[22:10] Seeing no objections, we're ready. Jenna,

[22:14] good morning everybody. Welcome to Clearwater County's regular council

[22:17] meeting for September 8th, 2026. I'd like to call the meeting to order at

[22:22] 9:00 a.m. And I'd like to welcome all members of public in attendance here

[22:26] this morning in the gallery andor virtually attending. I'd also like to

[22:30] welcome all members of council here this morning. And I'd like to welcome staff

[22:34] who will be providing council with information and facts so that we can

[22:38] make the best decisions on behalf of residents, businesses, and stakeholders

[22:42] of Clearwater County. I'd like to just ask council if anybody

[22:47] has a potential conflict or pecuniary interest on any agenda items here this

[22:52] morning. Seeing none, I'd just like to remind

[22:56] everybody that all regular council meetings are live streamed and recorded.

[23:01] Any verbal or written information provided may be included in public

[23:04] documents as per access to information act sections four and protection of

[23:08] privacy act sections 2, four, and five. Are there any additions to today's

[23:14] agenda or deletions?

[23:20] » No amendments to today's agenda. Be looking for a motion to adopt the

[23:26] » Deputy Grief. Go ahead. >> Thank you. I believe there is uh one

[23:30] item to be added to close session. >> Okay, that's what I'm looking for is a

[23:34] motion to amend the agenda. >> Deputy Re, you'd be willing to make that

[23:38] motion to amend the agenda? >> I will. Okay, we have a motion on the

[23:41] floor from Deputy Reeve Mccay to amend the August,

[23:45] sorry, my apologies. September 8th, 2026 agenda. Seeing no discussion, I'll call

[23:51] the question. All those in favor?

[23:55] Councelor Smeck, did you vote? Are you opposed?

[23:57] » I'm opposed. >> Okay.

[23:59] » What's the agenda? >> Uh, right now we just voted on whether

[24:03] we're going to amend the agenda. The proposed amendment will be coming

[24:06] forward here in seconds. >> Okay.

[24:10] ended. >> Okay. So, I believe that was a unanimous

[24:12] vote to amend the agenda for September 8th.

[24:16] Deputy Eve, if you'd like to propose the amendment.

[24:20] » Thank you, Eve. Uh, the amendment would be uh item 10.2

[24:25] and it would be a uh verbal update to council regarding a presentation and it

[24:32] would be uh harmful to business relations.

[24:38] Okay, we have a motion on the floor or an amendment to the agenda from Deputy

[24:43] Recc. Seeing no discussion on that amendment, I'll call the question. All

[24:47] those of all those in favor and that has carried unanimously.

[24:52] Now be looking for a motion to adopt the regular council meeting for September

[24:56] 8th, 2026 as amended unless there are any other additions or deletions.

[25:02] Councelor Humphrey, you'd like to make the motion to adopt the regular council

[25:05] meeting as amended? >> Yes. Okay. Have a motion on the floor

[25:08] from councelor Humphrey to adopt the regular council meeting for September

[25:11] 8th, 2026 as amended. I'll call the question. All those in favor? And that

[25:16] motion is supported by council. Moving into the regular council meeting minutes

[25:20] for August 25th, 2026. Were there any errors or omissions noted?

[25:26] If not, I'd be looking for a motion to adopt those minutes as presented.

[25:30] Councelor Pal makes a motion to adopt the August 25th, 2026

[25:34] regular council meeting minutes. as written. Seeing no discussion, I'll call

[25:38] the question. All those in favor? And that motion is supported by council.

[25:43] Moving into item five on today's agenda, delegations and presentations. Item 5.1,

[25:50] we have a 9:00 a.m. delegation from Rocky Seniors Housing. And I would like

[25:54] to welcome Vanessa from the Rocky Seniors Housing Council to join us here

[25:57] this morning. I know that some of the members on council have served on the

[26:00] Rocky Seniors Housing Council board, but uh maybe we'll start with a quick round

[26:03] of introductions and you can meet the rest of council.

[26:06] Good morning. My name is Brienne Powell. I'm W one counselor.

[26:10] » Good morning, Hazen Lewin, Clearwater County Council, Ward Two.

[26:15] » Good morning, Drew McCay. Deputy Ree and W three.

[26:20] » Good morning, Vanessa. Very nice to see you. Jordan Northcot Reeve of Clearwater

[26:23] County and Ward 4 counselor. >> Good morning, Tyler McCauley, counselor.

[26:26] W five. >> Good morning. Brian Stern, counselor for

[26:30] division six. Good morning. Lauren Humphrey, counselor, ward 7.

[26:36] [clears throat] >> Good morning. Rhonda Sirhan, manager of

[26:39] financial services.

[26:43] » Good morning, Michael Simpson, chief administrative officer.

[26:49] » It's turned on for me. Perfect. >> Uh, good morning. Thank you for having

[26:54] me here today. Uh, Reeve, Deputy Reeve, Counselors and Administration. My name

[26:58] is Vanessa Kid. I'm the CEO of Rocky Senior Housing Council. I'm here today

[27:02] to talk about independent senior housing project opportunities as well as to

[27:07] request municipal partnership and funding support for an upcoming

[27:12] affordable housing partnership program application.

[27:16] So, this application will be the um it's the funding vehicle for capital to do

[27:22] some building in our area. and it's a provincial uh program and what we're

[27:28] going to what I'm going to talk about today is sort of what is needed to

[27:32] leading up to that application and to get some projects going for our area. So

[27:37] just really quickly a a really brief overview of what we do. So our purpose

[27:42] is affordable independent senior living for Clearwater region residents

[27:47] to the next one. Um and our main strategic priority which we established

[27:52] just in the last couple of years was regional housing project expansion in

[27:56] the Clearwater region. So that that has been our main focus. Um as we are

[28:01] incorporated under the Alberta Housing Act um in April 1st, 1995 to administer

[28:05] seniors housing locally. We also are our mandate is to provide affordable homes

[28:11] for low and moderate income seniors a 65 plus. We have safe and comfortable

[28:16] independent living and dignity and connection with community is what we

[28:19] strive for. So our current portfolio, we've got uh

[28:25] our lodge, Westview Lodge, here in Rocky and five apartment buildings, a total of

[28:30] 148 homes that we supply to the Clearwater region. With the lodge, it is

[28:35] owned and operated by Rocky Senior Housing Council. And then the

[28:39] self-contained apartments. So, uh, those are all the ones Lesieville, Caroline,

[28:44] and the ones in Rocky as well. Those are owned by the Alberta Social Housing

[28:48] Corporation and operated by Rocky Senior Housing Council.

[28:53] Within that portfolio with the two um areas I just talked about, these are

[28:57] actually two different housing models themselves. So lodge accommodation the

[29:02] revenue comes from resident rent municipal requisition provincial uh LAP

[29:07] and whereas the the revenue for the self-contained apartments is tenant rent

[29:11] and then it's currently deficit funded from the province for any of our

[29:15] operating deficits. The difference between the two housing

[29:18] models uh as well is what is provided. So, it's uh fairly comprehensive for the

[29:24] lodge. Meals and snacks, housekeeping, uh your 24-hour non-medical staff. And I

[29:30] want to stress that um everything we have now is non-medical. We don't

[29:34] provide any health care or anything along those lines. All of our residents

[29:38] in the lodge and our self-contained apartment tenants are um independent.

[29:43] And then, so with the self-contained apartments, they're just like a regular

[29:47] apartment building. Um, we do have the residential tenency act that governs

[29:50] over this as well as the Alberta housing act sort of with both of the housing

[29:54] models. Um, but it's affordable housing and it's for seniors 65 plus whose

[30:01] income is under 42,000 annually. And we do a rent gear to income to calculate

[30:06] the rent. So that is based on your line 15,000 income.

[30:14] This last slide just really talks about how the stewardship is shared

[30:18] provinially and municipally uh locally here. So with the Alberta housing act

[30:22] and it regulations the residential tenency act also the continuing care act

[30:26] I don't have that mentioned on there but that is um the lodge has to follow lodge

[30:31] accommodations under the continuing care act and a ministerial order that also

[30:36] dictates what we have municipally. for our board. Um that comes from what's

[30:40] listed on our ministerial order. We've got the six members that are appointed.

[30:45] And then with our operations, we have governance and operation policies that

[30:48] we follow. And I just wanted to highlight with the community supports,

[30:51] we do have home care and other service organizations that come into the lodge

[30:55] and the self-contained and they support the residents just like they would for

[30:59] for any senior living even on their own on their own.

[31:05] Okay. Okay. So, we'll get into uh the main part of my presentation today and

[31:08] this is the senior housing feasibility assessment that was just uh done for us

[31:12] by Collier's project leaders. So, um Collier is with this feasibility

[31:18] assessment as I kind of alluded to before we are wanting to apply to the um

[31:23] the I'm going to call it just the AHPP the affordable housing partnership

[31:28] program. And that application will be opening up in the fall. We we'll hear

[31:31] more about that in my in my presentation here. So the information that's in here

[31:35] today is uh what we've learned um some things that we need to do to strengthen

[31:40] our application and um yeah just go forward.

[31:45] So the case for action the demand so with afford with with the AHPP

[31:51] um they need to know that there is demand and we obviously know that living

[31:55] here but these are things that uh we need to be able to prove in our

[31:58] application. So the 2025 apartment vacancy and rental cost survey, this is

[32:03] something that helps the colleers determine or note that we we pretty much

[32:08] have zero vacancy. So that is a recorded survey. Um of those

[32:14] all of our units, a lot of the units that are for in the private market are

[32:18] more than 10 years old for those those rental units. Specifically for the Rocky

[32:24] Senior Housing Council, weight listed households for the Rocky self-contained

[32:29] properties are at a 2 to one. So for every uh 12 weight listed households, we

[32:34] only have like roughly about one vacancy and that was at the end of July. I will

[32:38] note that um we'll talk about this a little bit later as well, but Mountain

[32:41] Sunset Manor uh does have a couple vacancies at this point. Um no waiting

[32:46] list. Um, Lesleyville is full, but it does have doesn't have a waiting list as

[32:51] well at this time. [snorts] Um, I'll just this next part with a 76%

[32:56] increased growth in residents age 75 plus. I'll talk about that more on the

[33:00] next slide. So, this shows uh nicely our seniors

[33:04] demand wave. Um, this is a government of Alberta projection and it was put out by

[33:09] Treasury Board and Finance and it is for the Rocky Mountain House local

[33:13] geographic area. So this is not just for Rocky. It includes uh the county. It's

[33:19] Caroline, Lesleyville, Ecville, [clears throat] and Condor. And it's

[33:23] about 22,400 people. It's not so just again

[33:26] stipulating it's not just for Rocky. So what this shows us, and again I think we

[33:31] we all know what what this um this is true for our area and for everywhere in

[33:36] Alberta and across the country. The dotted lines show that our current total

[33:42] population is probably going to be fairly flat for the next 15 to 20 years

[33:46] in our area. That's what's being projected from the government of

[33:49] Alberta. However, we see the the demand for seniors housing resting in the

[33:54] change in the age mix. So with that green line there, that is the age 75

[33:59] plus and 95% of that growth is going to be arriving by 2041. So that just

[34:05] secures our case that in the next 15 years um we really will will have that

[34:12] the the [clears throat] big demand there needed for um housing. It really

[34:17] supports the demand wave supports um the application and that's what funders are

[34:22] are looking for. So I'm going to talk about uh the couple

[34:26] of areas and the sites that we want to focus our age application on. So

[34:32] Caroline, now Caroline has a couple of areas that we'll need uh that has

[34:37] readiness readiness requirements and that's partially part of my ask today

[34:41] while I'm here. So the what what Collier did is they

[34:46] looked at 16 to 40 independent units in Caroline. Uh the location has been the

[34:53] location we've been hearing uh that is desirable would be on the 48th A parcel

[34:57] that's currently owned by the county and it's right beside the arena there in

[35:01] Caroline. It would be uh 9.1 to 22.6 million. That is the range. That's a

[35:06] class D estimate. That excludes the cost of land. The class D is a wide

[35:12] tolerance. It is not at all a budget. It's just sort of for planning figures.

[35:16] So that would put on 16 to 40 independent units. Um [clears throat]

[35:20] I will address at this point about lodge because we have had um people in

[35:25] Caroline have said that there they there's kind of a split on this V3

[35:31] survey that's happening [clears throat] right now with seniors housing uh the

[35:34] study that's taking place. Roughly half people say that they would like to have

[35:38] food supplied and that type of thing and the other half um is good with the

[35:41] independent senior housing. So when we had this um assessment done by collers

[35:47] it focused on independent units when we when they presented to the board the

[35:51] board um also discussed the idea of what about having a lodge in Caroline. So

[35:56] this does not have lodge uh capital figures prepared for today. Um but they

[36:02] did look into because the question was asked how many uh lodge units are needed

[36:07] for um economies of scale um in a community like Caroline where it's a

[36:11] little bit smaller. >> [snorts]

[36:13] » Um operating costs for lodges are roughly about 64% of that is your human

[36:18] resource cost. Accommodation standards and licensing under the continuing care

[36:23] act um requires a lot of things is the supportive living environment. Although

[36:27] it doesn't have health, it's still supportive living and it's considered

[36:30] that. So that's your 24-hour staffing. It's all the the different stipulations

[36:34] that are required for um to have a lodge and to have the food. So I just would

[36:39] like to say that that is something that is uh still being looked at but it will

[36:44] require further review before any real numbers can be presented.

