today, uh their
[2:30:46] frontline pumper. It's very similar to
[2:30:49] look and feel of that truck. If you went
[2:30:50] down to Rocky Mountain House, the same
[2:30:52] Caroline, the same condor, the same
[2:30:55] seats five firefighters has a large
[2:30:57] firefighting pump and carries all the
[2:30:59] equipment that's required
[2:31:00] >> and carries 750 gallons of water.
[2:31:02] >> 750 gallons of onboard water. Yes.
[2:31:04] >> Thank you,
[2:31:06] >> councelor Pal. I just have a I just have
[2:31:08] a question. I agree with um councelor
[2:31:11] Humphrey on option two being made the
[2:31:14] motion but I when we're purchasing a new
[2:31:16] item like this which I think is great we
[2:31:18] need to keep doing that when we are
[2:31:21] ordering color
[2:31:23] maybe I just think that is there a way
[2:31:25] that we can discuss the color in the
[2:31:27] policy prior to placing the order to
[2:31:29] make sure that this is what emergency
[2:31:31] services and does want for color and
[2:31:34] that um before we go and purchase that
[2:31:38] we have this discussion. I don't know
[2:31:40] how that can be done with a motion on
[2:31:41] the floor, but I just
[2:31:43] >> at this point in time, we do not have an
[2:31:44] official motion on the floor. Um,
[2:31:47] >> I can provide some clarity to that
[2:31:49] comment as well, too.
[2:31:50] >> So, just to just to answer there, we do
[2:31:52] not I haven't stated the motion.
[2:31:53] >> Yep.
[2:31:54] >> Oh,
[2:31:54] >> yeah. Councelor Humphrey has made the
[2:31:56] motion, but the chair has not stated
[2:31:57] that motion officially.
[2:31:59] >> My apologies.
[2:32:00] >> So,
[2:32:01] >> yeah, my councelor Humphrey has a
[2:32:03] proposed motion, but it has not
[2:32:04] officially been placed on the floor. And
[2:32:06] that was actually to councelor Powell's
[2:32:08] comments was my question was what would
[2:32:10] the you know council's consideration of
[2:32:12] cost savings uh with potential option
[2:32:14] two but as councelor Powell has
[2:32:17] mentioned potential costs of having the
[2:32:19] apparatus white or red and having a
[2:32:21] review of that policy. So is there a
[2:32:23] deadline um regarding this agenda item
[2:32:26] here today?
[2:32:27] >> Uh so uh approving this agenda item
[2:32:30] today for us to move forward allows us
[2:32:32] to secure that build spot with the
[2:32:35] manufacturer. there is a written spec
[2:32:37] that today states that it would be uh uh
[2:32:40] white in color. What happens when we
[2:32:43] then start engaging formally with that
[2:32:45] vendor after we either prepaid the 10%
[2:32:48] or prepaid the entire amount of the
[2:32:49] apparatus is we get into what's called a
[2:32:51] pre-build cycle where we get to review
[2:32:52] that spec and change whatever we want.
[2:32:54] And there's also a final build
[2:32:56] inspection that's done at the facility
[2:32:57] after that truck has been built. So, we
[2:33:00] have this this would start a two-year
[2:33:02] process or we have lots of time to
[2:33:04] change the color of this truck at no
[2:33:06] cost to Clearwater County.
[2:33:08] >> Do you have the information? Thank you,
[2:33:09] Deputy Chief. Available today. I don't
[2:33:12] You may have it. Is there additional
[2:33:14] cost on the unit being white or would
[2:33:16] there be a cost savings of the unit
[2:33:18] being white or red?
[2:33:20] >> I I don't have that number in front of
[2:33:22] me. I I could attempt to pull up the
[2:33:24] spec on here, but the spec that I have
[2:33:26] doesn't have the list of the items
[2:33:28] priced beside it. I'd have to engage the
[2:33:29] vendor in that pre-built process. I I
[2:33:32] don't believe there would be a cost
[2:33:33] savings to make this specific truck
[2:33:35] white from red. Uh the standard white
[2:33:38] they use versus a standard red they use
[2:33:40] because this truck hasn't been built
[2:33:41] yet. Where we run into that case is when
[2:33:43] we're buying a fire apparatus that's
[2:33:46] already been built and we have to paint
[2:33:48] it white or if we were buying some kind
[2:33:50] of special white paint. Uh we have paid
[2:33:53] more for white apparatus in the past.
[2:33:55] This one specific because we're so early
[2:33:56] in the process. They've just listed
[2:33:58] simply painting the body as as a line
[2:34:01] item. That's probably a placeholder
[2:34:03] value. So, I wouldn't have that
[2:34:04] information in front of me today on if
[2:34:07] that would cost us more or less if we
[2:34:09] dropped it down to red, but I can say in
[2:34:12] the past that it has impacted price for
[2:34:14] sure.
[2:34:15] >> Thank you again, Deputy Chief CEO
[2:34:17] Simpson. Go ahead, please.
[2:34:18] >> Political question. Question to council.
[2:34:22] >> What does council think the public would
[2:34:24] want? The color of the apparatus that is
[2:34:26] currently unpainted to be
[2:34:28] notwithstanding policy. Red or white?
[2:34:32] >> Red.
[2:34:33] >> Okay. Looks like red is a majority is
[2:34:36] what the community would expect fire
[2:34:37] apparatus to be colored red.
[2:34:39] >> And yourself, Mr. Ree?
[2:34:42] >> Generally, when you see fire and
[2:34:43] emergency services equipment, it would
[2:34:45] be in general, you would think it would
[2:34:47] be red.
[2:34:48] >> I have good news for council. You do
[2:34:49] have the ability to vary policy at your
[2:34:52] discretion, not so much a bylaw. If you
[2:34:55] want the apparatus to be painted red,
[2:34:57] you can just stipulate that in the
[2:34:59] motion today when you approve our option
[2:35:01] two and we can send that information to
[2:35:03] them and we can bring the policy back
[2:35:06] for a discussion or repeal at council's
[2:35:09] pleasure.
[2:35:11] there's
[2:35:14] to have united uh colors amongst a lot
[2:35:16] of the fire apparatus is already white.
[2:35:19] But I think what council is looking for
[2:35:20] is maybe a discussion and see if there
[2:35:22] are any cost implications or potential
[2:35:25] cost savings in the future uh regarding
[2:35:27] the policy. There may not be any cost
[2:35:28] savings to be had to go from red to
[2:35:30] white or from sorry white to red or
[2:35:33] maintaining status quo as per current
[2:35:35] policy of white but I think that
[2:35:37] information could be brought forward and
[2:35:39] I think council would um like to have
[2:35:41] further discussion as we're indicating
[2:35:43] option two which would be a cost savings
[2:35:45] to the municipality of 105,000.
[2:35:48] So I think a future discussion on this
[2:35:49] current policy of a mandatory white fire
[2:35:53] and emergency services apparatus could
[2:35:54] be a future discussion for council to
[2:35:56] get that information.
[2:35:58] Does any council member have any
[2:36:01] questions or deputy chief do you have
[2:36:03] any comments?
[2:36:04] >> Uh I have no comments at this point.
[2:36:07] Reeve, I think um I think bringing the
[2:36:10] vehicle use policy back to council is an
[2:36:12] important step at a future council
[2:36:13] meeting. Um, and as the CEO alluded to,
[2:36:16] if if council so decides at that point
[2:36:18] in time to change that policy, we can
[2:36:21] change the color of this truck and it
[2:36:22] would not cost us money to do that as
[2:36:24] long as we did that sometime in the next
[2:36:26] two years.
[2:36:28] >> Okay. And uh that information if it was
[2:36:30] brought forward and it was identified
[2:36:31] that white is the better color and the
[2:36:33] better interests of Clearwater County,
[2:36:35] then my preferred color may be white at
[2:36:36] that point in time. But uh councelor
[2:36:39] Lewin, go ahead. I'm all for changing it
[2:36:41] to red if we save some money as long as
[2:36:44] we don't repaint all the other fire
[2:36:46] trucks.
[2:36:49] » That would be I assume that would be
[2:36:52] expecting that would be part of the
[2:36:53] discussion in the future. So, um
[2:36:58] we have a proposed motion from councelor
[2:37:00] Humphrey. Um
[2:37:04] councelor Humphrey, go ahead. So, do we want to add in that we'd like this
[2:37:11] truck red or are we going to decide that
[2:37:13] at a later date which we have the option
[2:37:15] to? I think at this point in time we
[2:37:16] don't have I don't have enough
[2:37:17] information to decide whether it should
[2:37:19] be red or white. But I think a future
[2:37:20] discussion and information brought
[2:37:22] forward from the administration for
[2:37:23] council consideration would be the first
[2:37:27] steps to move forward. Okay. But we
[2:37:29] should pro probably still get into the
[2:37:32] queue.
[2:37:34] >> And that was my question sort of for
[2:37:35] deputy chief was if there's a time
[2:37:38] constraint on this requirement for
[2:37:40] >> I can I can speak to that specifically.
[2:37:42] There is a time constraint for us to
[2:37:45] move forward on this apparatus whether
[2:37:47] that's uh figuring out a totally
[2:37:49] different option um that would require
[2:37:52] us to have a an apparatus that doesn't
[2:37:55] align well with our fleet. we either
[2:37:57] need to prepay uh in advance or we need
[2:38:01] to adjust the current capital funding to
[2:38:04] essentially replace this fire apparatus.
[2:38:07] uh the the the manufacturer that gave us
[2:38:09] a formal proposal did tell us that uh
[2:38:12] annually in September uh firet truck
[2:38:14] manufacturers re-evaluate market
[2:38:16] conditions and considering what took
[2:38:18] place over the last few days at the
[2:38:20] federal level with trade down south I do
[2:38:22] not expect trucks to get any cheaper and
[2:38:24] they're doing a price adjustment in two
[2:38:27] weeks 3 weeks time from now so this
[2:38:30] truck uh and the formal proposal we have
[2:38:32] before us today could if we if we wait 3
[2:38:35] weeks could could be more money than it
[2:38:38] is today.
[2:38:41] >> Okay. So, we have a motion from
[2:38:44] councelor Humphrey that council direct
[2:38:46] administration to proceed with option
[2:38:48] two
[2:38:52] with the condition that the pricing is
[2:38:55] secured from the vendor as presented.
[2:38:59] Understood.
[2:39:01] Does that capture the motion? Councelor
[2:39:02] Humphrey captures it quite well.
[2:39:04] >> Okay. Officially have a motion on the
[2:39:06] floor from councelor Humphrey.
[2:39:09] >> Seeing no further discussion, I'll call
[2:39:10] the question. All those in favor
[2:39:13] and that motion is supported by councel.
[2:39:22] Moving into item 5.2.1.
