Transcript
SOURCE TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is downloaded from the source you provided but we haven't reviewed it for accuracy. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record. You can also request an AI-transcription of the audio file with the button to the left.
These are YouTube's auto-generated captions, not a human transcript — expect occasional errors, especially with names and technical terms.
[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.