[36:51] [clears throat] Okay. So into the three items for oh sorry I just need you to go

[36:57] back down. Um so the three readiness requirements the demonstrated demand.

[37:01] So, as I had said for Mountain Sunset Manor, what we have and what we've seen

[37:04] at our level at Rocky Senior Housing Council is there is a little bit of

[37:08] vacancy and some occupancy that is it's still available there. Um, there's spots

[37:13] available at Mountain Sunset Manor. Um, and that we need to have a documented

[37:18] demand pool available for our AHPP application. I do think with this V3

[37:22] study that's being done that we are going to have what we need in that study

[37:25] that shows um you know there's the engagement that that happened there with

[37:30] the Caroline folks and um I think that is something that can be very well

[37:34] accomplished easily enough for the application um just having the

[37:38] information from the V3 report and then the written funding commitment.

[37:42] So this is where this comes in for Clearwater County in the town of Rocky

[37:46] Mountainhouse. the the funding application is strengthened by

[37:50] commitment from the municipalities. That's really what's needed to move it

[37:54] forward. It's a huge part of it. Um as well with that is funding commitment as

[37:58] well and we'll we'll talk about that a little bit later on when we talk about

[38:03] funding a little bit more. Um

[38:07] then the final thing would be the site and servicing. So another big part of it

[38:12] is having that land um ready to go. So that 48th Avenue uh is owned by the

[38:18] county. We would need to have a land title transfer to Rocky Senior Housing

[38:21] Council and we need confirmation for the servicing capacity for that lot. Um just

[38:27] to understand how many units we would be able to build there.

[38:31] Go down. Thanks. Leslieville, this is just really high level just letting you

[38:35] know what's going on there. We had a facility condition uh assessment

[38:39] completed and the idea is do we want to upgrade the existing building or do we

[38:45] want to look at is there expansion potential. So that is still being

[38:48] confirmed. Um but we've had the site capacity looked at and depending on

[38:53] which way that would go. Um the age application needs to have five new net

[38:59] units. So it would be just with the amount of space there is for setbacks

[39:04] there. It would be it might be harder to have an actual addition. So we might not

[39:08] go the AHP way for that but maybe a renewal of those units would be direct

[39:13] to housing and lodge renewal programs. Um but there is some some work being

[39:17] considered for Lesleyville as well. So I wanted to touch on that. If we move on

[39:22] to Rocky. So Rocky is considered more [clears throat] sight ready in terms of

[39:26] collers and and their assessment on everything. I think the biggest part of

[39:29] that is that it has got a Rocky Senior Housing Council owned site. We do have

[39:34] land already um owned by us and there is also um a demand that's proven with our

[39:41] our weight list there for self-contained units being needed in Rocky. The class

[39:47] uh D escalated to a 2028 construction date would be 6.9 million and that

[39:52] excludes land just like uh the Caroline one excluded land as well, the cost of

[39:56] land. Um, so basically what would be built there or what what could be

[40:01] allocated in that space would be a three-story concept about uh

[40:05] approximately 12,200 gross square feet. It doesn't require ongoing municipal

[40:09] requisition. It's not a lodge. It wouldn't be a lodge. Um, it should be

[40:13] funded uh solely from the rent that would be made there. Uh, one thing for

[40:18] Rocky and for Caroline is accessibility would be embedded as a design

[40:22] requirement. So, that's a big thing we're seeing just with our senior

[40:25] self-contained, especially their older buildings. Um, with walkers and even if

[40:30] somebody has a wheelchair they need inside their unit. Um, and also they're

[40:33] all all old school bathtubs. So, getting in and out of those are a little bit

[40:36] harder. So, definitely in any new builds, we want to have that

[40:39] accessibility embedded in that. Um what's needed for Rocky and this

[40:45] would be a town thing is we do need to uh redesate it to medium density res uh

[40:50] red medium density res residential uh for this um idea for the 16

[40:56] self-contained units to work. Um again the land already in hand is the

[41:01] strongest single feature of this part of the application.

[41:05] The next slide talks about the multi-level care facility that we've

[41:09] been talking about. So um there has been a bit of mention maybe here with the

[41:14] county but definitely with the town um and this is something an assessment

[41:20] being done under well underway and there's a separate recommendation that

[41:24] will follow at the end of October. Um there will be as we know with that

[41:29] previous slide that there's a big growth with residents age 85 plus and we're

[41:33] thinking more with those ones. Those are the people that will need to be uh

[41:37] moving into these uh sort of a higher care. So, this would expand us into more

[41:42] of a health care. Uh, multi-level care is where you start out where you've got

[41:46] your independent market seniors housing and then some lodge units and then you'd

[41:50] also have a higher care level. The idea would be to absorb some of the ALC, the

[41:56] alternative level of care patients that are at the Rocky Hospital. Um, so that

[42:01] we can free up those beds for u the acute care patients that need to be in

[42:07] there in the Rocky area. So this would be something that the study would look

[42:11] at to see if if we're able to uh help out with that. So that's just some

[42:17] information that way. There'll be more information on that coming up.

[42:22] The next slide. So what happens next? The H the AHPP intake is not currently

[42:27] open. Um but typically what happens is it opens at the end of October,

[42:32] beginning of November and it stays open until about the end of February of the

[42:37] following year with the approvals happening or the uh awarding of the

[42:42] capital funding happening by April. And um a big thing that determines

[42:49] submission for us to move that application forward is this municipal

[42:52] commitment. So just going through the bit of the timeline here. This

[42:56] feasibility assessment for the independent portion uh is what we're

[43:00] talking about right now. And so that's completed. I I am doing the municipal

[43:05] delegations right now. I'll meet with the town of Rocky next week. Then the

[43:09] funding applications will take place with the AHP um application period as

[43:14] said in the later fall and early in January of 2027.

[43:19] And then if approval happens and we are able to move forward, we go with design

[43:23] and approvals with uh the design making sure we can can build what we we want to

[43:28] be building. And then construction would aim to start in 2028. So this little

[43:33] timeline specifically there in this slide there, Collier is referring more

[43:37] to uh the Rocky one just because the line land is in hand, but the idea is to

[43:42] submit everything that we want to do for housing in a regional housing

[43:47] application. So the I wouldn't be stuck on the words in the blue box that say

[43:52] annual review of Caroline readiness that Caroline readiness needs to happen so

[43:56] that it can be submitted in the fall with the rocky one as a complete uh

[44:01] package and you know trying to understand if the the lodge the

[44:04] multi-level care facility will be included in that as well. Um the lodge

[44:09] configuration idea for Caroline would be assessed too in the meantime and as said

[44:14] as well that multi-level care study continues.

[44:19] Okay. And so the funding this looks specifically uh at the example of the

[44:25] Rocky Mountain House uh planning estimate because that one's a little bit

[44:28] more solid with having um the land. However, you can just look at this as

[44:35] like with the planning assumptions that it would go for any anything that would

[44:39] happen under the regional housing uh that we want to be building under this

[44:43] AHPP application. So the the the split there, the 50 3020 split is maybe a

[44:50] typical uh planning assumption with that 6.9 million million needing to build. Uh

[44:57] the expectation or sort of what usually happens is 1.4 4 million would come from

[45:01] municipal contribution for the provincial portion of it to unlock at

[45:07] 2.1 million and then after that the 3.4 million from the federal. So you kind of

[45:11] need to be unlocked at each stage for that to to to get those the full funding

[45:16] coming in. Um, I want to address that we do have a

[45:20] very um supportive um MLA. Minister Nixon uh does have some he really would

[45:27] like to see some buildings in our area and there's been a lots of talk about

[45:31] that and we still need to remember that an application still has to evidence

[45:36] support from other funding uh sources to have it be really strong and to have

[45:41] that municipal commitment. So, we want to have that in place. Um it's really

[45:45] great that we do have our MLA support um as we've been uh told for that.

[45:52] Um, so I think that's yeah, really I guess to to sum it all up, uh, what

[45:59] we're asking for is we would need that land title transfer for that parcel in

[46:04] Caroline to move forward with this the Caroline Senior's housing and also to

[46:08] have confirmation for servicing capacity, what needs to happen there,

[46:12] [snorts] and the written confirmation that the county would be on board to

[46:16] support these initiatives moving forward and that they would fund um, regional

[46:20] senior housing builds and be be uh good with that. So

[46:25] like to invite any questions and thank you uh for your time.

[46:29] » Excellent. Thank you very much Vanessa for your time and the presentation.

[46:32] Before we open the floor up here for questions or comments from council, I do

[46:35] have one question for CEO Simpson. In the delegation package, it's

[46:41] identified land title transfers and servicing capacity and so on regarding

[46:45] uh land and proximity to 48th Avenue. Is further discussion or questions

[46:50] regarding uh this parcel of land appropriate for open session or would

[46:54] that be more appropriate for a closed session agenda or discussion?

[47:00] CEO Simpson. >> I think that uh if you're going to have

[47:03] an open conversation on all the possibilities regarding that parcel that

[47:06] you would want to reserve that for close session.

[47:09] » Okay. So if there's um as this has been published to the community, I just

[47:14] wanted to uh I believe [clears throat] that's fine, but just if there's further

[47:18] discussion or comments from council regarding the parcel, we would move into

[47:23] close session. Other than that, the floor is open for comments or questions

[47:27] regarding any other comments on this agenda item and this delegation. Deputy

[47:31] Reef, go ahead, please. >> Thanks, Ree. I just have a question, not

[47:34] regarding the the land per se in Caroline, but more regarding the

[47:38] facility itself. Has there been consideration given to a hybrid facility

[47:41] that would offer lodge and independent living rather than looking at it as an

[47:46] eitheror, >> a combination? Yeah. Right.

[47:49] » Yes. I think that would be something that would be considered and probably

[47:54] » yeah would make sense. Just the idea of the lodge and what it's needed to

[47:58] support in a smaller community. Um and that 40 units sort of being you need to

[48:02] have that or the lodge part of it. Um, that's sort of the number they gave us,

[48:06] but we're all we're looking at all of it still, right?

[48:10] » Okay, I understand though. I didn't realize it was a certain capacity that

[48:14] had to be reached before it could be fall under lodge parameters. So, thank

[48:18] you. >> Just further on that, Vanessa, sorry, on

[48:23] the uh [clears throat] for final design,

[48:26] » whether the final design is lodge or independent or combination of the two,

[48:30] that decision still could come at the design phase in the future.

[48:34] Yes. Yeah, that's that's all stuff to be decided definitely.

[48:37] » Okay. >> Yeah, because we don't even have the

[48:39] capital numbers in there for what the lodge would require for costing that

[48:44] way. >> No, thank you for the clarity on that.

[48:46] » Y >> councelor Serach, I think you're indic.

[48:49] Yeah, go ahead, Councelor Serach. >> Yes. Um, when do we get the final word

[48:55] on Collier and the V3 study that we're doing? So the collier should have like

[49:01] you're talking about the multi-level lodge like that portion of it to sum

[49:04] that up that's going to be by the end of October and I believe the V3 information

[49:08] is supposed to be done by the end of October as well. That's just what I've

[49:11] heard. I don't know for sure on that one. So it should be just right in time

[49:15] for that when that application period opens for AHPP which is great timing.

[49:20] » So we should have the information that we need to go ahead with all of these

[49:24] projects by then. >> Yeah.

[49:26] » Thank you. Mhm. Welcome.

[49:31] » Okay. Um there's three items here for the

[49:36] demonstrated demand. >> The uh Mount Setset Manor says there was

[49:40] a wait list. Um there's been some vacancy there, but

[49:46] maybe that was uh a shortfall on community awareness that

[49:50] those rooms are available for Sunset Manor.

[49:54] » Mhm. >> Okay.

[49:56] Are there any other questions, comments? Nope.

[50:00] » Oh, Mr. Ham, go ahead, please. >> Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate um one

[50:06] of the portions of Miss Kit's presentation is that independent living

[50:10] is not subsidized through the municipality. However, lodge operations

[50:15] are. And how that happens is that the seniors um housing council sends a

[50:21] requisition over to Clearwater County just prior to the tax rate um bylaw

[50:27] being um passed by council and that amount is then distributed over the

[50:33] amount of the assessment. Like Clearwater County doesn't have a say per

[50:38] se in what that requisition amount is for lodge um operations. And then the

[50:44] independent living is subsidized. The deficit is subsidized through the

[50:48] province.

[50:52] Okay.

[50:58] So, Miss Kit on these, you would need a written funding commitment from

[51:02] Clearwater County to proceed forward with the application. So [clears throat]

[51:07] would it be appropriate, I believe, at this time to that council direct

[51:10] administration to bring back uh written commitment funding written funding

[51:15] commitment and site servicing information to our next regular

[51:22] Clearwater County Council meeting [snorts] for council [clears throat]

[51:25] consideration.

[51:30] Is council clear on the motion? Okay, the motion is on the floor. If there's

[51:34] no further discussion on that, I'll call the question. All those in

[51:38] favor? That motion is supported by councel.