[2:39:31] It is the Kirk Browning Arena Ice Plant
[2:39:34] upgrade. It is on page 91 of today's
[2:39:36] agenda. Thank you again, Deputy Chief,
[2:39:38] for your time.
[2:39:55] Mr. Reeve, just uh just a supplementary
[2:39:57] question before Director Hansen gets
[2:39:59] going here. Did council wish to make a
[2:40:00] motion to bring that uh policy back
[2:40:02] regarding the color of the fire
[2:40:04] apparatus for discussion at a future
[2:40:06] council meeting?
[2:40:08] >> Absolutely. And I'd be uh pleased to
[2:40:10] make that motion myself that uh council
[2:40:12] direct administration to bring back the
[2:40:16] I'm I'm not sure what the policy number
[2:40:19] or name is.
[2:40:30] » The vehicle and
[2:40:32] >> equipment policy.
[2:40:34] >> Vehicle and equipment use policy. Okay.
[2:40:36] I move that council direct
[2:40:37] administration to bring the vehicle
[2:40:39] equipment and use policy
[2:40:43] for council consideration and review.
[2:40:47] Um seeing no discussion, I'll ask
[2:40:49] question. I'll call the question. All
[2:40:51] those in favor
[2:40:52] and that motion is supported by councel.
[2:40:54] Now we can proceed into item 5.2.1. And
[2:40:57] we have director Hansen and Miss Reglin
[2:40:59] here. So I will pass the floor over to
[2:41:02] director Director Hansen to present this
[2:41:04] item, please.
[2:41:06] Perfect. Good morning, council. Um, so
[2:41:09] this ice plant agenda, I kind of had
[2:41:12] some maybe uh discussions throughout the
[2:41:15] year on the progress as you know,
[2:41:16] bringing uh council back to budget 2026.
[2:41:20] Um, we presented uh I think there was $2
[2:41:22] million in in the 2026 uh budget to
[2:41:26] first of all to evaluate the ice plant
[2:41:29] um at the Kurt Browning Arena. Um, so
[2:41:32] throughout the course of the the spring,
[2:41:34] early summer, uh, we procured, we've put
[2:41:36] out a, uh, RFP for engineering services.
[2:41:39] Uh, we had one response from MCW, um,
[2:41:42] uh, consultants. Uh, they've done a
[2:41:45] thorough review and provided us a a
[2:41:47] 62-page uh, feasibility study there on that facility. Uh, we were really
[2:41:52] hoping they could uh, come today and
[2:41:54] speak to some of the technical aspects
[2:41:56] of the report. Unfortunately, they they
[2:41:59] send their regrets. they were unable to
[2:42:00] attend today. Um so we're happy to go
[2:42:03] through the conclusions of the report.
[2:42:05] Um as well as um discussing the cost
[2:42:09] escalation that we've seen, you know,
[2:42:11] based off the budgeted amount and really
[2:42:13] looking for uh council's commitment to
[2:42:15] continue to move forward. you know,
[2:42:16] there's there's um I don't want to be
[2:42:19] this the spoiler alert that it's uh you
[2:42:22] know, this system really has come to the
[2:42:24] end of life uh based on the evaluation
[2:42:27] and we need a path forward there with a new system. Um so with that, I'd
[2:42:32] like to uh have Kate run through the
[2:42:35] agenda item as well as um they have
[2:42:37] provided a PowerPoint presentation which
[2:42:38] they going to present. Um I think it
[2:42:40] still be a benefit for us to present it
[2:42:42] on your behalf. Unfortunately, I say
[2:42:44] neither of us are mechanical engineers
[2:42:46] to speak specifically about some of
[2:42:47] those things. But um uh really we just
[2:42:51] we're just looking for council support
[2:42:52] and then we can and if there's if there
[2:42:54] are technical questions that are
[2:42:56] required from for council to make their
[2:42:58] decision, we can get those answers for
[2:42:59] you. So with that, turn over to Kate.
[2:43:02] >> Okay. Good morning. Um, so yeah, I'm
[2:43:06] just going to go over their PowerPoint
[2:43:08] and I have some speaking notes and we
[2:43:10] will try our best to kind of answer the
[2:43:12] questions and instead of kind of the
[2:43:14] agenda item because they do kind of
[2:43:16] duplicate a little bit. Um, so starting
[2:43:19] on slide two. So the current system
[2:43:22] condition. So the condition of the core
[2:43:25] equipment like the compressors, pumps,
[2:43:27] condens, condenser equipment, piping and
[2:43:30] controls are all aging and the plant
[2:43:32] requires ongoing maintenance and
[2:43:33] operational workarounds to remain
[2:43:35] functional. So another item that they
[2:43:39] found deficient are the safety and code
[2:43:41] related deficiencies. So the previous
[2:43:43] assessments identified issues involving
[2:43:46] ventilation, gas detection, emergency
[2:43:49] system, signage, documentation, and
[2:43:51] other machine room requirements.
[2:43:53] And then the third point that they found
[2:43:55] on the current condition is the system
[2:43:58] is deteriorating. So there reported
[2:44:00] condenser leaks, corrosion at pumps and
[2:44:02] piping, brine and glycol quality issues,
[2:44:06] uninsulated piping and concerns with
[2:44:08] both the hockey and curling rinks flaps.
[2:44:12] Um so then in the very tiny there is a
[2:44:17] couple photos and those are from a
[2:44:19] condition assessment that we got from
[2:44:21] the village of Caroline. It wasn't for
[2:44:24] them.
[2:44:25] Um so they mentioned that the important
[2:44:28] point is that no single deficiency by
[2:44:30] itself drives the recommendation. It is
[2:44:32] combined with age, deteriorating
[2:44:36] components, operational workarounds and
[2:44:38] code deficiencies that creates a
[2:44:39] potential risk. So the PL plant does
[2:44:43] remain operational. Um however they're
[2:44:46] not suggesting that it needs to be shut
[2:44:47] down immediately. However, there is
[2:44:49] costs associated with reliability,
[2:44:51] safety and continual operation are
[2:44:54] increasing.
[2:44:56] Okay. So slide three.
[2:44:59] So it's the life cycle risk. Um so we
[2:45:01] did ask what happens kind of we did
[2:45:03] nothing. Um so there is not a defined
[2:45:08] remaining years number. um they don't
[2:45:11] know if it'll be one, two, five. Um all
[2:45:14] that they can note is that it is beyond
[2:45:16] the typical service life and therefore
[2:45:18] probable issues of failure, retroactive
[2:45:22] maintenance and operational disruption
[2:45:24] increases with time. So today the system
[2:45:27] is operating but there is deficiencies
[2:45:30] um and in the near future there could be
[2:45:33] maintenance um increased operator
[2:45:35] attention and continued reliance on
[2:45:37] existing workarounds.
[2:45:41] Okay. And then page
[2:45:44] slide four.
[2:45:46] So we had them look at the maintenance
[2:45:48] only approach. Um and it would buy time.
[2:45:52] However, it's not going to extend the
[2:45:54] life of the asset. Um so maintenance
[2:45:57] does not reset the age of the equipment.
[2:46:00] Um
[2:46:02] and it does not eliminate the major code
[2:46:04] upgrades that would be required for the
[2:46:06] actual plant room in the building to be
[2:46:09] modernized. It cannot guarantee
[2:46:11] continual operation if the major
[2:46:13] compressor, condenser, piping system or
[2:46:15] other critical components fail. The
[2:46:18] existing maintenance agreement is also
[2:46:19] important to understand in its context.
[2:46:21] that covers inspection and routine
[2:46:22] maintenance activities, but significant
[2:46:25] items such as compressor overhauls,
[2:46:27] major repairs, refrigerant filters,
[2:46:29] fluid replacement, and emergency work
[2:46:31] are outside of the routine maintenance
[2:46:33] scope.
[2:46:37] So in other words, the maintenance can
[2:46:39] buy time, but it does not create a full
[2:46:41] life cycle for this plant. And then they
[2:46:45] outline four points, what it can kind of
[2:46:47] do and then what it cannot do.
[2:46:52] So slide five. So the replacement
[2:46:54] options were evaluated.
[2:46:57] Um so they evaluated three options for
[2:47:00] the refrigeration plant itself and then
[2:47:02] two options for the plant room itself
[2:47:07] and you would need option one plus
[2:47:10] option A or B. Um so the first one
[2:47:15] refrigeration option is a low charge
[2:47:17] ammonia system with secondary brine.
[2:47:20] So this is the high sufficiency strong
[2:47:23] heat recovery and natural refrigerant.
[2:47:26] So option two CO2 refrigeration with
[2:47:29] secondary brine system. So this is low
[2:47:32] toxicity cold climate potential and
[2:47:35] higher complex and costs. And the third
[2:47:38] is HFO refrigerant system. I'm not going
[2:47:41] to even try and pronounce what HFO
[2:47:43] stands for. However, it is in my agenda
[2:47:45] item spelled out. Um, so this is similar
[2:47:49] operation lower efficiencies and
[2:47:52] regulatory uncertainty.
[2:47:54] So each option was assessed against
[2:47:56] safety, efficiency, capital costs,
[2:47:58] serviceability, life cycle performance,
[2:48:01] heat recovery capability, operational
[2:48:03] requirements and regulatory
[2:48:05] considerations.
[2:48:07] Um, and then there was two option for
[2:48:08] the plant rooms. So the first one was
[2:48:11] rehabilitate the existing room. So it's
[2:48:13] feasible but it requires substantial
[2:48:15] reconstruction to achieve modern code
[2:48:18] compliance. And the second one is the
[2:48:20] pre-manufactured plant room which we
[2:48:22] have also referred to as the skid
[2:48:24] package like a skid unit. It would be
[2:48:27] come in as another unit and would be set
[2:48:30] outside the existing building.
[2:48:33] If we do the pre-manufactured plant
[2:48:36] room, we would have to decommission the
[2:48:40] equipment within the existing plant room
[2:48:43] itself and do some maintenance of the
[2:48:45] building. So you need like the piping,
[2:48:47] the HVAC, the electrical, all of that
[2:48:49] tied in as well.
[2:48:54] So then the costs.
[2:48:58] So the cost comparison. So the
[2:49:00] refrigeration system the estimated cost
[2:49:02] for the low charge ammonia option is
[2:49:04] approximately 2.8 million. Option two
[2:49:08] for the CO2 and brine is approximately 5
[2:49:12] 3.53 million and the HFO option is
[2:49:16] approximately 3.85 million. On top of
[2:49:20] those costs, the plant room,
[2:49:23] so the renovations or rehabilitation to
[2:49:27] the existing plant room would be
[2:49:29] approximately 980,000
[2:49:31] while the pre-manufactured plant room is
[2:49:33] approximately 1.15 million. So the
[2:49:37] recommend recommended option combination
[2:49:40] is the low charge ammonia plus a
[2:49:42] pre-manufactured plant room and it
[2:49:45] produces a cost of approximately 3.97
[2:49:49] million.