[51:42] Are there any other questions on this delegation or regarding seniors housing

[51:46] in our region? If not, I'd be looking for a motion to accept the delegation

[51:50] » of information, but at this time, go ahead, Miss S.

[51:52] » Yeah, just one question. When did you require the letter by?

[51:56] Well, >> probably by the end of October would be

[51:59] good when everything else is coming in. >> Okay, thank you. That would be great.

[52:04] And uh I did include at our next regular Clearwater County Council meeting. So we

[52:08] should have that information from administration and allow that time for

[52:11] them to put that information together for council consideration. So looking

[52:15] for a motion to accept the delegation as information. Um councelor Humphrey. Um

[52:20] before that I do have one question uh regarding the uh Mloud Manor renewal

[52:27] unless the

[52:31] site constraint uh expansion potential is being

[52:36] confirmed. >> Yes, it's being that so I my

[52:39] understanding is the setbacks where it's right now it doesn't provide a lot of

[52:44] extra room to expand in there. Um, so we would assess whether it would just be or

[52:50] it would be assessed is could it be expanded upon or is it best just to

[52:55] update all those units in there, get some better bathrooms, um, you know,

[53:00] that type of thing. Accessible bathrooms, I guess.

[53:02] » So, we would still only have the four units

[53:07] there. >> Yeah, at this point.

[53:11] » Okay. >> If if we can't do any expansion.

[53:13] » Okay. When do you uh when when do you expect to have that information on

[53:19] whether we could expand >> that was actually part of this

[53:23] assessment that was being done? So we should have and it was done for somebody

[53:27] underneath Collier. So the assessment's been done but the finalized information

[53:31] the board hasn't received yet but that should be available soon. We could have

[53:35] it passed on by through a board report or something I guess.

[53:40] » Yeah. >> Okay. Yep. And and further to that, I'll

[53:45] make a motion that we accept the uh accept this as information.

[53:51] Okay, we have a motion on the floor from councelor Humphrey to accept the Rocky

[53:54] Seniors Housing Council delegation as information. See no further discussion.

[53:59] Call the question. All those in favor? Motion is supported by council. Thank

[54:03] you very much, Miss Kid, for coming in and joining council today.

[54:12] We're going to move into our agenda item 5.2

[54:19] which is a gravel road maintenance uh by Don RDE and uh DK blade services

[54:25] is on page 24 of today's agenda.

[54:33] Welcome to council.

[54:42] I'll pass the floor over to administration whenever you uh are ready

[54:45] to present.

[54:56] So good morning Ree Northcot and council.

[55:00] So, at the uh at the regular council meeting on July 28th, 2026, the

[55:06] following motion was carried. Uh resolution 476-2026

[55:11] motion by Reeve Jordan Northcott that council direct administration to bring

[55:15] back information budget and cost comparison considerations regarding July

[55:21] 28th 2026 agenda item 7.3.1 gravel road network maintenance operations program

[55:28] review. Um to address some of the concerns

[55:33] raised, administration has brought forward the following information for

[55:36] consideration. The information regarding graveling and

[55:40] crushing operations will be brought forward at a future council meeting for

[55:44] review and discussion. So to help uh council in regards to some of the

[55:51] concerns and questions that they had at that time, we've put together this

[55:55] agenda item which will address those questions along with uh bringing

[55:59] together our team and a subject matter expert in Mr. Don RDE. Uh Mr. Rude is

[56:07] considered um uh uh an industry expert throughout Western Canada and uh he will

[56:16] pro help provide uh professional expertise and industry perspective on

[56:20] some of these practices. So I will just uh turn it over right now to Mr. Rude in

[56:26] regards to uh uh just introducing himself and some of his background. And

[56:33] then at that time I will turn it over to uh both uh Sean our project technologist

[56:39] and Betina our director of of uh agricultural and community services to

[56:45] address some of the concerns as associated in the agenda item itself.

[56:50] And Mr. Rude is here to address some of those uh concerns and questions as well

[56:56] and any other questions you may have in regards to the uh maintenance of gravel

[57:01] roads. So, Don, if you want to introduce

[57:05] yourself. >> Good morning. Uh thanks for having me.

[57:08] Uh my name is Don RDE. I own DK Blade Service. Um just a little bit of

[57:14] background on me. I started in the dirt [clears throat] world in 1988. Um, and I

[57:20] was on a dirt crew in special areas. And then, uh, been in the dirt my whole

[57:24] life. Uh, and then in, uh, 1999, I bought my first grader with Red Deer

[57:30] County. I got on with the division in Red Deer. And, um, it was then that I

[57:36] started seeing kind of a a breakdown of of our system or lack thereof, a system

[57:43] for maintaining our gravel roads. And, um, I was struggling with that. I've

[57:48] struggled with that my whole career is we we we've never been able to come

[57:52] together as a team and to know exactly how to blade a road, what to do with the

[57:58] roads. Um we ask 10 different people. We get 10 different answers all the time.

[58:03] And um so I started uh developing the system to help all of us learn what it

[58:11] takes and how hard it actually is to maintain a road. Um, we all think, you

[58:17] know, we just put the blade down and everything is good. And it's there's a

[58:20] lot more that goes into it. And to to build a team environment, we we have to

[58:27] everybody has to uh learn from the top down on what it takes to maintain and

[58:33] the tools, the proper tools we need to succeed. So, I've been doing this

[58:38] training now for the last eight years. Um, I'm working with about 40

[58:44] municipalities in Alberta. Uh, three of the big uh provincial contract uh guys

[58:51] in working with the province. Uh, we just broke in to Saskatchewan. We're

[58:57] working over there. Um, working with the city of Calgary helping build the

[59:02] program for [snorts] them. I've worked with city of Edmonton. Um, it's it's

[59:07] we're all in the same boat. everybody. Um because we drive roads every day, we

[59:14] think we know how to fix them and that's normal. Like we drive down the road and

[59:18] there's holes in it, cut the holes out, okay? But we don't understand if that

[59:23] hole is lower in the middle of the road. We've just cut our road inverted. So

[59:26] there's lots of little things that go into maintaining a road that I'm trying

[59:31] to bring to light and to build a team environment right from the top down. And

[59:39] um I think I've had very good success doing it. Uh the number one thing is

[59:43] building that trust. We all have to have trust. There's so many different things

[59:48] out there today. Uh who do we trust? Where do we lean? What do we do? What

[59:52] direction? So hopefully I know here we've we've in my opinion we've improved

[59:58] our roads quite a bit here over the last five years and uh we can continue to

[1:00:05] keep improving them. Um, but it's it's [snorts] just highlighting what goes in

[1:00:10] and how hard it is for a grow road and bringing the team environment to to

[1:00:16] everybody and that's that's been my main goal since I started it is is how do we

[1:00:21] maintain a road? What's our service level? There's so much that goes into

[1:00:25] maintaining a road that we we all look at, but maybe there's we're missing some

[1:00:30] points here or there and we bring all that together and and then uh the sky's

[1:00:35] is the limit. So

[1:00:37] » yeah, just a little bit of history on me. I'm not a public speaker, so I

[1:00:41] apologize. >> You're you're doing just fine. Um

[1:00:46] is that do you have any further information or administration, please?

[1:00:51] » Good morning, council. Uh so uh for this agenda item, it will be presented in

[1:00:56] three parts. So first, I will begin with a brief introduction and provide an

[1:01:00] overview of the use of water trucks. Then second, I will hand the

[1:01:04] presentation over to our agriculture and community service team who will discuss

[1:01:09] the herbicide application and shoulder spring cost analysis. Following that,

[1:01:14] Mr. Ru will share his experience with the use of W packers and oil trucks and

[1:01:19] to discuss any additional concerns uh the council may have and provide his

[1:01:24] professional expertise in these areas. So first of all uh the use of war trucks

[1:01:30] for dust control. Uh to provide some context, Clearwater County currently

[1:01:35] maintains 13 greater beats with each greater beat averaging about 145

[1:01:41] kilometers in length. Given the size of our gravel road network using war trucks

[1:01:47] as a primary method of dust control would involve significant operational

[1:01:52] cost. So the current rate for 120 barrel war

[1:01:57] truck is $156 per hour. If um we assume one war truck is assigned to each

[1:02:04] greater beat and operates 10 hours a day, 20 days a month for six months of

[1:02:09] the year, the estimated cost will be $187,000

[1:02:14] per beat each year. That's about $2.4 million for all 13 beats annually.

[1:02:22] Another important consideration is [snorts] that war provides only

[1:02:26] short-term dust control. Depending on the visor traffic levels and road

[1:02:30] conditions, the effects may only last a few hours and in some cases up to a day.

[1:02:36] Meanings maintaining adequate dust control would likely require multiple

[1:02:41] applications and potentially additional air trucks resulting even in

[1:02:47] even higher operating cost. County currently offers a dust

[1:02:51] suppression program. Through this program, residents can purchase

[1:02:54] longerlasting dust control treatments in front of their residences. Products such

[1:02:59] as calcium chloride or non other non- oil based dust control. It's more

[1:03:04] durable dust control than were and are available in areas where dust is a

[1:03:10] concern. Overwhel can help control dust in the short term.

[1:03:15] The scale of the county road network, the ongoing operational cost and the

[1:03:20] temporary nature of water applications make them challenging to use as a

[1:03:24] primary method. So administration is happy to answer council's question at

[1:03:29] this point. If not, I will hand the presentation over to a sta for the

[1:03:34] harbside part. Thank you.

[1:03:39] Um, I think there's may be some comments or questions before we move on to the

[1:03:44] herbicide section of this. I know I have some questions and comments, but at this

[1:03:49] time, Deputy Ree, go ahead, please. >> Thank you, Ree. I believe there might be

[1:03:53] a bit of a misunderstanding here. the the intentional use of the water truck,

[1:03:59] I don't know, I can't speak for the rest of the council, but from my perspective,

[1:04:02] was to assist the graders in areas that were high washboard areas and that they

[1:04:08] needed that moisture to be able to grade it properly, not as dust suppression

[1:04:14] continuously for all grading for the entire year.

[1:04:18] So, I'm not sure that this is quite what we were after, but uh I'll let everybody

[1:04:25] else chime in. >> Oh, I absolutely have some comments, but

[1:04:27] before that, uh Deputy Ree, and you may have looked at my notes.

[1:04:32] » Yeah, but at this point in time, councelor Leman, go ahead and then uh

[1:04:36] » G with Deputy Ree there. Um because that was the my understanding also. This was

[1:04:41] when we need the water trucks to assist the graders when it's too dry or

[1:04:45] whatever to be there. Not not a full-time job for 6 months, 10 hours a

[1:04:50] day for 20 days a month. Like, no, that's not I don't think that was our

[1:04:54] intention. >> Absolutely. So, thank you councelor

[1:04:58] Lewin for the comments and I've seen it the exact same way. This was uh there

[1:05:01] must have been a misunderstanding I believe at one of the

[1:05:05] at the previous council meeting when this item was discussed. It was not

[1:05:08] intended to have water trucks for dust control. And uh the dust, it was not

[1:05:15] intended for dust control. It was meant for uh during those very dry conditions

[1:05:19] if there was a water truck needed or what that would look like to get a

[1:05:22] better binding service of the gravel during extremely dry conditions. And a

[1:05:26] gravel truck would not be or pardon me, a water truck would not be necessary. Uh

[1:05:30] you know, we've just had rainfall in many areas of Clearwater County. So when

[1:05:34] it's damp, there would be no need for a water truck to have a better grading

[1:05:38] service. But when it's when the gravel is extremely dry and then the grater

[1:05:43] goes down the road, it creates nothing but a it is absolute dust bomb. So the

[1:05:52] intention, I believe, from council's discussions in the past was to have a

[1:05:55] water truck to accommodate those severely dry conditions and not have

[1:05:58] nothing but it appears to be flower and a dust bomb in the fall. So

[1:06:05] that was the intent. I think this agenda item has been written inappropriately.

[1:06:09] Um I think the numbers here um are presented to council in a manner that

[1:06:14] would conclude that this would not warrant any further uh need. But I I I

[1:06:20] think this was written and it needs to be needs to come back for council's

[1:06:23] considering consideration written in proper format that was discussed at the

[1:06:27] previous meeting. Um,

[1:06:32] are there any other comments? Mr. Magnus, go ahead, please.

[1:06:36] » Yeah. Um, what it comes down to is uh um I don't

[1:06:42] think it was written in inappropriately. Let's just be clear with that part of it

[1:06:47] is that um uh it's a matter of level of service. We know now what the rates are

[1:06:54] in regards to bringing in a gravel truck or a water truck and we have no problem

[1:06:57] doing that. Bringing in a water truck if that is the intent of council and that's

[1:07:01] the direction you'd like in regards to the level of service. This was just a

[1:07:07] large overview in regards to presenting the rates associated with bringing a

[1:07:12] water truck. Now it is for council to provide direction in regards to the

[1:07:17] level of service you would like to see for the rateayers.

[1:07:21] and we can bring that into into the operational side of things in regards to

[1:07:27] what increase that would be to the budget

[1:07:31] in regards to uh greater maintenance operations.

[1:07:36] Um we can definitely [clears throat] build that in there. You just need to

[1:07:39] provide us direction now as to here are the here are the costs associated with

[1:07:44] bringing in a water truck. the big picture and from there you provide us

[1:07:50] the direction in regards to what you would like to see if that means bringing

[1:07:55] in a water truck for dealing with those areas that have the washboard and so on

[1:08:00] and uh Mr. Rude can expand on that in regards to the benefits or the pros and

[1:08:06] cons associated with with that. But that was our intent behind this. Gave you the

[1:08:11] big picture. You provide the direction now.

[1:08:16] » Okay. Well, I think thank you Mr. Magnus for that. I think there's a little bit

[1:08:18] more clarity that's needed on that direction that this item is listed as

[1:08:22] dust control, but uh it was meant for road maintenance and uh I believe that

[1:08:26] there may be some cost benefits if the water truck offered a better binding of

[1:08:31] the gravel during dry conditions that could potentially reduce the amount of

[1:08:35] grading needed during that time and I don't see any cost benefits. Um go ahead

[1:08:41] Mr. Root please. So, a lot of our uh dust issues comes

[1:08:47] from uh we're having and I have to be careful when I say this um too much

[1:08:52] gravel on our roads. Our our answer seems for everything is to put more

[1:08:56] gravel on our roads and not understanding what that extra gravel

[1:09:01] will do. I.e. it will be a lot more dust. Um when when we come to

[1:09:07] intersections, we should be reducing our gravel um not adding gravel. And we want

[1:09:14] our roads exactly. We want our our intersections packed in like their

[1:09:17] pavement. Um and we can never achieve that if we gravel from from township to

[1:09:24] township on a range. We should be looking now at okay reducing the gravel

[1:09:29] from 50 m 100 mters from each intersection to reduce our washport and

[1:09:36] then tight blading um our our gravel knowing where our gravel is going. We're

[1:09:42] putting our gravel on our intersections and our hills and [clears throat] our

[1:09:46] curves. Anywhere where people accelerate or you know hit the brakes really fast

[1:09:51] is where we should be looking to reduce gravel. Not stop gravel, but reduce

[1:09:57] gravel to get ahead of the washboard. And then once we get our intersections

[1:10:01] packed down like this table, leave them. Don't come back and rip it up again

[1:10:06] after this rain to start more dust, start more washboard. The goal is to get

[1:10:11] our roads packed in like this so we don't have our dust issue. Um,

[1:10:17] unfortunately, we're a gravel road will have dust. It's it's just the way it is.

[1:10:22] What stops the highways is the pavement sitting on the gravel that stops our

[1:10:28] dust. It's so our goal is to get our roads smooth, safe, packed in so we

[1:10:33] don't have to blade them, you know, after this rain if they're if they're

[1:10:38] hard and packed in, just leave them and then let them slowly start to unravel.

[1:10:42] And I I I like how you said the roads start to unravel. Um that is one of our

[1:10:49] biggest concerns with any gravel road is we have to separate our gravel from our

[1:10:56] base and we don't we look at a gravel road and we see the top of the gravel

[1:11:00] and that's our base that's our crown. What we're doing is cutting what the the

[1:11:06] base is what holds and supports the traffic. Um we have to think of it like

[1:11:11] a a cake. If we have the base of our cake is hard, then it supports the

[1:11:17] icing, which is the gravel, and we can put that anywhere we want. If the base

[1:11:22] of the cake is soft, everything just falls down. And that's what a lot of our

[1:11:26] gravel roads are doing everywhere in in Al Alberta, Saskatchewan, everywhere is

[1:11:32] our base is not hard because of our blading practices, which goes back to

[1:11:39] the giving the operators the best tools, which is a carbide blade to get our base

[1:11:46] hard. uh soft steel blades, sandic blades are actually ripping our base up

[1:11:53] which gets our our segregation which gets our our unraveling because we don't

[1:11:58] have a crust on our base. So now as it gets drier there's more gravel comes up

[1:12:03] which creates more dust. So having the proper tools to give our

[1:12:09] our operators is critical and that number one tool is a carbide blade. And

[1:12:15] yes, they've went through the roof. Um they're they're ridiculously priced, but

[1:12:21] what are we gaining from using the proper tool? And that's we're getting a

[1:12:26] crown cut into our road. We're we're tip blading our gravel to minimize our dust.

[1:12:31] We're we're eliminating our curbing on our shoulders, which is another big

[1:12:36] thing. Water trapment on the sides of our roads. Um, all that comes from

[1:12:43] training our guys, training us to to know what we're looking at on our roads,

[1:12:47] too. And that goes back to the team environment. Um, then number one is the

[1:12:52] carbide blades. And then, but by using our carbide blades, the fuel savings is

[1:12:58] is astronomical. Uh, the gravel consumption is astronomical. Um, you you

[1:13:04] think of a road and we've we've graveled it every 3

[1:13:09] years. Where does that gravel go? Some of it goes in the ditch obviously, but

[1:13:13] not near as much as we think. But where where does the the rest of it go? It

[1:13:19] goes down because our base is soft. Traffic, the heavier the traffic, the

[1:13:25] farther that goes down and then it goes out. And then that's where we get our

[1:13:29] football shape on our shoulders. And then we blade it. We put the lip in the

[1:13:34] road trying to get a crown in our road. So by getting our base hard that

[1:13:40] supports that's the key to any gravel road is that base getting that that

[1:13:44] support hard so the B drains and everybody can drive up and down the

[1:13:48] roads and then tight blading controlling where we put our gravel to minimize our

[1:13:54] dust. Okay. Yeah, I think we will always have

[1:13:58] dust. It's trying how do we as a group collectively manage that? How do we slow

[1:14:05] it down? Um, it's like washboard. I think we'll always have washboard, but

[1:14:10] we need to minimize it as best we can. >> If I may just, uh, I think everybody at

[1:14:15] the table and everybody in this room recognizes that a gravel road will have

[1:14:18] dust. >> Yeah.

[1:14:19] » And the intention was never to say that we're going to make our gravel roads

[1:14:23] dustfree. >> Yeah. The intention was to bring this

[1:14:26] information to administration on behalf of council to mitigate

[1:14:30] » the dust because there's been extremely dry circumstances in the fall when

[1:14:36] there's a lot of graders that are grading the gravel roads that the roads

[1:14:41] may have been dusty but when they're graded during extremely dry conditions

[1:14:46] they're significantly more dusty. So I don't think anybody in this room has

[1:14:52] asked administration or anybody to make a gravel road dustfree. So if we could

[1:14:58] just have that correction. Um I think in the motion I do have some other fellow

[1:15:03] council members that would like to speak but I think there may have been an error

[1:15:05] in the information that was brought to councelor.

[1:15:10] There was discussions about wobbly packers. There's nothing mentioned in

[1:15:14] this agenda item and even to refer back to the motion that was given at the

[1:15:20] council meeting on July 28th. There was um the council direct administration to

[1:15:25] bring back information budget and cost comparison

[1:15:30] considerations regarding agenda item 7.3.1 which is the

[1:15:34] gravel road network maintenance operations program review. But yet we're

[1:15:38] on a dust control or dust suppression discussion here today. So I think

[1:15:44] there's been a lack of information brought forward on this agenda item.

[1:15:52] Councelor Humphrey please go or sorry councelor Lewin.

[1:15:57] » Yes. So with a crown in a road when it rains does it add to the um potholes or

[1:16:03] does it reduce the potholes? >> So that that's a good question. So

[1:16:07] depending on what what our base is. So why we get potholes

[1:16:14] is because we've dumped a lot of gravel in the middle to get a crown. And we

[1:16:18] call that a fake crown. So we we've cut our base flat or maybe even inverted. So

[1:16:24] we need to put the gravel back in the middle of the road to get a crown in the

[1:16:28] road. Now that's all that loose material. When it does rain, it's loose.

[1:16:33] So now the traffic will start making potholes. When we get our base cut in to

[1:16:38] the our base hard, it the water will shed

[1:16:44] um off that base and then run to our shoulders, run into our ditch and drain.

[1:16:48] Hope that's our goal of a gravel road. >> Yeah.

[1:16:51] » But when the gravel's dry, that's when we need uh a water truck to help bind

[1:16:55] it. >> So what the grading and water trucks to

[1:16:58] help bind it and then go from there. And the the carbide blade when it's dry,

[1:17:05] we're we're so used to the gravel unraveling. I like how you worded that

[1:17:09] because it is the when our base is soft, it it unravels and the drier it gets,

[1:17:14] the more gravel that comes from our roads. The more times we blade. What

[1:17:19] what the carbide blade does when it's used properly is it's driving our rocks

[1:17:26] and our fines into that base. That's what's making our base thicker and

[1:17:30] thicker and thicker. Basically, our our base is a crust. We all know these all

[1:17:36] all these roads are built on black dirt and whatever was there, right? It's it's

[1:17:42] uh it's the the base. We need to seal that off by by using our gravel to drive

[1:17:48] into the base. And then as the gravel goes into the base, our our gravel goes

[1:17:53] down on our roads. That's when we regravel again to start building that

[1:17:57] ground that base back up thicker and thicker.

[1:18:02] » Thank you, >> Deputy Reck. Go ahead.

[1:18:06] » Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Rude. This is uh I guess it it's a little tough because

[1:18:14] the these are things that I've been trying to push towards the county for 10

[1:18:18] years. And these are things that this council has been really trying to drive

[1:18:22] home to administration is overgraing and overg grading is hurting our roads, not

[1:18:29] helping them. You're sitting here confirming that fact. We're clearly not

[1:18:33] taking those steps. So why are we not taking those steps that our resident

[1:18:37] expert is telling us that we need to be taking?

[1:18:41] Why are we continuing to build false crowns to overravel and to overgrade?

[1:18:47] And this isn't a question for you, Mr. Rude. This is for administration. I

[1:18:50] mean, you provided the information, >> you provided the expertise,

[1:18:54] » but yet we see it time and time again. So what why aren't why aren't we

[1:19:01] listening to the expert? We are we're doing exactly what Dawn he's been with

[1:19:07] us for the last five years. So I'm not sure where council is getting this

[1:19:11] perspective from. I'm sure that you this is this is we've had Don with us

[1:19:17] for the last 5 years and we are following

[1:19:20] his guidance in regards to and Don can speak to it. He's been with us for the

[1:19:25] last 5 years. >> Okay. I I just I don't feel like

[1:19:30] administration has actually driven the roads that we're speaking to.

[1:19:35] » Mr. RH, do you have comments? Please. >> The one thing that we need to keep in

[1:19:40] perspective too is is we're a little different here with contract operators.

[1:19:45] Um so we have to keep that in mind too. If if we don't if we don't blade, what

[1:19:52] do they do? Right. me as a contractor too in Red

[1:19:58] Deer um we have to be cautious of them making a living them trying to survive

[1:20:03] too. So if if we cut back or shut them down because the roads are in good shape

[1:20:10] we're going backwards, right? Like it's not like an employee where there's other

[1:20:14] things for them to do. The contractors are hired to blade roads. Um, so maybe

[1:20:20] we need to start looking outside the roads and we have a we have a dirt crew

[1:20:26] here, which is good. Um, and the second thing that we need to do now,

[1:20:32] number one is getting the water from the middle of the road to our shoulders and

[1:20:37] then from the shoulders to our ditch. and that that that's everywhere by

[1:20:43] recognizing is there too much gravel, there's is there um ridging on the roads

[1:20:48] or is the road inverted and then getting it to the shoulder and then addressing

[1:20:53] that lip that's holding the water in by giving um letting the guys go with the

[1:20:59] front mounted disc and then we we can minimize that curbing along utilizing

[1:21:06] the road crew here. you guys are in a in a pretty good position, I think, because

[1:21:10] you do have a a little bit of a road crew. A lot of municipalities don't

[1:21:14] anymore, so it makes it a bigger struggle, but here utilizing the road

[1:21:19] crew with the contractors to to help minimize um our curbing issues is a very

[1:21:26] good idea. Um there's different avenues we can be using them, not just on a

[1:21:31] road. We could be doing different things with different different pieces of

[1:21:35] equipment. Thank you. And just to quickly follow

[1:21:39] up, so the reason that we've continued to overgrade and to damage our road

[1:21:43] infrastructure is to keep operators busy.

[1:21:47] » No, but what is overgrading? >> What we've been doing? Clearly, every

[1:21:52] time we get our road set with that crust, just as you spoke to, the graders

[1:21:58] come out. There's no reason for it at all. None

[1:22:04] whatsoever. But it continues to happen over and over and over again. And we get

[1:22:09] that false dust crown in the middle that just turns everything to slimy

[1:22:14] Well, pardon my language to a slimy mess. And it just So there's there's

[1:22:20] another question we go. >> Go ahead, Mr. Please.