[2:49:50] So this is a class 3C estimate. So
[2:49:53] detailed design, final equipment
[2:49:54] selection, construction phasing,
[2:49:56] marketing conditions and tender pricing
[2:49:58] would refine this number. These are not
[2:50:01] based on it's just based on the cost
[2:50:04] estimate at this preliminary stage.
[2:50:08] So fingers crossed it's less. However,
[2:50:11] um and then the cost does not include
[2:50:13] future replacement of the hockey or
[2:50:15] curling ring slabs. So it was identified
[2:50:17] when we did a walk through with the
[2:50:19] current
[2:50:21] maintenance staff that there potentially
[2:50:23] could be the actual concrete slabs would
[2:50:26] need upgrading in the future.
[2:50:29] um we haven't done a test to have an
[2:50:31] idea. However, it's something that we
[2:50:32] will have to consider in capital budget
[2:50:34] in the future. Um there is an option we
[2:50:37] can go in and test them and it would
[2:50:38] give us a better idea whether it's one
[2:50:40] year away, 5 years away. Um but that's
[2:50:42] not a part of this scope. So if that's
[2:50:44] something additional that council would
[2:50:47] like us to look into, potentially 27, um
[2:50:49] we can come back with that as well.
[2:50:56] Okay. So again, so their recommendation
[2:51:00] um is a low charge ammonia refrigeration
[2:51:02] system with a pre-manufactured plant
[2:51:04] room. Um so from a performance
[2:51:07] standpoint, ammonia retain remains
[2:51:09] highly efficient for arena refrigeration
[2:51:12] and performs well across the varying
[2:51:14] load conditions created by the hockey
[2:51:16] and curling rinks. It is well suited for
[2:51:19] to heat recovery that provides
[2:51:21] opportunities to recover refrigeration
[2:51:23] heat for applications such as slab
[2:51:26] heating and snow melt. The low charge
[2:51:28] configuration reduces the total ammonia
[2:51:30] inventory compared with traditional
[2:51:32] ammonia plants while maintaining the
[2:51:34] performance benefits of ammonia. The
[2:51:37] pre-manufactured plant room is equally
[2:51:39] important to the recommendation. It
[2:51:41] allows the new refrigeration plant to be
[2:51:43] housed in a purpose-built coal compliant
[2:51:45] enclosure outside the occupied arena. It
[2:51:48] reduces the risk to occupants, provide
[2:51:50] better maintenance access, and allows
[2:51:52] the refrigeration equipment to be
[2:51:54] arranged around water and requirements
[2:51:56] rather than forcing new equipment into
[2:51:58] an older room.
[2:52:00] Um, so overall, the combination provided
[2:52:03] the best balance for performance,
[2:52:05] safety, constructibility, maintenance,
[2:52:07] and long-term value.
[2:52:10] So, a couple kind of closing notes. Um,
[2:52:16] so again, these are based on preliminary
[2:52:19] numbers for 2027 cost. So, we do have
[2:52:22] inflation in there. Um, they did a
[2:52:25] design contingency as well as a
[2:52:27] construction contingency within their
[2:52:29] cost estimates. Um and then the detailed
[2:52:32] design would confirm get more in depth
[2:52:34] for the refrigeration capacity equipment
[2:52:36] selection, operator requirements, plant
[2:52:38] layout controls, heat recovery,
[2:52:40] construction phasing and regulatory
[2:52:43] coordination.
[2:52:44] They do recommend like I mentioned to
[2:52:47] testing the existing slab during the
[2:52:49] next available shutdown um just because
[2:52:51] it was brought up as a concern. However,
[2:52:54] I don't have as much of the background,
[2:52:56] which is something we can kind of look
[2:52:58] into again in 2027 when there is no ice.
[2:53:03] Um,
[2:53:05] so that's kind of what we have and we
[2:53:09] will try and answer some questions, but
[2:53:12] as Eric mentioned, mechanical is not my
[2:53:14] background either. And yeah, I'll open
[2:53:18] it up to any questions.
[2:53:20] Mr. Reglin, I'll open the floor up to
[2:53:22] council for comments, questions, or
[2:53:23] motion. Council Lewin, go ahead, please.
[2:53:25] >> Um, what are the life expecties of these
[2:53:28] three different machines?
[2:53:32] » Like is one five years and the more
[2:53:34] expensive one 25 years type thing or
[2:53:37] >> my understanding and I can do further
[2:53:40] research, they would have approximately
[2:53:41] the same life expectancy and I'm
[2:53:43] thinking it's 40 to 50 years.
[2:53:46] >> 40 to 50 years. Okay.
[2:53:48] And uh regardless of which machine we
[2:53:51] pick um there has to be new piping and
[2:53:55] renovations in there anyway, doesn't it?
[2:53:58] >> Correct. For any upgrade. Yes.
[2:53:59] >> Yeah.
[2:54:01] Okay. Thank you.
[2:54:05] » Deputy Reef McKay. Go ahead.
[2:54:08] >> Thank you.
[2:54:10] Oh.
[2:54:13] Um,
[2:54:15] I was looking through the high level
[2:54:17] cost estimate and now I can't find it
[2:54:19] for some reason. I was looking through
[2:54:20] this last night
[2:54:23] and it it seemed to me that this
[2:54:25] estimate was significantly more than
[2:54:28] Propax. Now, I realized with Propax, it
[2:54:31] didn't include controls, electrical,
[2:54:33] things like that. But when you broke all
[2:54:35] of that out, this estimate was still
[2:54:38] well over a million dollars more than
[2:54:40] Propacks. Now, did we go back to Propac
[2:54:45] as well or just this uh M
[2:54:50] CW?
[2:54:52] >> Director Hansen, go ahead.
[2:54:53] >> Yeah. No, thank you. Um, so we didn't
[2:54:55] think it was appropriate to go back to Propac um just because, you know,
[2:55:00] they've been asked for a price, they
[2:55:01] submitted that. Uh we provided that
[2:55:03] information to our consultants um and
[2:55:06] they provide us a list of um of the
[2:55:09] exclusions that they claim that were not included in the original
[2:55:13] estimate. Um even when I look at their
[2:55:15] list, I I I agree. Um I said I do have
[2:55:18] some concerns about their estimate. Uh
[2:55:20] we I I did kind of brief council on this
[2:55:23] before about the use of cost consultants
[2:55:25] and it seems to be the um the cost
[2:55:28] escalation that that that includes. Um
[2:55:31] really I guess the only thing the
[2:55:33] assurance I can give council today is
[2:55:34] that is to not focus so much on the
[2:55:36] price as in that yes we we do realize
[2:55:39] that it's going to be more than the $2
[2:55:40] million you know and that's that's what
[2:55:42] we've set forward in budget. Um this
[2:55:45] consultant is has indicated upwards of
[2:55:47] 3.9. I still believe you know with the
[2:55:50] contingency amounts and the and the um
[2:55:52] the type of work that they've identified
[2:55:54] as the things that weren't included
[2:55:55] still do not equate to an additional $2
[2:55:58] million. Um so I I project that we are
[2:56:01] going to see some cost savings through
[2:56:02] the detailed design process and that
[2:56:04] detailed design process may include this
[2:56:07] engineer. It may include a design build
[2:56:10] um um relation with one of the standing
[2:56:14] offers that we have with with RMA. This
[2:56:17] was really for more of the case of the
[2:56:21] um the condition assessment and that's
[2:56:23] really what they they were brought in to
[2:56:24] do and they were they were brought in to
[2:56:26] provide the the cost estimate as well.
[2:56:29] Um now if they truly believe that that
[2:56:32] is is the cost you know and this in
[2:56:34] their industry professional opinion then
[2:56:36] we have to take that and we challenge
[2:56:38] them on that as well. Um our decision
[2:56:40] moving forward would be to take that
[2:56:42] recommendation and whether we we
[2:56:44] continue on that path using the as our
[2:56:46] engineer on record to continue to assist
[2:56:48] us with this program or we decide to go
[2:56:51] with a uh a different approach. Uh but I
[2:56:54] still think it's important that you know
[2:56:55] there it was identified as a concern
[2:56:57] early on that there was a list of
[2:56:58] exclusions that weren't improve that
[2:57:00] weren't included in the original
[2:57:01] estimate. So, we do know that's going to
[2:57:03] be more than $2 million, but our path
[2:57:05] moving forward into detailed design,
[2:57:07] there's still some options on the table
[2:57:09] to get a better handle of to try to see
[2:57:11] some more cost savings outside of this
[2:57:13] engineering report.
[2:57:16] » Thank you.
[2:57:18] Uh secondly, just with regards to the
[2:57:21] placement of
[2:57:23] the new building,
[2:57:26] are we going to be able to get by that
[2:57:29] structure in behind there or is it going
[2:57:31] to completely block off that access?
[2:57:34] >> Yeah, great catch. It was uh we we
[2:57:37] noticed that as well. They actually had
[2:57:39] it on the exterior of the most the
[2:57:41] farthest jut out there there is to the
[2:57:44] west. Um there are other there looks
[2:57:46] like there's other opportunities to be
[2:57:47] able to to bring that unit around. Um so
[2:57:51] um there again through a a preliminary
[2:57:54] engineering sketch that they provided.
[2:57:56] That's certainly where we wouldn't want
[2:57:57] it. We'd want it to be um tucked around
[2:58:00] the corner. So to try to
[2:58:02] >> minimize any impact as that is a narrow
[2:58:05] alleyway as it is today. We wouldn't
[2:58:06] want to impact that any more than we'd
[2:58:08] have to.
[2:58:09] >> Okay. You're already on it. Thank you.
[2:58:13] >> Councelor McCauley. Go ahead.
[2:58:16] >> Does the I'm just I was reading through
[2:58:17] this and it was the employee or the the
[2:58:20] requirements were mentioning that they
[2:58:23] possibly having someone that would be
[2:58:25] certified with those plants or like a
[2:58:28] power mechanic. Does the does the
[2:58:30] current facility have that same
[2:58:32] requirement
[2:58:35] >> for the ice plant operator? Mhm.
[2:58:37] >> Actually, I have I'm not sure from an
[2:58:39] operation standpoint what those
[2:58:41] requirements are for a ice plant
[2:58:43] operator. It's something that hasn't
[2:58:44] fell in our wheelhouse before as an
[2:58:46] operator.
[2:58:47] >> I was just I was reading through what
[2:58:49] was what it had in here and I was just
[2:58:50] curious if the current facility they
[2:58:52] have are they required to have the same
[2:58:54] sort of require or power mechanic that's
[2:58:58] certified with the ammon plants.
[2:59:03] >> I'm I'm sure there's some type of
[2:59:04] certification there. you wouldn't want
[2:59:05] anybody to be operating a system like
[2:59:07] this. There's some there's some high
[2:59:09] danger components um in an ice plant
[2:59:11] that has could have some serious
[2:59:12] ramifications. So, I'm assuming some
[2:59:14] type of certification. I believe that is
[2:59:16] contracted out. The the ice making is is
[2:59:18] used by a contractor from the egg
[2:59:20] services egg sorry egg services.