[1:22:24] » Um, you said a key word to slimy. So now why why are the roads slimy,

[1:22:31] » right? Is it is our our gravel? >> Yes. Or is it because we're pulling in

[1:22:36] grass? We've been for the last 80 years, we pull shoulders in and that pulls our

[1:22:43] clay in. That pulls uh every all the garbage that's on our shoulders in and

[1:22:48] it's fine when it's dry, but then it comes to being when it's wet, we see all

[1:22:53] these greasy spots. So, is it actual gravel? Is it is it the clay? Is it What

[1:22:58] is it on our roads that are making our roads greasy? That's that's another

[1:23:02] thing to look at too. Um because we've been told to keep that blade out there

[1:23:08] and and minimize our curbing issues. Um the provincial government is is that's a

[1:23:14] big thing with them is is it's way out and then the farther south you go, the

[1:23:18] more clay there is in our roads. It's a bigger issue down there now, too. So,

[1:23:22] it's it's knowing where our road is and then stop going out to grab all that

[1:23:28] stuff. And then yeah cuz we don't know if it's a gravel is it the cuz the

[1:23:32] gravel meets spec right and it does but yeah so there's different things to to

[1:23:38] know. >> Do you have further comments deputy

[1:23:41] reeve or not at this time >> and this is another discussion that

[1:23:45] we've had with administration. Yes our gravel meets spec but it is certainly

[1:23:49] not the gravel that it once was and administration has admitted that on

[1:23:55] numerous occasions. our gravel quality has degraded. So yes, I agree it

[1:24:00] probably is bringing in the edges that's causing part of the problem, but our

[1:24:04] gravel is also causing part of the problem. And by adding more of what is

[1:24:09] the problem to our roads is not going to solve anything.

[1:24:15] » Okay. So there's a few things I see at play here. the community uh clear

[1:24:19] council had received uh many phone calls from many residents regarding the the uh

[1:24:24] poor quality of the roads while we had a significant amount of rain in June. But

[1:24:28] so what we're trying to accomplish here is just a few things is we'd like to

[1:24:31] bring forward that the community would like to see quality roads. We'd also

[1:24:36] like to address some of the unnecessary dust from overgrading and we'd also this

[1:24:40] council still supports local contractors as many of the contractors in the area

[1:24:45] are still residents. So, this council does support our local contractors, but

[1:24:49] we're trying to meet in the middle here to bring this item to have the best

[1:24:53] result for the residents of the county, which is quality roads, maybe reduce

[1:24:56] some of the unnecessary dust while still supporting our local contractors.

[1:25:01] There is more. I think this item has to be deferred back to administration to

[1:25:04] bring additional information back in a further at a future council meeting.

[1:25:12] » Mr. Magnus, you'd like to speak. Please go ahead.

[1:25:14] » Yep. you indicated, you know, in regards to a discussion on wobblies and I did

[1:25:19] mention it in the last paragraph there that Mr. Rude is uh here to address

[1:25:23] that. Uh so you had to indicate it that there was nothing in here. This is where

[1:25:29] we why we brought in Mr. RDE to address um the question associated with

[1:25:35] Wobblies. He's here today to address those concerns and questions

[1:25:41] as per that previous council meeting and as per that motion. So, uh, if we could

[1:25:49] allow Mr. RDE to address Wobblies, the use of wobblies as well as supplement,

[1:25:55] uh, Betina's presentation and the use of herbicides.

[1:25:58] This will address your questions from that previous council.

[1:26:03] when we went through that we in terms of breaking down the concerns the in the

[1:26:09] motion was a general motion. So I had my team go in back into that that uh agenda

[1:26:17] item in regards to what council wanted addressed and that's what we're here for

[1:26:22] today is to address those concerns and questions. So if we may

[1:26:29] Mr. Rude can address the use of wobblies along with the use of herbicides and

[1:26:33] anything else that may still be on your minds that you would like to have

[1:26:39] addressed if we may please.

[1:26:47] » Councelor Humphrey, go ahead. [cough and clears throat]

[1:26:51] » And this question for uh Mr. Rude. So, you've been 5 years at it. Do we have a

[1:26:59] a projected time limit to get the roads to where

[1:27:04] they need to be? >> That's a good question. So, um,

[1:27:08] [clears throat] every road is not created equal, and

[1:27:12] that's where some roads will come come around faster than others depending on

[1:27:16] what's in the base and what it's sitting on. And you can't I I don't know how to

[1:27:22] put a timeline on every road being perfect. I I don't know there is one,

[1:27:28] but I know uh I know with certainty that the roads here are way better than what

[1:27:34] they were 5 years ago. I know that. It's just now it's it's bringing the team

[1:27:39] environment together and and adding and building on that as much as we can to

[1:27:45] get over that hump to get to where we need. The biggest thing is is uh if like

[1:27:50] a spring like this, it affects everybody because we've had eight years of drought

[1:27:55] or whatever and now everybody is it's the shock of driving on mud and roads

[1:28:00] and wet roads that people, you know, forget how to how to drive on them

[1:28:06] roads. and and by having the water sit on our shoulders that that softens and

[1:28:11] brings the mud up in the clay and and loosens our base up way faster because

[1:28:16] of the water sitting there. So, we've I think we've been addressing the curbing

[1:28:21] problem. Um, can we do better? For sure. We're always working to get better. Um,

[1:28:26] but it's now addressing that part of our road system is is just as critical as as

[1:28:34] getting our base up. Um the biggest thing I it's

[1:28:39] we we we need to understand it on the blade placement on on running the grater

[1:28:45] on the road. If our blade placement is off just a hair, the base of our road is

[1:28:51] not going to get as hard as we think. So we're driving the road thinking it's

[1:28:55] going to get be harder and harder. And if if if our blade placement is off just

[1:29:00] a bit, we're not gaining on that road. So, it's so critical that we understand

[1:29:07] how how hard it is to maintain that one [snorts] sweet spot on our blade with

[1:29:12] our carbide blades. And then if we throw Sanvix on or anything else to to blade

[1:29:18] our roads, we're actually going backwards on our base. And that's where

[1:29:22] the packers come in is we think, okay, we'll put the packers on and we're going

[1:29:28] to pack our road. a round tire uh does not pack gravel road. If if that

[1:29:36] packer would is doing what we think it would do, the lugs on that grater tire

[1:29:42] would pack 10 times harder because there's more weight on the grater. So,

[1:29:46] we're not doing anything with the packer on the back of our grers. We're It makes

[1:29:51] it look nice for one pass, [snorts] but it does not do anything.

[1:29:57] » Sorry. >> May I have a difference of opinion?

[1:29:59] Okay, please. >> And you know, uh, actually myself, I've

[1:30:02] ran a grater. >> Okay.

[1:30:04] » And, uh, so I think there's a little bit of confusion here again, Mr. Magnus,

[1:30:09] there was I think there was some discussion about the conjunction of a

[1:30:13] water truck in conjunction with Wobbly Packers. You're you're right. When you

[1:30:18] have flower, when you have really extremely dry conditions in the fall and

[1:30:22] the gravel's been graded, when you you you grade that, it's it's like a flower.

[1:30:26] It's very it's very it just finds >> and it creates a dust bomb

[1:30:31] » like it's very dusty. There are seniors that have uh respiratory

[1:30:36] » you know there's children that have asthma

[1:30:38] » so [clears throat] council gets to hear about those

[1:30:41] » dust issues. So I [clears throat] this uh

[1:30:50] we're going to get to the wobbly packers, but uh I don't see any costs

[1:30:53] regarding wobbly packers. Just a verbal presentation. There was no

[1:30:59] but there's no costs in here related to the conjunction of wobbly packers water

[1:31:03] trucks. We're going to proceed with this, but I

[1:31:06] think we uh we're going to move on to the vegetation section here soon. Um,

[1:31:13] councelor, do you have any comments? >> I I did want to uh say like I wasn't

[1:31:20] aware that we had this program to fix our

[1:31:24] roads and I totally understand that we won't be able to fix our roads

[1:31:28] overnight. Um, that's [clears throat] and that's all I

[1:31:32] was asking. I wasn't looking for a we'll have them all done, but if if we figure

[1:31:38] to have them straighten out in the next 5 10 years,

[1:31:44] uh, a lot of this makes sense with the

[1:31:49] cutting back on the gravel at at the intersections and where where they're

[1:31:53] taken off to get rid of that washboard because I've seen it uh in instances

[1:31:59] where it where it has been cut back. Um, and it's made some differences that I've

[1:32:05] seen just on on the few gravel roads that I travel. Um,

[1:32:11] I just always try and avoid them, but I live on one, so I under I understand the

[1:32:18] the dust issue and and the issues with roads. What I didn't understand was how

[1:32:24] we were working to try and mitigate that. So, I I appreciate the

[1:32:30] explanations on that. Um, I guess I was just looking for more of a general, you

[1:32:38] know, are we looking to have them shaping up more

[1:32:43] in the next 5 years? Like this is this won't be done

[1:32:48] and ready. It won't be fixed next year, I guess, is what I'm what I'm getting. I

[1:32:53] can't imagine it would be. Some roads, yes, some roads are better, for sure.

[1:32:57] Uh, some roads, the the thing is, you know, we've been beating our roads up

[1:33:01] for since they've been [clears throat] built. And we've been

[1:33:06] » um not I don't want to say blading them the wrong way, but we we can tweak what

[1:33:11] we've been doing for the last 80 years. And that's what I'm trying to do. So to

[1:33:17] every time we blade them, they should be getting a little bit harder and and and

[1:33:22] harder and harder and harder. By using the carbide blades rolled back the

[1:33:27] proper way, it drives the rock in. Even when it's bone dry out, it's still

[1:33:32] driving [snorts] our rock into our base with our fines to make that base harder

[1:33:37] and thicker and thicker. And have we gone to

[1:33:41] uh 100% carbide blades then throughout the county? Contractors, everybody's

[1:33:46] doing that. >> Yep.

[1:33:47] » Okay. >> And now it's up to the contractors and

[1:33:51] us as a team to because of the cost of them um to use them but still know when

[1:33:58] to protect them to get the longevity out of the blade so it's not so cost

[1:34:02] effective per blade per mile. And that's where the operators there's we hit the

[1:34:09] clutch and we know how hard we're we're uh we're using them on the roads. And

[1:34:14] then you use them a little bit more when there's some washboard on the hills to

[1:34:17] try and get them the base as smooth as you can. And then don't put the gravel

[1:34:21] back as thick on the hills to start the washboard again in the next 20 minutes.

[1:34:28] » And and don't pull it in off the edges >> to create that

[1:34:32] » soft spot and which will make your washboard back come back. Um

[1:34:40] yeah. So I guess then further to my while I still got the mic um

[1:34:46] administration, what is the what is the plan if we've

[1:34:51] got graders, [snorts] contract graders, and and we're working

[1:34:54] and we don't want them grading the road if it doesn't need it. How what are we

[1:34:59] because that's just adding to our problem if we're grading at the wrong

[1:35:02] times. if it's too dry or if the road spots of it are good, how are we

[1:35:09] addressing that? What's our plan going forward?

[1:35:12] » So, what what we've been doing at the [clears throat] instructions to all the

[1:35:16] operators now is is to travel if they say there's two miles of road they want

[1:35:20] to pick on, they need to drive that road first to see if it needs

[1:35:26] needs to be bladed and if it doesn't to not. So, they're they're spot grading.

[1:35:30] That's instructions now is to be spot grading.

[1:35:34] » That's that's good to note too cuz then we also have to make note that so that

[1:35:38] the public understands if you see the graater driving down the road and he

[1:35:42] doesn't have his blade down. That's a good thing cuz lots of times it's like,

[1:35:48] "Oh, I seen a grater and he wasn't grading the road, but he was driving

[1:35:51] down road and I've heard it uh before from people like the grater's just

[1:35:57] aimlessly driving down the road and his and his blades up." So, uh so there's a

[1:36:02] reason that this is happening. >> Yeah.

[1:36:06] » Just good to make note, >> right? We are graveling doing graveling

[1:36:10] right now where the graders have wanted gravel and so they will prep a road

[1:36:16] before we grade it again using two miles for a example and they'll blade up two

[1:36:21] miles of road and then we'll gravel it and then they've got to

[1:36:25] uh blade that up again. So there's going to be that going on right now because we

[1:36:29] can't just gravel and then just leave it. But

[1:36:32] » [clears throat] >> uh

[1:36:34] » yeah, that that's the instructions for them guys now.

[1:36:37] » Okay. Well, that's all good information. Thanks,

[1:36:40] » Mr. Rude. Do you have a comment? >> Um, I did.

[1:36:44] » That's great. If you need a second chance to for ask them if they want to

[1:36:48] do a >> Well, that's what I Yes, thank you. Um,

[1:36:52] I would I would love to do a information session out on a road with with

[1:36:59] everybody. Um, to see it is to sit here and talk about it is very hard. But for

[1:37:06] us to come together and go out on a road and then show the system what we're

[1:37:11] doing, how we're how we're mitigating this, how why this takes longer, what um

[1:37:16] I've done that in other counties and it's very very

[1:37:20] uh beneficial to everybody to just kind of know what the graders are up against

[1:37:24] and and how why the road is taking longer, why this is going on. Um, I

[1:37:30] would be more than happy to dedicate a half a day or whatever you guys would

[1:37:34] like to. We would just grab a grater, go out to a grater and and and then just do

[1:37:40] a a session on the road so you can see the four the five pass system. Um, and

[1:37:46] it would make things a lot clearer um for everybody to to see that. I would

[1:37:52] love to do that with you guys for sure. >> Okay. Thank you for that offer. Um,

[1:37:57] councelor Lewin. >> Yes, that sounds excellent. Um, I have

[1:38:01] the perfect road for you to demonstrate on. [laughter]

[1:38:06] » Goes down off the railroad tracks through the Musk Egg and up the hill.