[2:59:23] >> Just I was just curious for you. That's
[2:59:25] all. Thank you.
[2:59:26] >> You bet. Nice.
[2:59:30] So there again, I'm really um just
[2:59:33] looking for council support to to keep
[2:59:34] moving forward with this project. I want
[2:59:35] to make you well aware. Again, um um I
[2:59:38] apologize for not having the um the
[2:59:40] consultants, engineers. I was hoping to
[2:59:42] get them in front of you. I really was.
[2:59:43] Um but uh so we just wanted to we you've
[2:59:47] been waiting for this report for a long
[2:59:49] time. Um it's come to a critical point
[2:59:50] there in the relationship, I think, in
[2:59:52] with Caroline, and we didn't want to
[2:59:54] wait any longer. Um we will be
[2:59:57] discussing this again during the
[2:59:58] September 21st strategic planning
[3:00:01] meeting there as we're doing our
[3:00:02] priority um list you know where this
[3:00:05] falls on the priorities scale um from a
[3:00:07] condition perspective it's very high
[3:00:09] from from our recommendation. So uh we
[3:00:12] just want to be prepared. We've
[3:00:13] identified you know that um throughout
[3:00:15] the year we've put some additional
[3:00:16] funding in the Caroline restricted
[3:00:18] surplus to try to deal with some of this
[3:00:21] aging infrastructure. So, uh, we really
[3:00:23] look forward to having, uh, more
[3:00:25] discussion at at the future strategic
[3:00:27] plan session. Um, but there was a
[3:00:30] recommendation.
[3:00:31] Um,
[3:00:33] maybe Kate, do you want to walk through
[3:00:34] the
[3:00:38] » can do that?
[3:00:39] So the options to consider is continue
[3:00:43] with ongoing maintenance of the existing
[3:00:45] plant or upgrade the refrigeration
[3:00:47] system and plant room to a low charge
[3:00:50] ammonia and brine system with
[3:00:51] pre-manufactured plant. As we mentioned
[3:00:54] as a condition public works we do feel
[3:00:56] it's high on the priority list. However,
[3:00:59] we will go over kind of the Caroline
[3:01:01] restricted surplus and wherever it falls
[3:01:04] within council's priorities. Um so our
[3:01:07] recommendation is to proceed with the
[3:01:10] upgrade to the existing plant with the
[3:01:11] low charge ammonia and brine system with
[3:01:13] pre-manufactured plant.
[3:01:17] >> Thank you Mr. Ren. Um councelor Powell.
[3:01:20] Go ahead.
[3:01:21] >> I was just going to make the motion um
[3:01:24] to upgrade the existing plant with the
[3:01:26] low charge ammonia and brine system with
[3:01:28] a pre-manufacture plant um as staff
[3:01:31] recommendations.
[3:01:32] >> Okay. Thank you for the motion.
[3:01:33] Councelor Pal. I do have one question
[3:01:35] for administration. Will there be any uh
[3:01:37] earthworks required or ashvault or
[3:01:40] paving that would be needed with the
[3:01:43] installation of a potential new
[3:01:46] pre-manufactured plant?
[3:01:47] >> There will be minor site works just
[3:01:50] where the building is going itself.
[3:01:52] However, it is a flat area. So, we don't
[3:01:54] see it as high cost and not ashvault as
[3:01:57] far as I'm aware.
[3:01:59] >> Okay. Yeah. With the current surface is
[3:02:00] ashvault at this time. I just wasn't
[3:02:02] sure if any of that was going to be
[3:02:03] disturbed or if that was if anything was
[3:02:05] going to be
[3:02:06] >> It is going in the back where it's
[3:02:07] gravel right now.
[3:02:09] >> There's paper.
[3:02:10] >> It's paid back there on the alley. Oh,
[3:02:12] sorry. My apologies.
[3:02:13] >> I drive back there quite a bit.
[3:02:14] >> Okay. I have not been for a few months.
[3:02:16] >> That's okay. Uh, Director Hansen.
[3:02:18] >> Yeah. So, I um unbeknown to me, I
[3:02:21] actually thought it would be um the skid
[3:02:23] unit would actually be like a drop off
[3:02:24] skid unit. Um likely it would be on a
[3:02:26] pile system and you know, which makes
[3:02:29] sense. you don't you don't want it to to
[3:02:30] go anywhere, right? So, uh so likely um
[3:02:34] you know a a pile system for the uh the
[3:02:37] revision unit as well as the um there
[3:02:41] was the other component as well that's
[3:02:43] sitting up on the stand and I it's the name is uh
[3:02:48] the fluid cooler I believe. So there
[3:02:50] might be actually two components
[3:02:51] actually need additional piles um
[3:02:53] depending on what could be salvageable
[3:02:55] from the existing one. Um but there are
[3:02:57] like likely two components there which
[3:02:59] is I say a a piling system there for a
[3:03:01] foundation and then the piping into the
[3:03:04] building. Um there is there's going to
[3:03:06] be some risk with the um decommissioning
[3:03:08] of the old system because you know as we
[3:03:11] do a hazardous materials inspection. Um
[3:03:13] you never know what you're going to come
[3:03:14] across on a building of that age. Um but
[3:03:17] hopefully it's not that that old that
[3:03:20] there should be that much risk. But um
[3:03:22] vermiculite, you know, um lead paint,
[3:03:25] the typical, but I don't think there's
[3:03:27] there we're going to stay away from the
[3:03:29] a word. I don't know that there'll be a
[3:03:31] lot of that.
[3:03:33] >> Okay. No, thank you very much, Director
[3:03:34] Hansen. I just wanted to see if I just
[3:03:36] wanted to double check with the
[3:03:37] potential just shy of $4 million
[3:03:39] manufacturer plant that if there was any
[3:03:42] considerable earthworks that may be
[3:03:44] needed, but uh it's not sounding like
[3:03:46] that will be a thing that may come arise
[3:03:48] in the future. Having said that,
[3:03:50] councelor Lewin, go ahead.
[3:03:52] >> Yeah. Um,
[3:03:56] Eric, he said it be going on piles
[3:03:59] this plant. Yes. Okay. Has anybody done
[3:04:02] a line locate to see what kind of lines
[3:04:03] are running back there? If we impressed
[3:04:05] with the area space.
[3:04:08] >> Um, not yet. So, this this is being as
[3:04:10] it's just a preliminary design phase.
[3:04:12] You know, once we have that support, um,
[3:04:14] absolutely we'll be doing location uh
[3:04:16] locates. our operations team would
[3:04:18] wouldn't appreciate us if we put a a
[3:04:21] pile through one of their
[3:04:22] >> They're saying if it's covered with
[3:04:23] lines buried underneath there, it's
[3:04:24] going to be hard to set it up there.
[3:04:26] >> No, absolutely. And um you know, there's
[3:04:27] there could be other options, you know,
[3:04:29] even like a a uh a shallow uh concrete
[3:04:32] pad if if for some reason that we
[3:04:35] weren't able to get piles in the ground,
[3:04:37] you know, and then do a cost comparison
[3:04:39] for the other or one to the other.
[3:04:41] >> Thank you.
[3:04:41] >> You bet.
[3:04:42] >> Deputy Brief McKay, go ahead.
[3:04:45] >> Thanks. One thing we didn't really talk
[3:04:46] about is the amount of downtime.
[3:04:49] It was there any study involved with
[3:04:52] that where, you know, we have to shut in
[3:04:54] the old plant, do our piping tie-ins. Is
[3:04:57] that a week, a month?
[3:05:01] What are we talking for
[3:05:04] delay there?
[3:05:05] >> Yeah. And we're hoping that there would
[3:05:07] be no interruption in any of the
[3:05:09] programs for ice. So we would be, you
[3:05:10] know, if we're as we we're just coming
[3:05:13] into hockey season right now, if we get
[3:05:14] the detailed design completed, procure
[3:05:16] the equipment so that we have it here on
[3:05:18] site and even if the um the idea would
[3:05:23] be that the plant can still be
[3:05:24] operational while we're especially if
[3:05:25] we're going to use a um a skid unit,
[3:05:27] which is a fully contained unit that so
[3:05:30] the changeover should be um quick. you
[3:05:33] know, everything all every all the
[3:05:34] mechanical electric should be in place
[3:05:36] and be nothing more than than switching
[3:05:38] over the the parent piping out of the
[3:05:40] building. So, we're we're hoping for
[3:05:42] zero disruption to programming.
[3:05:45] >> Okay, because that plant is shut down
[3:05:47] typically June and July
[3:05:52] » May, June, summer's
[3:05:53] >> May, June. So again, it's not going to
[3:05:56] guarantee there will be no delays or no
[3:05:58] it's it's not a I've never done ice
[3:06:00] plant before but you know as we set out
[3:06:03] what our goals are and that's that's why
[3:06:05] we are recommending to go with the with
[3:06:06] the skid unit is that it should be just
[3:06:09] you know a changeover and it should be
[3:06:11] short.
[3:06:12] >> Okay, sounds like there's been
[3:06:14] considerations taken. Thank you. Okay.
[3:06:16] So, we have a motion uh from councelor
[3:06:18] Powell that council direct
[3:06:19] administration to upgrade the
[3:06:20] refrigeration system and plant room to a
[3:06:22] low charge ammonia NH3 and Brian system
[3:06:25] with a pre-manufactured plant. That is
[3:06:28] official motion on the floor from
[3:06:29] councelor Powell. Seeing no further
[3:06:31] discussion call the question. All those
[3:06:33] in favor
[3:06:35] and that motion is supported unanimously
[3:06:37] by council. At this time I'm just going
[3:06:39] to call a short fivem minute break.
[3:19:42] Welcome back after our short break here
[3:19:44] um to the regular council meeting for
[3:19:46] Clearwater County August 25th, 2026.
[3:19:49] We're going to move into uh items under
[3:19:51] new business, which is we had an
[3:19:53] addition this morning under item 5.3
[3:19:56] regarding the Coupney Plains Ecological
[3:19:58] Reserve.
[3:20:00] I'd like to open up the floor for
[3:20:01] discussion.
[3:20:03] on this item. If not, I do have a
[3:20:05] proposed motions for council's
[3:20:07] consideration
[3:20:09] and I'll I'll proceed to make a motion
[3:20:11] as I'm seeing no counselors are
[3:20:14] have any indication of speaking at this
[3:20:16] time. So, I move that uh council direct
[3:20:18] administration to draft a letter
[3:20:20] requesting an impact assessment
[3:20:25] regarding and impact assessment and
[3:20:28] clarification from the Ministry of
[3:20:29] Forestry and Parks regarding the
[3:20:32] disestablishment of the Coupney Plains
[3:20:34] Ecological Reserve and the transitioning
[3:20:37] of those lands to a provincial park.
[3:20:42] Were
[3:20:49] you able to capture that motion, Miss
[3:20:51] Thompson?
[3:20:53] >> Okay.
[3:20:54] Move that council direct administration
[3:20:56] to draft a letter
[3:21:00] requesting an impact assessment
[3:21:02] and clarification
[3:21:05] from the Ministry of Forestry and Parks
[3:21:09] regarding the disestablishment
[3:21:11] of the Coupney Plains Ecological Reserve
[3:21:16] and the transitioning of those lands to
[3:21:19] a provincial park.
[3:21:22] Okay, Miss Thompson has that motion
[3:21:24] captured. Are there any discussions on
[3:21:26] the on the motion on the floor? Deputy
[3:21:29] Ree McKay, go ahead, please. Thanks.
[3:21:31] Would it be possible to uh add to that
[3:21:34] letter
[3:21:36] some clarification regard and I'm just
[3:21:39] going to refer to the public notice that
[3:21:41] was provided in the mountaineer
[3:21:43] newspaper
[3:21:44] and they state that some of the current
[3:21:47] uses in Cney Plains Ecological Reserve
[3:21:50] are incompatible with the site's current
[3:21:52] classification. So within that letter,
[3:21:54] could we also request some clarification
[3:21:57] as to what exactly those uses are?
[3:22:03] and what exactly the future intended
[3:22:05] uses would be.
[3:22:09] » So that could be captured within the
[3:22:11] clarification the the impact assessment
[3:22:14] and clarification section but uh we
[3:22:16] could expand potentially on that motion.
[3:22:18] Miss Thompson.
[3:22:28] » Okay. Motion is captured.
[3:22:31] Is there any further discussion on this
[3:22:33] item? Seeing none, I'll call the
[3:22:35] question. All those in favor?
[3:22:38] And that motion is supported unanimously
[3:22:39] by council.
[3:22:43] At this time, we're going to take a
[3:22:44] recess till first. We'll return at
[3:22:47] 12:35.
[4:02:20] Hey, we're good. Okay, welcome back from
[4:02:22] our recess and welcome back to the
[4:02:24] Clearwater County Regular Council
[4:02:25] meeting for August 25th, 2026.
[4:02:28] Uh, moving into item six of today's
[4:02:30] agenda, we have reports.
[4:02:33] Are there any items of discussion
[4:02:38] on the section of reports? And maybe at
[4:02:40] this point in time, I'll ask CEO Simpson
[4:02:42] to go ahead and provide your CAO report.
[4:02:44] >> Certainly. Thank you, your worship. Um
[4:02:47] so for council uh make note of the fact
[4:02:50] that on the 5th and 6th Nord will be
[4:02:52] celebrating their annual Nord Days event
[4:02:55] and there will be a market a show and
[4:02:58] shine and hopefully lots of
[4:03:00] participation from the community and
[4:03:01] maybe folks from the surrounding area.
[4:03:03] Concurrent with that, there will be some
[4:03:04] road closures. Uh Lily A, Center Street,
[4:03:07] Cherry a and an adjacent road will be
[4:03:09] closed um for about an hour from 8 to
[4:03:11] 9ine during those days, but there's
[4:03:13] still going to be access along Elizabeth
[4:03:16] Avenue. So, all county owned parking
[4:03:18] lots within Nordic will be uh delegated
[4:03:20] to this event. So, if folks want to come
[4:03:21] and park, they can use one of our one of
[4:03:23] our spaces. Uh to council specifically,
[4:03:26] uh we will be hosting the next uh
[4:03:28] district 2, that's the central rural
[4:03:30] municipalities of Alberta fall meeting.
[4:03:33] Uh we are expecting between 80 to 100
[4:03:35] delegates on the 2nd of October and
[4:03:38] councilors from the central region are
[4:03:40] going to be invited to our community to
[4:03:42] review resolutions put forward and to
[4:03:44] discuss municipal concerns affecting the
[4:03:46] central rural region. So, I had made
[4:03:49] note that Mountain View County would be
[4:03:51] looking for a seconder on a resolution
[4:03:53] of theirs uh that they're going to put
[4:03:54] back to the province and uh by consensus
[4:03:56] by email. Uh council had agreed to
[4:03:59] second that motion. So, just be ready
[4:04:00] when that one comes up to stand in
[4:04:02] support of your colleagues from Mountain
[4:04:03] View County. Uh RMA is happening
[4:04:07] November 2nd to 5th and the um the
[4:04:11] conventions which happen twice a year
[4:04:12] will be at the Edmonton Convention
[4:04:14] Center. uh resolutions that are crucial
[4:04:17] to RMA's advocacy efforts will be put on
[4:04:20] the table and they'll be looking for
[4:04:22] direction to RMA from the members to
[4:04:25] endorse specific positions or calls to
[4:04:28] action. The resolution is directed to
[4:04:30] the provincial or federal government
[4:04:32] depending on the content and once those
[4:04:34] resolutions are endorsed at the RMA
[4:04:36] level, they remain active and they
[4:04:39] influence the advocacy agenda of RMA for
[4:04:42] the next three years. Uh so the deadline
[4:04:44] to put forth a resolution will be
[4:04:46] January of next year. If council has
[4:04:49] advocacy priorities, a draft resolution
[4:04:52] should be put forth to council in the
[4:04:53] next couple of months and then presented
[4:04:55] to the district 2 CRMA for endorsement
[4:04:58] and then onto the spring of 2027 RMA.
[4:05:01] And just a personal note, I've been
[4:05:02] settling into the community with my kids
[4:05:04] and my dog and I've been enjoying the
[4:05:05] recreational amenities of the area, uh
[4:05:07] including some marginal success trying
[4:05:09] fishing at Cow Lake. Finally got one. It
[4:05:12] was a jack, not a trout, unfortunately,
[4:05:14] but we'll get out into deeper water, I'm
[4:05:15] sure, and get better eating from there.
[4:05:17] Uh, the community continues to deliver
[4:05:19] on its promise of being vibrant,
[4:05:20] welcoming, uh, and a great place to live
[4:05:22] and work. So, of note, I've also noticed
[4:05:25] there's some pretty good forge crops
[4:05:26] going in the fields. I wouldn't be
[4:05:28] surprised to see a second cut coming
[4:05:29] through in the fall.
[4:05:33] >> Excellent. Thank you for your report,
[4:05:34] CEO Simpson. Are there any questions for
[4:05:37] CEO Simpson from council?
[4:05:41] Seeing none. Um, moving on to item 6.2,
[4:05:45] we have the broadband project update for
[4:05:48] August 2026.
[4:05:51] Sure.
[4:05:54] >> Janet, there's some indication of some
[4:05:56] members of council wishing to speak.
[4:05:58] Deputy brief, do you have questions,
[4:06:00] comments?
[4:06:00] >> Were you going to present the the item?
[4:06:03] >> It looks like it. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead,
[4:06:04] CEO Simpson. So, I'll present the item.
[4:06:07] And I'm first I'd ask has everyone had
[4:06:09] time to uh review the report itself?
[4:06:13] Okay. I imagine there will be questions.
[4:06:15] So what I'll do is I'll just run through
[4:06:17] the material in the report and then I
[4:06:20] will take those questions down and get
[4:06:21] you some proper replies uh after the
[4:06:24] council meeting as soon as the
[4:06:25] information comes in. Um in general as
[4:06:28] far as website updates go, uh the open
[4:06:31] access network is uh still a pretty
[4:06:33] popular piece of content on our county
[4:06:35] website. We're up to 405 views from 240
[4:06:40] visitors. Uh the telecom providers page
[4:06:43] also is up to 303 views from 159
[4:06:47] visitors and those two pages are about
[4:06:49] 80% of the traffic on the broadband page
[4:06:52] in general. So folks are starting to
[4:06:53] look at who they're going to get their
[4:06:54] services from. Um, we're growing in
[4:06:57] interest in the telecom providers, uh,
[4:07:00] rising from 51 to 72 visits between the
[4:07:03] first and second halves of July. And
[4:07:06] traffic to the open access overview
[4:07:08] page, we're sort of saying it's just
[4:07:10] holding steady with those numbers. Um,
[4:07:13] the residents are spending most of their
[4:07:15] time on the broadband project funding
[4:07:17] page, averaging about a minute and 53
[4:07:19] seconds per visit, which is the longest
[4:07:21] of any of the broadband pages we have on
[4:07:23] the site. This suggests that visitors
[4:07:25] are reading the page rather than passing
[4:07:27] through it. Total site users has
[4:07:30] continued to grow for the last three
[4:07:33] months from 750 in May to 830 in June
[4:07:37] and 915 in July. So it's an increase of
[4:07:40] about 10% for each period. And page
[4:07:43] views rose about 20% in July from 2900
[4:07:47] to about uh uh 2900 sorry from 2400 and
[4:07:51] change. Uh and the engagement rate is
[4:07:53] improving about 40% from 39 to about 47%
[4:07:57] of residents spending more time
[4:07:59] reviewing service and project
[4:08:00] information pages. The service select
[4:08:04] pages rose from 42% and the uh the
[4:08:07] project status views rose sorry they
[4:08:10] rose 41 42% and project status views
[4:08:13] rose about 34 a.5% indicating residents
[4:08:16] are actively researching service
[4:08:18] availability and construction timing in
[4:08:20] their area. Paid social traffic went
[4:08:23] down about 12% in July, which kind of
[4:08:25] reflects the posting volume during the
[4:08:27] summer months as we prepare for the
[4:08:29] summer launch or the September launch
[4:08:30] period, sorry.
[4:08:33] Um, as far as Facebook or Meta
[4:08:35] advertising goes, our August ads
[4:08:37] continue to promote our internet service
[4:08:39] providers. So during the first two weeks
[4:08:41] of August, the focus was on Bear Bears
[4:08:43] Paw's new website, which is dedicated to
[4:08:45] Clearwater County's broadband packages
[4:08:47] and prices. And these last two weeks in
[4:08:50] August have been focusing on Mage
[4:08:52] Network's dedicated web page. We're also
[4:08:55] running a series of did you know posts
[4:08:57] which uh will be launched weekly in
[4:08:59] Clearwater County on our Facebook page.