[1:38:10] And then there's a T intersection where lots of times the greater operators be

[1:38:14] playing on their cell phone. I'm not making that up.

[1:38:19] » So, I don't know who's running the boat, but some days it's not running very

[1:38:23] fast. >> Thank you.

[1:38:25] » Thank you. But I do have that road. No, I'm serious. And I'd like to see a

[1:38:28] demonstration by creators >> on that road. Absolutely.

[1:38:33] » Thank you, council. That one. >> I just I there's so many little things

[1:38:38] that go into that. And that's where I would like to show you guys how how hard

[1:38:45] it is because even going down a hill, when when our front tires of our grater

[1:38:49] come up the hill, it lifts our blade up. And why is there always washboard right

[1:38:53] at the base of every hill, right? And then as we come over the hill, the front

[1:38:57] tires drop down and then we carry our gravel off. Why is the hills bald?

[1:39:04] » Right? There's so many things. That's where I'm I'm the art of blading a road.

[1:39:10] We think just put the blade down and go. There's so many things that go into it

[1:39:14] to make what we all want is a hard smooth road. It's it's an arc blading a

[1:39:21] road and um I would love to have you guys out just to see it for sure.

[1:39:26] » Okay. Um Councilman McCauley, >> I just want to say Mr. Thank you for

[1:39:31] everything you've explained. I I'm not a road guy, but I definitely understand

[1:39:35] the maintenance of it a lot better and I definitely would look forward to a demo.

[1:39:40] » Thank you, Councilman Holly. Deputy Ree, go ahead.

[1:39:44] » Thanks, Ree. Yeah, I'll uh second that sentiment.

[1:39:48] Thank you, Mr. Rude. Your expertise is much appreciated. I just do have one

[1:39:54] quick question just regarding something that Mr. Lesley said. You said that when

[1:39:58] graders request to go out and grade that you you want them to go drive that road.

[1:40:04] But would it not be typical for a greater operator to be directed when to

[1:40:08] grade? Like they should not nor should they ever be grading at their request.

[1:40:14] We have a business that's being run that is paid by the hour and we are allowing

[1:40:20] them to determine when and when they do not operate.

[1:40:24] I think that that's a critical thing that needs to be changed.

[1:40:29] » Yeah, I I I think maybe there's a misunderstanding there. So, when they

[1:40:35] are out grading, um, of course there's always going to be

[1:40:40] something needs to be done on their beat any given day, but I don't want them to

[1:40:45] just start on a piece of road and start blading it without knowing what that

[1:40:51] piece of road looks like. So, if they drive that section of road with their

[1:40:56] graater before they blade it, then they know whether it needs anything or not.

[1:41:01] There's there's no other way to know how they would know if it needs blading. And

[1:41:06] I can't drive, 1900 kilometers of gravel road every day to let them guys know

[1:41:11] what needs to be to be done. Um I I think it's a pretty standard

[1:41:20] practice, >> right? But it's just that the way that

[1:41:22] you worded that, you said they want to go grade a section,

[1:41:28] » right? So when when they're when they're requesting to grade a section of road

[1:41:33] » and that that request should come from administration and same with gravel. You

[1:41:38] mentioned when they request gravel well the graveling should come from our

[1:41:42] experts not from the operators, >> right? Those those decisions shouldn't

[1:41:46] be being made by operators. So they'll put in a request for gravel.

[1:41:53] I will always go out and check that road before it gets graveled. I

[1:41:58] Typically, [snorts] um

[1:42:02] I think a greater operator once he's been on his feet for amount of time

[1:42:08] comes up with a pretty good idea what roads he has that do need a little bit

[1:42:12] of gravel put on them and they also get to the point where they know which roads

[1:42:19] need a little more maintenance and other ones just you know to do with traffic or

[1:42:23] that they just end up that way. you know, uh, that 54 road south of Highway

[1:42:27] 11, we know is a higher maintenance road than others because it's a a collector

[1:42:32] road and it sees a lot of traffic. So, of course, that road would need more

[1:42:36] maintenance than another one. And that greater operator, if he's doing his job,

[1:42:41] should know that. Um, I shouldn't have to tell him to do

[1:42:46] that. In my opinion, that's that's how I

[1:42:52] operate. I mean, I do I put a lot of miles on

[1:42:56] um doing my job and if if I do see a road

[1:43:01] that's, you know, obviously needing some

[1:43:04] maintenance and in my opinion is is seen a lack of maintenance, I will get a hold

[1:43:09] of them and say, "Hey, you know, you need to you need to give this road a

[1:43:12] little more attention or you know, I think it needs more than maybe these

[1:43:16] other roads that you've been working on." But it's a process, but uh they

[1:43:21] should learn their beat and know what needs to

[1:43:24] be done, >> right? And I couldn't agree more, but as

[1:43:28] Mr. Rude indicated, overg grading and overgraing is a huge

[1:43:33] part of our problem. [clears throat] >> So when a person is running a business

[1:43:38] and their business is to put more hours on their piece of equipment,

[1:43:43] then naturally overgrading is going to occur.

[1:43:48] So, >> I am trying to mitigate that. Again,

[1:43:52] » would that I guess for Mr. Rude, would that be typical in in other counties for

[1:43:56] beat operators to decide? I mean, where I'm from in the land of gravel roads and

[1:44:02] no highways, it never once would an operator decide when they should go

[1:44:07] grading. >> It's we have to start building that

[1:44:10] trust up with it with the operators. Doesn't matter if it's a contractor or a

[1:44:16] um an employee operator. They when just like you said, when you're in that area,

[1:44:23] you you know where your soft spots are, your more traveled roads are. You learn

[1:44:27] them as you go along and with guidance of management. Okay, this road usually

[1:44:32] busier that hit this one once a week. You don't have to hit this one for two

[1:44:36] weeks, whatever. But as they get more comfy with their roads, they should

[1:44:40] know, you know, which is their their arterial roads, their main roads or

[1:44:44] collector roads. And then when they're out driving is how our goal should be is

[1:44:51] they hit if they're if we have washboard, you you hit that, but you

[1:44:55] don't hit the majority of that two-mile range road because then we create all

[1:45:00] that dust. But you want to get ahead of our washboard. So, we just touch up our

[1:45:03] intersections and that comes from them driving it and then seeing because

[1:45:08] exactly if if I don't know as a greater operator

[1:45:12] what this road is, I see it nice and packed down. Why would I want to blade

[1:45:15] that first? I I would like to rip down it first to see that it's good. Then,

[1:45:21] oh, the washboard at the other end is bad. So, I'll hit that 100 mters or

[1:45:25] whatever and then carry on to the next road. And then springtime, we should be

[1:45:30] blading constantly to get our roads, hold them where we are, hold them in

[1:45:35] shape, and then as the summer progresses, Exactly. going back just to

[1:45:39] to spot grade um where I need it. But I don't know, maybe there was a bail haul

[1:45:46] coming out that half a mile up the road. I don't know that until I drive it,

[1:45:50] right? But I don't have to touch this piece. I could just touch that to

[1:45:54] mitigate the dust. So they the trust has to be with them too. Um and that's part

[1:45:59] of building the team is trusting them a bit knowing that they're going to be

[1:46:05] doing the washboards, they're going to be doing other stuff, but just like you

[1:46:09] said, knowing the residents are going to see them the blade up in the air. Okay.

[1:46:14] I I don't know how else to stop the dust unless I drive that road. If I just put

[1:46:20] the blade down and go, I'm going to I know I'm going to have dust. So without

[1:46:24] them driving it first and then focusing on our intersections where our washboard

[1:46:29] is, our hills um to get ahead of of the dust.

[1:46:35] » Thank you for that, Mr. Rude. There's still a uh looks like there's still some

[1:46:38] significant amount of discussion on this item, but this time we're going to take

[1:46:41] a 10-minute recess and we'll be back at

[2:00:15] Good morning everybody. Welcome back to our September 8th, 2026 regular council

[2:00:20] meeting after a short recess. And we'll continue on with the agenda item for

[2:00:25] item 5.2. Council Surmac, do you have comments or

[2:00:29] questions? >> Yes, Mr. RDE. Um, I've been listening to

[2:00:33] you talking and stuff and you say that now we're using a different blade on our

[2:00:38] roads and it seems to be helping. I've been in the oil patch over 50 years

[2:00:46] and every problem that I've come to there's always a root cause for it. Do

[2:00:51] you have some root causes that is causing this problem?

[2:00:57] » Can you explain please? The number one reason uh that our roads are soft is

[2:01:05] how our blade placement has always been. So we we go back to you running a grater

[2:01:11] years ago. I got taught we've all been taught to roll a mboard ahead and that

[2:01:18] is the worst thing we can be doing to our gravel roads to our oil to anything

[2:01:23] in the oil patch. Same thing when we're building a road. We we've always rolled

[2:01:27] [snorts] that mboard ahead. And what that does is that rips our base open.

[2:01:33] And now if it rains tonight, the water is allowed to go down. And then if we

[2:01:37] have a good claybased road, it softens our clay up. And now we have a soft spot

[2:01:42] in our roads. And now we fight with that soft spot, never recognizing the true

[2:01:47] root cause of our problems on our roads. And it's the mboard placement running

[2:01:54] different blades, the Sanvic blades in the summer. Um soft steel blades with a

[2:02:00] rolled head. And how how this has all come about is um back in the day we

[2:02:06] always had to run soft steel blades. So, as the blade wears out, one, we get a

[2:02:11] crown in our blades, which is awful to our roads, but two is it forces us to

[2:02:16] roll the mboard ahead or we'll be on the back of the blade on our frog and then

[2:02:21] that'll wear the bolt holes out and then we're in big trouble for that. So, we

[2:02:26] have always been taught and the biggest thing is I want to see my cutting edge.

[2:02:30] So, I roll the mboard ahead till I see it. not understanding

[2:02:35] what that is doing to our roads. And then it goes back. We we argue about

[2:02:40] gravel. We argue about everything else, but we've never addressed the true root

[2:02:46] cause is is our moleboard placement. And given uh the the operators a chance to

[2:02:53] succeed by all of us learning these little things, but they're actually big

[2:02:58] big things. And and I call it the 1980 way. how we've all learned and how how

[2:03:04] every resident out there is is a better operator than than than the operators

[2:03:11] because we've they drive the roads every day and they've never been in a greater.

[2:03:16] Um it it it even goes back to tires. The the the Bridgestone makes a tire, but

[2:03:25] they don't run a grater. So it goes back they say you run 50 pounds of air in the

[2:03:30] tires. Well, now our mechanics have Okay, they should know. Well, no, they

[2:03:35] don't know. They make the tire. They don't run the grater. So, they mandate

[2:03:40] that their operators run 50 lbs of air in the tires. That creates the bounce.

[2:03:46] Now, we have this slight bounce in our roads. And now, because the operator has

[2:03:50] been so browbeat to hurry up and get around, get around, get around that he's

[2:03:55] trying to go a little faster, which creates more washboard. So instead of

[2:03:59] tweaking the tires and and putting the tires in the right spot, now we can go

[2:04:05] in fourth gear and blade at 16700, which is a 10-minute mile. So now we all know

[2:04:12] it takes 10 minutes a mile to blade a road. One pass on one mile is 10

[2:04:17] minutes. To do four passes is 40 minutes. to do a five pass to bigger,

[2:04:23] wider road, which it goes back to our conversation. Every road's bladed the

[2:04:27] same except the width. Is there four passes or is there five? Now, we all

[2:04:32] know, okay, our service level. We can actually gauge our service [snorts]

[2:04:37] level now on how we're blading the rules. So, there's so much that goes

[2:04:42] into it and but the root cause in my opinion is is the mole board's been

[2:04:47] rolled ahead and we fought with that back in the day was pit run. So, we

[2:04:51] brought pit run out to fix that soft spot. Well, now we know we're all up

[2:04:55] against the pit run. We're we're hitting pit run and every road because 50 years

[2:05:00] ago that was the answer. >> And now it's we're finding out

[2:05:05] » it was a soft base all these years and the answer was more gravel. And now

[2:05:13] we're getting, you know, the influx of traffic and people building right off

[2:05:17] the roads. Now we have the dust issue. Why why is there so much dust?

[2:05:23] So, it's it's pretty cool. >> Okay. So, one more.

[2:05:27] » Go ahead, Council Ser. >> Um, then you're saying that if you're

[2:05:31] grading a road, you shouldn't have a water truck coming right after the

[2:05:34] grading because that would soften your your main state road, your base of your

[2:05:40] road. >> Well, the one

[2:05:43] » of doing that for sure. So what you do is is we try and and minimize where the

[2:05:50] gravel is going on our roads to to have a proper road. We got to think of a

[2:05:57] piece of pavement. So the pavement is higher than our grass.

[2:06:03] » That's what we want every road to be for drainage.