[4:09:01] And the intention of these posts is to
[4:09:03] educate the residents and businesses on
[4:09:05] a number of different aspects of the
[4:09:07] program and answer some of the most
[4:09:09] asked questions we hear in the
[4:09:11] community. We're also going to be doing
[4:09:13] some advertisements in the three local
[4:09:15] papers. That's the Western Star, the
[4:09:16] Mountaineer, and the Albertan to support
[4:09:19] the internet service providers currently
[4:09:20] in the market. And this is in response
[4:09:23] to many residents asking for internet
[4:09:25] service provider information so they can
[4:09:27] begin shopping ahead of the network
[4:09:28] launch. We're going to be launching an
[4:09:30] early connection program which starts
[4:09:32] today, the week of August 24th. And uh
[4:09:35] the small number of residents targeted
[4:09:37] in this uh program are going to connect
[4:09:39] to the Clearwater County broadband
[4:09:41] network and provide feedback for us,
[4:09:43] helping prepare for the larger launch in
[4:09:45] select areas of the county during the
[4:09:47] week of September 21st. These dates
[4:09:50] depend on the network being fully ready
[4:09:52] and functional. So that includes
[4:09:54] software and hardware testing. Um making
[4:09:56] sure the area cabinets are fully
[4:09:58] commissioned and fiber connected to the
[4:09:59] property line uh from the property line
[4:10:01] to the residents as well as the inhome
[4:10:03] equipment installs. As we're rolling out
[4:10:06] to larger area internet service
[4:10:08] providers, uh their onboard packages and
[4:10:11] pricing will be onto the marketplace
[4:10:12] website and residents will be able to
[4:10:14] sign up with their internet service
[4:10:16] providers and get connected. residents
[4:10:19] uh in areas coming online first will
[4:10:21] receive one of two communication
[4:10:23] materials. If they've not yet signed up
[4:10:25] for Fiber Connect, they'll receive a
[4:10:27] mailed communication in September
[4:10:28] encouraging them to sign up for the
[4:10:30] Fiber Connect program and choose an
[4:10:31] internet service provider as soon as
[4:10:33] possible. And for those residents who
[4:10:35] have signed up for Fiber Connect, they
[4:10:37] will be sent an automated email
[4:10:38] informing them that they can begin
[4:10:40] shopping for an internet service
[4:10:42] provider and the marketplace website
[4:10:44] will be ready with all of those ISP
[4:10:46] packages and pricing.
[4:10:48] As far as community engagement goes,
[4:10:50] they uh there's been a presence at the
[4:10:52] market on Maine in Rocky Mountain House.
[4:10:54] And so the Clearwater County Broadband
[4:10:56] booth continues to have presence at the
[4:10:59] Thursday evening market in Rocky where
[4:11:01] residents can stop by and ask questions
[4:11:04] or sign up for Fiberconnect. This ends I
[4:11:06] believe it would be Thursday the 27th.
[4:11:08] That' be the last market.
[4:11:12] So, of the Fiber Connect sales, uh, as
[4:11:15] of August 11th, we've contacted 1736
[4:11:18] residents. We have signed up 1,051 of
[4:11:22] those. And the installation schedule,
[4:11:25] which runs from August to October, we'll
[4:11:28] see installations happening in Crimson
[4:11:30] South, Farrier Acres North in August.
[4:11:33] Uh, Nord Outer, Highway 752 in Cow Lake
[4:11:37] to Range Road 384, Highway 752 to Range
[4:11:40] Road 80, uh, Hidden Valley, Highway 752
[4:11:44] to the West RV ATV park and Straen east
[4:11:47] and northwest in September, and then in
[4:11:49] October, Cheddarville, Congress,
[4:11:52] Doverkart Hall, uh, installations along
[4:11:54] Township 384 and 385, Range Road 84, and
[4:11:57] the Classen Oilfield Cal Cowboy Trail
[4:12:00] areas.
[4:12:03] So, uh, of the internet service
[4:12:05] providers themselves, Mage Networks now
[4:12:07] has a full page dedicated to Clearwater
[4:12:09] County broadband on their website and
[4:12:12] all internet service, uh, providers will
[4:12:14] be posted to our telecom page, which you
[4:12:17] can access at
[4:12:17] clearwatercount.ca/teleom-providers.
[4:12:21] So, that would be Mage Networks, Bears
[4:12:23] Paw Networks, and Aerotechnology all
[4:12:26] have web pages dedicated to our
[4:12:28] broadband. So, a lot of points of
[4:12:30] interface for people to come in, pick an
[4:12:31] ISP, and get connected.
[4:12:34] With respect to construction, uh there's
[4:12:37] a total number of homes that could get
[4:12:39] fiber internet. That's 4,399.
[4:12:43] We've passed 173 of them. And again,
[4:12:45] we've uh received connection orders for
[4:12:47] 1,51 of those.
[4:12:50] I'll show you the maps here. Um Ro
[4:12:53] updates have built about 460 kilometers
[4:12:55] of fiber to date. Um, let's see. Cable
[4:12:59] construction, we've got 37% of the way
[4:13:01] there, 606 km of the 1659 that are
[4:13:04] planned. And civil construction, just
[4:13:07] under 700 km of the 1389 planned. And
[4:13:11] then with respect to Canadian Western
[4:13:13] infrastructure, um, they've built about
[4:13:16] 150 km to date of their project.
[4:13:20] Canadian fiber optics updates. They've
[4:13:22] got 88 kilometers built to date um in
[4:13:25] areas from Township 395, Northland Drive
[4:13:28] to Range Road 65 and Township 400 and
[4:13:31] Range Road 65, 64, 63 to uh along
[4:13:35] Township 401A and Highway 598, Range
[4:13:38] Road 63 to the Codner. So that's sort of
[4:13:41] planned. Um more is taking place between
[4:13:44] September and December of this year.
[4:13:46] There's a couple site photos there for
[4:13:48] you to look at.
[4:13:49] of conduit being installed
[4:13:53] and of course the reporting requirements
[4:13:55] that come with having these grants from
[4:13:57] the government. Uh we're working closely
[4:13:59] with Innovation, Science, and Economic
[4:14:01] Development Canada or ISIED, uh the
[4:14:04] government of Alberta on reporting
[4:14:06] requirements for the universal broadband
[4:14:09] fund grant projects, which includes
[4:14:11] monthly progress meetings with ISED and
[4:14:13] the GOA, uh quarterly forecasting
[4:14:15] updates for the GOA, quarterly community
[4:14:18] progress reports to both entities,
[4:14:20] milestone deliverables and claims and
[4:14:23] reimbursements, a yearly forecast, and
[4:14:25] of course, project change forms as
[4:14:27] required. ired.
[4:14:29] So that would take me to the end of the
[4:14:31] content of the report. I would be glad
[4:14:33] to receive your questions and then get
[4:14:35] you the information that you're looking
[4:14:36] for.
[4:14:38] >> Counselor or Deputy Reef McKay, go
[4:14:40] ahead.
[4:14:41] >> Thank you. Um, I do have a uh resident
[4:14:45] concern that I would like to bring
[4:14:46] forward and that is that AFL
[4:14:51] when they're contacting residents and uh
[4:14:54] making sales calls led many residents to
[4:14:58] believe that the system would be online
[4:15:00] at the end of June and then it was the
[4:15:03] end of July
[4:15:05] and then it was the end of August and
[4:15:07] now it's hopefully the middle of
[4:15:09] September.
[4:15:10] So, as the the owners of this network, I
[4:15:15] think we need to
[4:15:19] follow up and put a little more pressure
[4:15:22] on um Arcadia and
[4:15:26] AFL because it it seems like
[4:15:30] they're quickly uh causing a lot of
[4:15:33] frustration within the community and
[4:15:35] that is going to cause a lot of uh a lot
[4:15:39] of people not to sign
[4:15:40] and it's going to create a system that
[4:15:43] really uh doesn't have a business case
[4:15:45] if there isn't enough customers. So,
[4:15:48] >> okay. So, noted. Thank you, Deputy Ree.
[4:15:51] >> And secondly, I do have a question to
[4:15:55] administration regarding timing.
[4:15:57] Many of these grants have a uh they have
[4:16:01] deadline of I believe it's the end of
[4:16:03] March 2027.
[4:16:08] Are we we going to make it?
[4:16:12] >> Um,
[4:16:13] >> and if not, have we contacted the
[4:16:16] appropriate people to say, "Hey, due to
[4:16:18] weather, due to unforeseen
[4:16:20] circumstances, due to anything we can
[4:16:23] think of,
[4:16:25] >> yeah, literally, there's a chance we may
[4:16:28] not have this 100% completed by March
[4:16:31] 27th
[4:16:33] because if we were to lose those grants
[4:16:36] and this county became liable for 100%
[4:16:39] of the installation.
[4:16:42] Um, I don't think anybody in this
[4:16:44] building would have a job anymore.
[4:16:48] >> I appreciate the sentiment. Uh, I can
[4:16:50] tell you that I have a meeting with
[4:16:51] Arcadus at the uh, I guess 10:00 Monday
[4:16:54] morning next week. And with that, there
[4:16:58] will be also a presence from marketing
[4:17:00] and I'll have my IT department there. I
[4:17:02] will press upon them that it is
[4:17:04] important to hit the deadlines for
[4:17:06] reporting requirements, construction
[4:17:07] requirements, and I will also ask about
[4:17:09] any possibilities through the Ministry
[4:17:11] of Extension. If there's going to be
[4:17:12] delays, I will bring that information
[4:17:14] back to you in a future report if that's
[4:17:17] fair.
[4:17:18] >> No, absolutely. We have a broadband
[4:17:19] meeting upcoming. That's why I asked
[4:17:21] these questions today.
[4:17:22] >> No problem.
[4:17:23] >> I believe it's mid mid October is the
[4:17:26] next actual broad
[4:17:27] >> Yeah, the 14th of October. There will be
[4:17:29] a broadband committee meeting at that
[4:17:30] time. Thank you.
[4:17:34] >> Are there any other
[4:17:36] comments or questions from council
[4:17:37] members regarding the broadband project
[4:17:41] update report?
[4:17:45] Seeing none, is there any discussion on
[4:17:47] the item 6.3 capital project status
[4:17:50] update report?
[4:17:54] I would uh I'll just comment briefly on
[4:17:57] one item here. There's the Caroline
[4:17:59] North Road uh 2026 ashvault overlay. I
[4:18:04] would just like to uh thank staff for
[4:18:07] uh I had local businesses that had
[4:18:10] concerns with the construction
[4:18:12] activities there that was uh briefly
[4:18:14] interrupting their uh customers to have
[4:18:18] access to their stores. However,
[4:18:20] administration did rectify that very
[4:18:22] quickly. So, thank you to staff and
[4:18:23] director Hansen for that. Uh, so the
[4:18:26] Caroline feed store north of Caroline
[4:18:27] are still open and available to service
[4:18:29] the community and along with the
[4:18:32] Caroline golf course still open for the
[4:18:34] community to be able to access those two
[4:18:36] businesses along the Caroline North Road
[4:18:39] while the ashvault overlay project is
[4:18:42] underway.
[4:18:46] Are there any other comments or any
[4:18:48] questions on capital project status
[4:18:51] update report? Seeing none. Clearwater
[4:18:54] regional emergency services report.
[4:18:57] Comments, questions?
[4:19:02] Economic developer officer report. Any
[4:19:05] comments, questions?
[4:19:08] Financial report. These are all reports
[4:19:10] for council's information and the
[4:19:12] community.
[4:19:17] Rocky Mountain House airport report.
[4:19:22] It was nice to see that that project is
[4:19:24] underway and the new airport terminal is
[4:19:27] being installed and constructed.
[4:19:32] Rocky RCMP report. Any comments,
[4:19:34] questions?
[4:19:40] Councelor remuneration.
[4:19:46] And lastly, item 6.10 10 verbal
[4:19:50] counselor reports.
[4:19:53] We'll start with councelor Powell from
[4:19:55] Ward One.
[4:19:57] >> Thank you, Rafe. Um
[4:20:00] on the 19th, I did attend the MPC. Uh we
[4:20:04] did a morning of tours, there's
[4:20:06] subdivision applications, temporary
[4:20:08] business development permit, short-term
[4:20:10] rentals. Uh there was a lot of great
[4:20:11] discussion in MPC and I do look forward
[4:20:14] to hopefully the rest of council um
[4:20:17] being able to have a discussion on the
[4:20:19] development um of Nordic and its future.
[4:20:22] And then one other thing that I did get
[4:20:24] to attend um on my own was I did get to
[4:20:27] go to the chuck wagons and it was
[4:20:29] absolutely fantastic. The stands were
[4:20:30] packed and it was yeah it was it was
[4:20:33] fun. I enjoyed it. So that is all.
[4:20:36] >> Thank you councelor Pow. Are there any
[4:20:37] questions or comments for councelor
[4:20:38] Pal's report? Seeing none, councelor
[4:20:41] Lewin, go ahead.
[4:20:42] >> Yeah, August has been a fairly quiet
[4:20:43] month, but I attended the Westville
[4:20:45] antique days on August 2nd and um got a
[4:20:48] chance to visit with a lot of
[4:20:50] constituents in the area there. A lot of
[4:20:52] faces I haven't seen for a long time. It
[4:20:53] was really good, very positive. uh
[4:20:56] attended the tornado recovery info at
[4:20:58] the hub and um again um big thank you to
[4:21:03] all the volunteers and everybody working
[4:21:05] there and it was uh the citizens were
[4:21:07] there to find out what procedures are
[4:21:09] going to happen and how things are going
[4:21:11] to happen. So um all the people that are
[4:21:13] pitching in and helping and still out
[4:21:15] there going hard. Um thank you very
[4:21:18] much. That's awesome. and um wastewater
[4:21:22] treatment tour uh for Leville. We
[4:21:26] attended that yesterday and that was
[4:21:28] very informative uh very educational and
[4:21:31] uh I learned a lot because I was well
[4:21:32] aware of a lot of it and that's pretty
[4:21:35] much it. Thank you.
[4:21:37] >> Thank you councelor Lean. Are there any
[4:21:38] questions or comments for councelor Lean
[4:21:40] on his report? Seeing none, deputy reef
[4:21:43] mccay, go ahead.
[4:21:45] >> Thanks Ree. uh August. So far, I've been
[4:21:48] fortunate enough to uh
[4:21:51] enjoy some of what Clearwater County has
[4:21:53] to offer. Rather than uh attending a lot
[4:21:56] of council, um on the long weekend, I
[4:21:59] was able to uh family and I and many
[4:22:03] others, we went out camping to
[4:22:05] Hummingbird Falls area. And the reason I
[4:22:08] bring that up is last year at this time,
[4:22:12] we had lost the road into that area.
[4:22:13] There was significant rainfall and there
[4:22:16] was a single culvert in a switchback
[4:22:18] that caused the road to be swept and it was bit of an ordeal. Took a few days
[4:22:24] to get folks out of there. What I
[4:22:26] noticed this year is that road is in I'm
[4:22:30] going to say very very good condition
[4:22:33] and public works operations has gone and
[4:22:36] installed three culverts in that corner
[4:22:38] to eliminate I think any possibility of
[4:22:40] that road washing out in the future. So,
[4:22:42] I just wanted to give credit where
[4:22:44] credit is due there. They did an
[4:22:45] excellent job on that.
[4:22:48] Uh, secondly, I was also able to attend
[4:22:51] the Chuck Wagons. Again, excellent event
[4:22:53] put on by the uh truck wagon
[4:22:56] association. It's great for the county,
[4:22:58] for the town, the entire community. On
[4:23:02] the 18th, we had an SDAB hearing. It uh
[4:23:05] was the first I've attended and I had to
[4:23:08] chair it. So, that was interesting.
[4:23:10] But yeah, we have a good group of
[4:23:12] volunteers on that board and I think it
[4:23:15] went quite well.
[4:23:17] And lastly, yesterday we had the
[4:23:19] opportunity to tour the Lesleyville
[4:23:22] Lagoon and uh water treatment facility
[4:23:26] and I think this group learned a lot
[4:23:29] from that and that was much appreciated.
[4:23:32] That's all I have.
[4:23:35] >> Any questions? Uh, councelor Surmac, go
[4:23:38] ahead.
[4:23:39] >> Yeah.
[4:23:41] on your meeting that you um
[4:23:45] councelor McKay, you were the chair of
[4:23:49] the
[4:23:51] I think Lu V.
[4:23:54] >> Yeah,
[4:23:54] >> it's a division of the board.
[4:23:56] >> I heard some very good reports on that.
[4:24:00] Um
[4:24:02] you need to have a a nettle or a bone in
[4:24:05] your
[4:24:07] a flower in your cap.
[4:24:10] Everybody was very appreciative of how
[4:24:12] you handled that meeting.
[4:24:14] >> Oh, that's good. I appreciate the
[4:24:15] feedback.
[4:24:16] >> So, um, you can take that very the the
[4:24:20] people that I talked to were
[4:24:23] pres were very pleased with how you
[4:24:26] handled yourself and that meeting and
[4:24:29] how well it went.
[4:24:30] >> Thank you very much. So,
[4:24:33] it's a great uh we need more of that uh counselors actually get praised
[4:24:41] once in a while and so I didn't want
[4:24:44] this to go unnoticed.
[4:24:47] So, I certainly appreciate you stepping
[4:24:49] forward and doing it.
[4:24:52] >> Thank you, sir.
[4:24:53] >> Thank you. Excellent. Thank you,
[4:24:56] Councelor Macker. Are there any other
[4:24:57] questions for Deputy Reef McKay? Seeing
[4:25:00] none, councelor McCauley, go ahead.
[4:25:03] >> Um, probably like everyone else, August
[4:25:06] was a pretty light council month. Um,
[4:25:09] the Lesleyville wastewater treatment
[4:25:11] plant was really neat. Um, mostly
[4:25:13] because I've toured more than one and
[4:25:16] for the first time I seen one where
[4:25:18] there was no chemicals, there was
[4:25:20] nothing. It was all natural. And I think
[4:25:21] that's something that everyone in this
[4:25:23] county should know that that facility
[4:25:26] has won awards apparently and is is um
[4:25:31] yeah it's it's like it's green. It's a
[4:25:34] green facility. It's really neat how it
[4:25:36] works. I just wish we were there under
[4:25:38] better circumstances. I think um with
[4:25:41] everything else I just um I've been
[4:25:44] working in Nordic for the last month.
[4:25:46] So, we've uh been meeting everyone
[4:25:48] there, shaking their hands, saying hi.
[4:25:51] It's been uh definitely an experience. I
[4:25:53] don't think anyone in Nordics had
[4:25:54] someone there to greet or access for a
[4:25:58] while. So, it's been uh definitely
[4:26:02] something to uh something to see to see
[4:26:05] the issues that you know you hear about
[4:26:07] but don't always some of the issues that
[4:26:09] they're they're out there. there's how
[4:26:12] it's uh the construction on the highway
[4:26:14] has sort of slowed things down a bit.
[4:26:15] Your trip gets longer, stuff like that.
[4:26:18] Um and after everything um with in with
[4:26:21] staff with what I had to deal with
[4:26:23] getting through uh my business open, I
[4:26:25] just wanted to tell everyone we
[4:26:27] appreciated everything uh for that. So,
[4:26:31] thank you. And uh that's all my report
[4:26:33] is.
[4:26:34] >> Okay. Thank you, councelor McCully. Are
[4:26:35] there any questions for councelor
[4:26:37] McCully on his counselor report? Seeing
[4:26:40] none. Councelor Serach, the floor is
[4:26:41] yours.
[4:26:42] >> Um, had a very quiet two weeks. Was
[4:26:45] really nice to have some time off. Got
[4:26:48] all my farming and done. Was great to
[4:26:51] have the the two weeks off. Did some
[4:26:54] camping out in the West Country. Um, did
[4:26:57] lots. I also had a library regulation
[4:27:03] Zoom session one night that was on the
[4:27:07] 20th with a new library act that's
[4:27:10] coming in with the visual sex acts that
[4:27:13] can't be in the library. Um they can be
[4:27:16] there. They have to be kept separated.
[4:27:21] People 15 years and under can't be
[4:27:24] exposed to it. They if they need to they
[4:27:28] have to have a p a parent agreement
[4:27:32] signed that they can actually take these
[4:27:35] books and take a look at it was very
[4:27:38] informative that um and there's two
[4:27:41] people and
[4:27:44] this whole library act and regulation
[4:27:48] come down to that um
[4:27:53] the people that are looking after the
[4:27:55] library acts and stuff can actually come
[4:27:58] in and do inspections on libraries if
[4:28:03] we're conforming to the new regulations.
[4:28:06] And the two people that were doing the
[4:28:11] putting on the Zoom,
[4:28:13] an an Ethan and a Carrie, they both said
[4:28:16] that that would be the last resort would
[4:28:19] be that they would come in and do an
[4:28:21] inspection
[4:28:23] on on what's happening in your library.
[4:28:26] And if any library does not really
[4:28:30] understand what the new regulations are,
[4:28:33] they can get a hold of the library act
[4:28:36] or the library people in in um Edmonton
[4:28:41] and Ethan or Carrie will help you
[4:28:44] through any
[4:28:46] anything that you need help with on this
[4:28:49] new library act. It's there's a lot of
[4:28:53] people upset about it, but I think in
[4:28:56] the long run it'll be a good thing
[4:28:59] that's happening with the libraries that
[4:29:02] everybody will know what can be
[4:29:05] displayed and what can't be.
[4:29:09] So, and then I went to the sewer uh the
[4:29:12] last sewer um tour that we had
[4:29:15] yesterday.
[4:29:17] I was very impressed with how pure the
[4:29:20] water comes out of that uh new lagoon
[4:29:25] system. Well, it's not a lagoon system.