[2:06:07] That lets us, the operator, go down halfway down on that on that oil to cut

[2:06:13] the crown into our base. And then the gravel, we can tight blade our gravel,

[2:06:19] leaving a/4 in of gravel on the center of the road. And then we can build our

[2:06:23] shoulders back up again so we have something to cut the next time we're

[2:06:27] there. And that's what gets our roads hard from shoulder to shoulder. By

[2:06:32] putting the gravel instead of in the middle where we get dust, where we get

[2:06:37] ridging, we tight blade it and we start building our shoulders up. So it

[2:06:42] minimizes [snorts] the the dust on on the center of the driving surface. And

[2:06:47] then you'll find the traffic without even knowing it, the school buses will

[2:06:52] start driving the full width of our roads. you'll see four tracks down the

[2:06:58] the road instead of two. So, you know you've got your road in shape. It's

[2:07:03] safe. It's smooth. That 16-year-old kid that just got his driver's license can

[2:07:07] go down that road at 80k. That's our goal.

[2:07:12] But what stops us is our shoulders. Now, I think we've gotten our bases I know

[2:07:18] we've gotten our bases way harder than what they used to be there. Is there

[2:07:21] still work to do? 100%. But it's minimizing. Now, what this system does

[2:07:27] for us is it minimizes instead of having to rebuild two miles of road, maybe we

[2:07:33] only got to build up that through that musk spot because the the operators

[2:07:38] getting the the mile and 3/4 better. So, the the the savings is huge if if we

[2:07:45] know, you know, now we don't have to spend all that money on two miles. It's

[2:07:49] just a half a mile. Now we can do five different roads for the same price as

[2:07:54] doing two. There's so many different options now that we can utilize.

[2:08:00] » Yeah. And and I noticed on the roads that I drive on, and I drive on quite a

[2:08:05] few gravel roads, you'll see a road fairly nice and narrow, and then you'll

[2:08:10] come to a place where the road's really squashed out. It's gained a couple feet

[2:08:15] on each side. >> Yeah. Is that because our base is not

[2:08:19] good or have we mismanaged that gravel road?

[2:08:23] » There's quite a few different scenarios on that. One is we've been told that we

[2:08:29] as the operators to go out there and pull that gravel in, pull that grass in.

[2:08:35] So that automatically makes our road wider.

[2:08:40] Two, the road goes down. It's still soft. So the road is going pushed down

[2:08:44] and the operator goes wider to try and bring it in. Anytime that blade touches

[2:08:49] that grass, the driving Publix thinks that that's the road. So then [snorts]

[2:08:54] the then the road just gets wider and wider and wider. We don't know how to

[2:08:58] stop. The system shows everybody how to stop that by

[2:09:05] putting your right tire where you want your shoulder to be and then you bring

[2:09:09] the grass in and let let the grass stay there. Then that straightens out your

[2:09:14] shoulders safe smooth. There's a there's a lot to it for sure.

[2:09:21] » Yeah. And the root cause is >> no board rolled too far ahead.

[2:09:25] » Yeah. Thank you. >> There could be actually many root

[2:09:27] causes. there was no discussion about dust and anyways there's uh many aspects

[2:09:32] to this but what we'll do is we'll just move on with this agenda item I do

[2:09:36] believe that there's a lot more discussion to take place on this but uh

[2:09:38] moving on to the application of herbicides along roadsides edges and uh

[2:09:41] I'd like to invite director Van Newkerk to [snorts] present this item please the

[2:09:46] floor is yours >> thank you Ree good morning council um as

[2:09:51] part of the the motion from July 28th and discussion that occurred there there

[2:09:55] was a request to bring back um you know, information on the application of

[2:09:59] herbicides along the roadside edges. Um, I just want to start with was everything

[2:10:04] captured in um this section of the agenda that was um council was looking

[2:10:09] for in regard to herbicide applications on the road edges to help with road

[2:10:15] maintenance from Thank you for that, Director Nukeer. A lot of the

[2:10:19] information is uh taking the time to reach out to other municipalities to

[2:10:22] bring their their views and their consideration and the

[2:10:26] [clears throat and cough] the approaches that other municipalities

[2:10:28] have taken. I think it's uh very appropriate um for the information. So

[2:10:32] thank you for that. But please proceed or if uh yeah

[2:10:36] » yeah I can go through [clears throat] the agenda item for sure. Um, so egg

[2:10:39] services did reach out to our counterparts and counties across the

[2:10:42] province to receive feedback on programs. They oversee for total

[2:10:46] vegetation and control along road edges and shoulders to reduce vegetation

[2:10:50] encroachment onto the roadway. And as um you can see attached the chart that we

[2:10:55] compiled all the information uh from the municipalities um on the feedback we

[2:11:00] received there. In summary, the responses um did not support a single

[2:11:03] universal approach. Uh several municipalities reported that a targeted

[2:11:07] shoulder spraying program can reduce grass roll back, make the road edge

[2:11:11] easier for graders to reclaim and reduce sod clumps and help to restore the

[2:11:15] usable road surface. Other municipalities found that glyphosate

[2:11:19] only applications provided insufficient or short-lived control and required

[2:11:24] repeat applications or just did not justify the added labor, fuel, and

[2:11:28] equipment costs. The best reported outcomes occurred when treatment was

[2:11:32] applied to specific road problems and or sorry problem roads and the application

[2:11:37] equipment produced a controlled narrow band and graders actively rec reclaimed

[2:11:41] the treated edge. Um so the cost analysis that we put together for the

[2:11:46] shoulder spraying um you can see below. So this analysis estimates the direct

[2:11:52] cost of spraying 1 kilometer of road shoulder using treatment bands of 3 ft

[2:11:56] wide. It compares residual total vegetation control with Arsenal power

[2:12:00] line to folure control using Bayer RT540 glyphosate tank mixed with new farm 240

[2:12:07] Esther 700. Um and in the chart there you can see we did a bit of a cost

[2:12:13] comparison. So on average using the residual product of Arsenal power line

[2:12:18] um the cost is about 29 km per hour or sorry $29 per kilometer for a 3ft um

[2:12:26] wide pass and that's just for the herbicide. And then with the tank mix of

[2:12:32] the the Roundup glyphosate product with the new farm 24D um it comes to about

[2:12:37] 650 per kilometer for the herbicide for a three-foot white pass. And then an

[2:12:44] additional $10 per kilometer could be added onto for um to account for the

[2:12:49] truck and operator and the spraying unit.

[2:12:53] A treated shoulder kilometer means one shoulder, so one kilometer long.

[2:12:58] Treating both shoulders would approximately um double the direct

[2:13:01] treatment cost associated. And equipment setup cost is um about three $3,500. And

[2:13:08] items would include the tank, pump, spray controller, nozzles, fittings,

[2:13:11] etc. um to set up a unit for this type of

[2:13:15] application.

[2:13:18] And that's all I have on that. Okay. The uh floor's open for council for

[2:13:26] questions regarding the application of herbicide along roadside edges.

[2:13:31] I do have a question, Miss Newerk. For the there was the [clears throat] costs

[2:13:35] identified. Is there um some municipalities really reported uh useful

[2:13:40] and were supportive of application of herbicides along roadside edges to um

[2:13:45] reduce you know they had low [clears throat] chemical cost they had

[2:13:48] saw break up easier there was less greater time uh there was fewer sod

[2:13:53] clumps and less dust after rain is there any comparison for the cost

[2:13:59] like with the reduced greater time like there's there's expenses the costs have

[2:14:03] been presented but are there any cost savings things.

[2:14:07] » We didn't do that analysis from our end. Um this was just basically from the egg

[2:14:13] services side, what it would cost for us to the application um type thing. Um it

[2:14:19] wasn't kind of extrapolating that into if there's cost savings on overall road

[2:14:24] maintenance. >> Okay. I think those numbers could be

[2:14:27] useful. Uh Mr. Rude, go ahead, please. Um, first I would like to just say

[2:14:33] why do we feel we need to spray our shoulders?

[2:14:38] Uh, I have this conversation with every municipality. It's a it's a slippery

[2:14:43] slope. Um, when we start spraying our shoulders,

[2:14:49] one, it kills our grassroots and then that weakens our shoulders.

[2:14:56] then that opens the doors for residual noxious weeds to come in. Um there's

[2:15:02] counties farther south and east that have a massive kosha problem now because

[2:15:07] we've sprayed the 2t 3 ft of our shoulders. Um I would I would ask

[2:15:14] number one question is where is our shoulder on our road?

[2:15:20] Nobody nobody here knows. I don't know. We don't know where our shoulder of our

[2:15:25] road is. So we and neither do the greater guys. We look at the grass line.

[2:15:30] That's the first thing we all look at. And there, well, that must be our

[2:15:33] shoulder. How do we know? We don't know.

[2:15:38] That's why the graders have always been told to go wider to get rid of the lip.

[2:15:44] So, we're in the grass. That's why the graders want to spray to get rid of our

[2:15:48] grass on our shoulder. >> [clears throat]

[2:15:51] » Where is our shoulder? If we spray three feet, we've just made that road a meter

[2:15:55] wider on both sides. At what cost? We still have a lip there.

[2:16:02] Now we're into our shoulder of our road, which is top soil, and it's soft. Now

[2:16:08] the combine drives down there and puts a rut this deep in it. Now we go out

[2:16:13] farther to minimize that. Now the road turns into 10 m wide. So we we don't

[2:16:20] know where to stop. So just a caution on spraying shoulders. Um what what we need

[2:16:27] to do is go back to thinking about our pavement. The the base of the road needs

[2:16:32] to be higher than our grass. That's that's what we're after to get

[2:16:37] the the drainage to get everything we want out of our gravel roads. It to

[2:16:43] spray over here does not affect here. It just makes our service level go down

[2:16:48] because now there's more passes. Now it's more gravel. It's everything

[2:16:52] compounds because we're chasing what we think is a shoulder and we don't even

[2:16:57] know where our shoulders are. Uh I've had this conversation with engineers and

[2:17:02] it goes back to the width of our roads. What is the spec of our roads? Well,

[2:17:06] everyone's different. We there's we have three different

[2:17:11] categories. a 5 to 6 m a 6 to 7 or sorry 6 to 8 m wide road and the eight pens

[2:17:18] that's our three different widths of our roads but where is our shoulder I have

[2:17:24] this conversation constantly with people and we go look [clears throat] and the

[2:17:27] first thing we look at is our grass line that's our shoulder how do you know we

[2:17:34] don't thank you for the comments Mr. route. I

[2:17:37] think there still again there's misunderstanding or miscommunication of

[2:17:41] some form here, but uh if I may, why why would you spray three feet? That was

[2:17:47] identified by County Paint Earth in the agenda item here. But why would you just

[2:17:51] generally spray 3 feet? Why would you do that? Or

[2:17:56] or could that be maybe on some roads some roads may not need it at all but

[2:18:02] some roads may only need maybe a foot or and the cost efficiencies or is there

[2:18:08] any there's no cost comparisons to manage the vegetation with the greater

[2:18:12] blade in the greater time. I I've actually was just on a road yesterday um

[2:18:17] in the northern portion of the county. The vegetation is so thick on the side

[2:18:20] of the road. If you were to grade that into the road,

[2:18:24] you'd have saw clumps. But the road now is actually lower than the grass.

[2:18:30] So to to make a blank statement that it's just three feet and urge caution

[2:18:35] against that that you have many different tools in the toolbox, you

[2:18:38] don't use the same tool. Like if you're a carpenter, you don't use the same

[2:18:40] hammer for every job. But are we saying that the gravel road maintenance in

[2:18:46] Clear Water County is poor? I think in many ways it's actually really good. But

[2:18:49] what we're trying to do is improve this the the quality of the roads on

[2:18:54] behalf of the residents. So if we can make some minor adjustments to improve

[2:18:58] the quality of the roads and reduce some dust and have [clears throat] better

[2:19:01] efficiencies, I think that's the intent here. But to say that we wouldn't just

[2:19:05] spray the roads with >> three feet.

[2:19:09] That's the like the three feet of your element. It doesn't matter if we're

[2:19:12] spraying a foot or if we're spraying three feet. Who who who decides that?

[2:19:17] And then each road, you got to go back to why are we spraying it in the first

[2:19:22] place? What is our goal to spray that? Is it to get rid of a curb?

[2:19:29] Is it to kill the grass? What what are we what are we spraying for? That's what

[2:19:35] we got to address right now. What's the op what is the goal of spraying? I don't

[2:19:40] if it's this much or this much, but what is our goal? Why are we doing that?

[2:19:44] » I would ask one question. Do grers does vegetation impact grers when on gravel

[2:19:51] roads? >> For sure. If you're way out in in the

[2:19:54] buting is not killing >> the the lip.

[2:19:58] » It's not it's not getting rid of your lip. That's what we need to address is

[2:20:01] the lip. It's not the grass that's on top of the lip. It's the lip that brings

[2:20:05] in the sod. That's the difference. There's two different things there on

[2:20:08] the shoulders. So, if we're out and that's the system teaches you go down to

[2:20:13] the green on on your right side, you don't go into the saw. And if there's a

[2:20:18] lip there, you don't go in to the lip. What we all tell everybody is to go out

[2:20:22] there and pull that lip in to get rid of the curb. And that's why, okay, we'll

[2:20:27] spray that. That's still not fixing the problem. We're We still have a lip

[2:20:31] there. That's the issue. Not the grass that's growing on top of it. It's the

[2:20:36] lip. So now by pulling that in, we're getting all these sod lumps. So that's

[2:20:41] why we want to spray is to minimize our sod.