[4:29:28] I guess it's a willow
[4:29:31] type
[4:29:33] area and it's like councelor McAulay
[4:29:37] said we've got national awards for how
[4:29:40] great of a system that Clearwater has in
[4:29:44] this area and we should be very proud of
[4:29:46] it. We've got a few hiccups we got to
[4:29:49] get over, but I think they're not
[4:29:51] insurmountable. And I think u our
[4:29:54] administration and engineers can get
[4:29:57] over the problems that we're having and
[4:29:59] it'll be a number one facility for us in
[4:30:02] this area.
[4:30:05] That's it. Thank you, Council Ser. Any
[4:30:07] comments or questions for Councilor
[4:30:08] Surmac's report?
[4:30:11] Seeing none, Councelor Humphrey, the
[4:30:12] floor is yours.
[4:30:14] Great. Um,
[4:30:16] it's been a great month so far. Wish
[4:30:20] every month
[4:30:22] had this many meetings in it.
[4:30:28] Fewer than normal. Uh, yeah, the
[4:30:31] treatment of the or the tour of the
[4:30:34] wastewater treatment facility was uh
[4:30:37] very informative.
[4:30:40] I think something worth noting that uh
[4:30:44] how how well the water's treated out of
[4:30:46] there. There's two of the of the ponds.
[4:30:49] There's three ponds at the Lville site
[4:30:52] and two of them are
[4:30:57] uh I guess not fresh water, but it's
[4:30:59] clean water that can be used for
[4:31:01] irrigation. It's that clear. It meets
[4:31:04] all the standards. You might not want to
[4:31:07] take a cup there for a drink, but it's
[4:31:09] that close, right? So, it I just thought
[4:31:13] it was worth mentioning for uh everybody
[4:31:15] who is listening that yeah, there's only the one pond that's there is actual
[4:31:22] uh the the sewer lagoon water that that
[4:31:28] type of of uh of a holding pond. The
[4:31:32] other two are after it's been treated
[4:31:34] and it comes through and it is so clear
[4:31:38] and and clean coming out there. It's uh
[4:31:41] and no smell like you're normally used
[4:31:44] to. So yeah, was pretty impressive. Uh
[4:31:49] that's pretty much it.
[4:31:52] Thank you, Councelor Humphrey. Are there
[4:31:53] any questions for councelor Humphrey on
[4:31:54] his report?
[4:31:56] Seeing none, I'll uh I attended many of
[4:32:00] the same events whether it's the
[4:32:01] municipal planning commission, the tour,
[4:32:02] the wastewater facility at Lesleyville.
[4:32:05] Um however, I did attend a meeting with
[4:32:07] the RCMP with CEO Simpson and a couple
[4:32:10] of discussion topics that we had with
[4:32:11] the RCMP was the uh potential homeless
[4:32:15] claim and uh displaced people that were
[4:32:17] potentially around the uh central waste
[4:32:20] facility. However, that claim was
[4:32:22] verified by the RCMP that there were no
[4:32:25] um actually no homeless people or
[4:32:27] encampments around that central waste
[4:32:30] facility. Also brought up the question
[4:32:32] about the police requisition
[4:32:34] formula and how that comes to but that
[4:32:37] is dictated by the provincial
[4:32:39] government. So uh over the next few
[4:32:41] years when we see the RCMP requisition
[4:32:44] from you know roughly 1.4 4 million
[4:32:46] going up to nearly 3 million over the
[4:32:48] next few years. That is uh that formula
[4:32:50] is dictated and created by the province,
[4:32:52] not the RCMP.
[4:32:55] I also had uh concerns. I had a resident
[4:32:58] ask me about the speed limits. We have
[4:33:01] three roads that create confusion uh
[4:33:03] with speed limits. One would be the
[4:33:04] Angle Road, the Caroline North Road, and
[4:33:06] then the Arbutus Road. They all have uh
[4:33:08] different speed limits and uh Deputy
[4:33:10] Reev, you and I share a ward word
[4:33:13] boundary there, but uh the angle road is
[4:33:15] 80 km an hour,
[4:33:18] Caroline North is 90, Barbutus is 100.
[4:33:21] So I've had residents uh have concerns
[4:33:23] with three different speed limits. So
[4:33:27] having said that,
[4:33:29] I'd like to move that council direct
[4:33:31] administration to bring back information
[4:33:36] regarding the speed limits and options
[4:33:41] for speed limit adjustments on the angle
[4:33:43] road.
[4:33:46] Yes.
[4:33:56] So, I do have a motion on the floor. I'd
[4:33:59] like to open the floor up for discussion
[4:34:00] on that.
[4:34:02] Deputy Reef, go ahead.
[4:34:06] >> Thank you, Ree. And could we also add to
[4:34:08] that the Orus
[4:34:10] North
[4:34:13] and Beaver Flats
[4:34:16] between 12 and 760?
[4:34:20] No, 598. Sorry.
[4:34:23] >> I'd be open to that amendment.
[4:34:29] » Just other examples of where the speed
[4:34:31] limit differs significantly from other
[4:34:34] areas. Thank you.
[4:34:35] >> Are there any other suggestions or
[4:34:37] potential amendments to the motion on
[4:34:38] the floor? Councelor Powell.
[4:34:40] >> Just not sure if it would be an
[4:34:41] amendment or maybe it would be
[4:34:42] discussion when that is brought forward,
[4:34:44] but some of the subdivisions are posted
[4:34:46] at 30 and some of them are at 50. How do
[4:34:48] we make them all at 30 or we've got
[4:34:51] differing um speeds in in some of the
[4:34:54] subdivisions as well?
[4:34:57] >> Okay. So, this uh
[4:35:00] >> I don't I'm not sure. But
[4:35:03] >> so there's there this will uh
[4:35:05] potentially if the motion is supported
[4:35:07] by council could uh have further
[4:35:09] discussion at a regular council meeting
[4:35:10] regarding speed limits on some of the
[4:35:12] municipal highways.
[4:35:14] See no further discussion of the motion
[4:35:17] that is on the floor. Call the question.
[4:35:19] All those in favor
[4:35:21] and that motion is supported by councel.
[4:35:24] Um
[4:35:26] other than that, yeah, I did uh was able
[4:35:28] to enjoy a little bit of time uh have a
[4:35:31] little bit of a summer break for August.
[4:35:33] Are there any questions from any council
[4:35:35] members for myself? Deputy Ree, go
[4:35:38] ahead.
[4:35:39] >> Thanks Ree. Just regarding your
[4:35:41] conversation with the RCMP when you had
[4:35:43] asked them if there was no encampments
[4:35:45] near our central waste facility,
[4:35:49] was there encampments elsewhere that we
[4:35:52] should be aware of?
[4:35:54] >> They didn't identify any that they said
[4:35:57] there was none there.
[4:35:58] >> Okay.
[4:35:58] >> Uh so that was clarified. Um but they
[4:36:01] didn't identify any new ones that they
[4:36:02] were aware of that were anywhere within
[4:36:04] mun clearwater counties municipality.
[4:36:07] So, as indicated by the housing
[4:36:09] association, that may that information
[4:36:11] may have been correct that was presented
[4:36:13] to this council.
[4:36:14] >> That's right. And CEO Simpson and I
[4:36:16] through discussion with the RCMP, that's
[4:36:18] why we'd asked that question. But, um,
[4:36:20] CEO Simpson, please go ahead.
[4:36:22] >> Uh, very quickly to the deputy reev. Um,
[4:36:24] there was, if you recall, some
[4:36:25] conversation that some sections of land
[4:36:27] near the municipal airport may have
[4:36:29] encampments on them. Um, Staff Sergeant
[4:36:32] Leic did dispatch a unit to investigate
[4:36:34] that and determine there were no
[4:36:36] encampments located on the Crownland
[4:36:38] parcels near our airport. So, haven't
[4:36:41] found any yet.
[4:36:44] >> Thank you. I believe there was some
[4:36:46] concern
[4:36:47] out of town sort of along the river. Has
[4:36:50] that been
[4:36:52] looked into as of yet?
[4:36:54] >> Is didn't specifically ask them to look
[4:36:57] in along the river. Um, if you give me
[4:36:59] the general description, just because
[4:37:00] I'm new here, uh, where along the river
[4:37:03] coming east or west of Rocky, I'm happy
[4:37:06] to relay that to the RCMP and ask.
[4:37:08] >> I think that was just how it was
[4:37:09] presented to this council.
[4:37:11] >> Yeah.
[4:37:12] >> From the uh,
[4:37:15] the housing association, but that that's
[4:37:18] fine if there's been none found. That's
[4:37:20] all I need for now. Thank you.
[4:37:22] >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any other
[4:37:24] questions from council members for
[4:37:25] myself?
[4:37:28] Seeing none, I'd be looking for a motion
[4:37:29] to accept
[4:37:32] item number six in today's agenda,
[4:37:34] reports as information. Councelor
[4:37:36] Humphrey, you'd like to make that
[4:37:37] motion?
[4:37:37] >> Yes.
[4:37:38] >> Okay. Councelor Humphrey makes a motion
[4:37:40] that council accept item six under
[4:37:42] reports for information.
[4:37:44] Seeing no discussion, I'll call the
[4:37:46] question. All those in favor? And that
[4:37:48] motion is passed.
[4:37:50] We've been moving into correspondence
[4:37:52] item number seven on today's agenda. Is
[4:37:55] there any discussion on either one of
[4:37:56] these letters? Letter from Minister Dan
[4:37:57] Williams to Reeves of Clearwater County
[4:37:59] and Red Deer County regarding Bill 28
[4:38:01] concerns. And the second letter is for
[4:38:04] the from Clearwater County in support of
[4:38:06] the Caroline School enhancement
[4:38:07] committee project.
[4:38:10] I'm looking forward to RMA to have
[4:38:12] further discussions with Minister Dan
[4:38:14] Williams regarding Bill 28. But uh
[4:38:16] having said that, are there any other
[4:38:17] comments or questions from council on
[4:38:20] either of these items for
[4:38:21] correspondence? If not, we'd be looking
[4:38:23] for a motion to accept correspondence as
[4:38:25] information. Deputy Ree, go ahead.
[4:38:27] >> I'll make that motion to accept
[4:38:29] correspondence as information.
[4:38:30] >> We have a motion on the floor from
[4:38:32] Deputy Rek that council accept
[4:38:34] correspondence as information.
[4:38:37] Seeing no further discussion, I'll call
[4:38:38] the question. All those in favor? Motion
[4:38:41] is supported by council. No notices of
[4:38:44] motion that I'm aware of.
[4:38:47] And uh I'm also very much looking
[4:38:50] forward to discussing that with the uh
[4:38:55] with the minister in November.
[4:38:57] Absolutely.
[4:38:59] So that said, we have the last item of
[4:39:02] today's
[4:39:04] regular council meeting for August 25th,
[4:39:05] 2026, which is item number nine,
[4:39:08] adjournment. And uh councelor Serach
[4:39:11] makes a motion for adjournment.
[4:39:13] Call the question. All those in favor?
[4:39:16] And we are adjourned at 122. Thank you
[4:39:20] and have a good day.