[2:20:45] That's it's still saw and it's still at mixing into our gravel. The next time it

[2:20:51] rains, maybe there's a bunch of clay in there. Now it gets greasy. That's the

[2:20:55] issues we need to to address. And for for to spray an inch or two inches or

[2:21:02] three feet, that's irrelevant on what we're doing. That's where the discer

[2:21:05] would come in. If I don't kill my grassroot, my grass is going to come

[2:21:10] right back. That's what we want. But we need our

[2:21:14] shoulder of our road so it drains. That's the issue. And it's it's the

[2:21:21] spraying. And you you talk here, you're not wrong about people spraying because

[2:21:27] it comes from the greater guys. It comes from everybody. Well, if we spray that,

[2:21:30] we'll get rid of it. We're not looking at the right spots.

[2:21:35] What is our goal? What do you want? If there's a lip there, spraying's not

[2:21:39] going to fix a lip. We still have to pull it in.

[2:21:43] » Just be pulling in saws and grass and vegetar. And then you what you just said

[2:21:47] before, yes, we don't want to be out there at all. We don't want to touch

[2:21:52] that. Why are we pulling all that material into our road? Road building

[2:21:57] 101. If we're building a brand new road, we would get fired if we put sod on the

[2:22:03] road. But now to fix our gravel roads, we spray and we do shoulder post. We

[2:22:09] pull all that garbage from the ditch into our roads

[2:22:13] and think we've done a good job. Now we've got layers of sod and clay and

[2:22:18] garbage on our roads and then we cover it up with gravel and then we we

[2:22:23] complain to the greater guy when the road is soft.

[2:22:27] H why that stuff should not be on our road. It should be on our shoulders and

[2:22:33] then it goes back to our shoulders. A one one most of our gravel roads are

[2:22:38] straight up and down now. So we can use that material to start building our road

[2:22:43] slope a 2:1 3 one to make them safer. Maybe some of the farmers can even start

[2:22:48] cutting them again. Maybe. But that's where we got to address. Leave that

[2:22:53] material on the shoulder. Don't pull it in like the 1980 way, but that's every

[2:22:58] county is doing that. Oh, that to get rid of the lip, we pull do a shoulder

[2:23:02] pull. We have a million-dollar program every year. We pull shoulders. It's in

[2:23:06] our back pocket if we need it for sure, but not every road. And it's not the

[2:23:11] only out. There's options to minimize ad mixing our material

[2:23:18] and leaving that stuff on the shoulder. That's the key. I don't think anybody

[2:23:22] was wanting to pull top soil or clay up onto a perfectly good gravel road. Then

[2:23:28] then the top soil was maybe when the road was built, it was brought maybe too

[2:23:32] close to the gravel surface. But >> the uh you know some some residents

[2:23:36] would not want the use of herbicides or application of herbicides on roads.

[2:23:41] » But if you have a gravel pad, vegetation will grow on gravel. There's

[2:23:46] there's no top soil, there's no clays, you can have gravel, but vegetation. So,

[2:23:50] it's more about the maintenance or the the management of vegetation. Even if

[2:23:54] you have gravel on the side of your road, you'll still have vegetation grow

[2:23:58] there. But a gravel pad's different than a gravel road. And we're and we're we're

[2:24:03] looking at the shoulder of that road, not the middle of the road. We're not

[2:24:07] spraying the middle because no grass grows there.

[2:24:09] » Excellent. Good point. Yeah. No, that's right. I think we'd all agree there's no

[2:24:12] generally there's no grass. >> We have to be cautious on why are we

[2:24:15] spraying our shoulders? What do we gain from that, guys? What do we What do we

[2:24:19] want? >> Okay, I think we're going to move on.

[2:24:21] Thank you very much for the comments. Councelor Le, please go ahead.

[2:24:23] » Yeah. So, how do you get rid of your lip then?

[2:24:25] » So, that's the lip is what catches the water.

[2:24:28] » And you explained this earlier and that you want to go in with your carbide

[2:24:32] blades and blade that shoulder up and compact that clay.

[2:24:38] » Yep. How do we do this? >> So, number one, like I said earlier, is

[2:24:42] getting the water from the center of the road to the shoulder. And we've done

[2:24:46] that >> crown for that. the crown 100%. Then now

[2:24:49] we got two ways to get rid of the water from our shoulder.

[2:24:53] » One, we can put a diversion ditch in >> just all it is is it's breaking that

[2:24:59] grassroot. It's not killing it and it's just using the mboard and you just go

[2:25:03] down and that's it to get the water off through that lip. Now the residents

[2:25:09] don't see water pooling. The road still dries faster. We can be blading. it's

[2:25:14] not hurting our road because the water is going into our ditch. The second step

[2:25:20] is is with a discer and and using our road crew too, but it's our discers that

[2:25:27] disc that lip down without killing the grassroots. That's the difference. And

[2:25:35] and then you get rid of that lip and then you don't go back out there. You

[2:25:39] let the grass come back in and you straighten out your shoulder

[2:25:43] » and you create another lip and that's the greater operators cut to the edge of

[2:25:47] the grass >> and there's places the shoulders that

[2:25:49] far away and places the shoulders that far away depending on the road like you

[2:25:53] say. >> 100%.

[2:25:53] » Yeah. So we just repeat ourselves. >> Yep. Well, we we have but now this is

[2:25:58] what the training is doing. And what what the greater guys and this is one

[2:26:03] thing that I need you guys to understand is how easy it is to put a lip in the

[2:26:08] road. Even though we've never been in a grater, we jump in a grater. I will

[2:26:12] guarantee you would put a lip in that rope. They're everywhere,

[2:26:14] » right? But that's how easy it is. So, and it comes from cut, cut, cut, cut. I

[2:26:20] need to cut the washboard out. I need to cut the holes out. We're not cutting

[2:26:24] anymore with these carbide blades. We're rubbing, which doesn't make sense until

[2:26:28] you see it, but it's it's everything we're doing is way lighter now than what

[2:26:34] we used to do because of the mboard rolled back. It's totally goes against

[2:26:40] everything we've been told and thought we knew. And now by by stopping that

[2:26:46] curbing, the discer will will disc that down to garden material

[2:26:53] » so it's easy to move. So we eliminate our saw. Then we lay it on our on our

[2:26:58] shoulder to get our road slope back. And then don't cut so hard the next time.

[2:27:04] » We'll have to do a lot of brushing before we can do that procedure. Then

[2:27:07] » there you go. >> Yeah.

[2:27:08] » 100%. >> Deputy Raven. Okay. Go ahead.

[2:27:13] [clears throat and cough] >> Thanks, Re. Um, just quickly, I'm sure

[2:27:16] I'm not the only one that hears this, but there's already a lot of residents

[2:27:20] concerns come forward regarding county ditch spraying as it is. And I'm not

[2:27:24] sure that it would be very well received if uh members of the community found out

[2:27:30] that we were planning on using glyphosate alongside all the roads. Um,

[2:27:36] this should maybe be a a last resort option and as Mr. Rude has indicated,

[2:27:41] I'm just not sure it's necessary. Thank you. Um on that item there's uh yeah as

[2:27:48] a tool though for vegetation management uh maybe director Van Newkerk would be

[2:27:52] able to offer some for if there was a 1ft path spray what rates of glyophate

[2:27:57] would be applied and uh for how how much glyphe would potentially be on a 1ft

[2:28:03] path be applied to one kilometer of road.

[2:28:11] [clears throat]

[2:28:17] for Yeah, I'd have to do the math here. I'm not good at doing that right on the

[2:28:21] spot here, but I can figure it out if you want and I can get back to you on

[2:28:24] that. >> Sure,

[2:28:27] councelor Humphrey. >> So, just for clarification,

[2:28:32] we don't spray our shoulders right now, do we?

[2:28:38] for no broadleaf control potentially if I'm not mistaken.

[2:28:42] » Yes. So, we spray our roadsides for noxious weeds and brush control. Um but

[2:28:48] we don't do a total vegetation control option um application on our roadsides.

[2:28:53] » Yeah. So, we're not just going out there and spraying shoulders.

[2:28:56] » No, not for total veget like not for killing everything type of thing. Only

[2:29:00] broadleaf weeds or brush. >> Yeah. But we're not just going along

[2:29:04] spraying be it one foot or three foot down the shoulder of our road. We're not

[2:29:08] doing that. >> No.

[2:29:10] » No. That's why I just wanted clarification on that. That we're not

[2:29:12] doing that. This was just put out that, hey, what do other counties do? Some of

[2:29:18] them do. >> That's right. Just based on the

[2:29:20] discussion that happened at the July 28th meeting, it was requested to bring

[2:29:24] back information on what that could look like.

[2:29:26] » Yeah. But we don't currently do it. So, I just wanted clarification on that cuz

[2:29:31] it doesn't seem like a good idea. in and we're getting the information now that

[2:29:35] that we need that root base from the grass to hold our shoulders together.

[2:29:41] So, uh I mean even if even though it's been

[2:29:46] said if you kill it, the roots are still there, but eventually they would rot

[2:29:50] away. So, uh we don't want to do that because it would just enhance our

[2:29:54] problem from what I'm gathering. So, yep. No, [clears throat] thanks for the

[2:29:59] clarification.

[2:30:02] Deputy Eve, go ahead. >> Thanks. And just to quickly expand on

[2:30:06] something else Mr. Root said with regards to the current slope of our

[2:30:11] ditches, of our shoulders, there is a lot of resident concern that it is in

[2:30:15] fact sometimes a danger, especially with farm equipment. So, anything that we can

[2:30:19] do to improve that and mitigate future you like even you meet somebody even

[2:30:25] with a hay bind and you need to go into the ditch while you're knife is in the

[2:30:30] gravel and and that's uh definitely a concern from a lot of residents. So

[2:30:37] if we can mitigate that all the better >> and it's everywhere the roads like that

[2:30:43] and it comes from the roads over the years have been pushed down and then it

[2:30:48] goes out and then we pull in and then you've got that straight up and down

[2:30:53] shoulder. >> Yeah. A lot of this is from roads that

[2:30:58] were reconstructed to

[2:31:02] » to a steeper pitch on the shoulders >> and that's the other one too 100%.

[2:31:05] » So it kind of >> was a problem that

[2:31:08] » we accidentally created >> as an aside on that too and Mr.

[2:31:14] mentioned that discers, they are a front mounted discer that goes on the front of

[2:31:18] the grater. So, it would be another >> tool in our tool box to

[2:31:23] » to be able to deal with that as we're out there maintaining roads.

[2:31:28] » So, a disc if I may discer for discing >> just that the sod

[2:31:35] and then how many liters of diesel. So, we're talking about saw management

[2:31:38] again. I think there's still a misunderstanding here about vegetation

[2:31:41] on the sides of the roads. Um there's you know the amount of herbicide that

[2:31:47] would be used would be very very little but the amount of the hundreds of

[2:31:51] gallons of diesel fuel that you would use then for managing that sod like

[2:31:54] there's no comparisons in in this and it hasn't been identified. Um

[2:32:00] please go ahead. >> To me there's no comparison on having

[2:32:02] noxious weeds. Um when and then everybody sprain

[2:32:07] in general is frowned upon now and I go back to

[2:32:16] what what are we what is the goal of spray? We we don't gain anything

[2:32:22] » gaining if I may the discer >> we gain everything. you're you're

[2:32:25] managing you're managing sod and vegetation with the discer and you're

[2:32:29] using and consuming thousands potent potentially thousands of liters of

[2:32:33] diesel fuel and heavy equipment to manage sod. So I think there's needs to

[2:32:37] be a a correlation between the what's being trying to be presented here with

[2:32:42] the use of potentially herbicide application what would be quite

[2:32:45] minuscule versus the amount of equipment and fuel and to to manage that

[2:32:50] vegetation. And that would be a really good spot to to show on the road when

[2:32:55] we're out there to to see the difference of if we sprayed this compared to if we

[2:33:00] disced and and what we're what our goal is. It's both the same. We're trying to

[2:33:05] get drainage, but at what cost? And to do a shoulder pull, which is the normal

[2:33:13] option, which if after you spray, you will do a shoulder pull,

[2:33:18] right? So now you're spending 10 times more fuel than the district ever would

[2:33:24] do. So I think we need to see it on the road and then because we're both after

[2:33:29] the same thing. It's it's seeing it on the road and coming to the to the same

[2:33:35] conclusion. >> Council that one.

[2:33:38] » Yeah. Um how much shoulder rehabilitation's been done since you've

[2:33:43] been with us for the last 5 years? Don >> on in here?

[2:33:46] » Yeah. Uh guys are working at it. There's some diversion ditches. They've been

[2:33:50] working doing the diversion ditches. Everybody's been showing diversion

[2:33:53] ditches. >> Diversion ditches, but no shoulder poles

[2:33:55] yet. >> Um I don't believe there's a disc here,

[2:33:59] » but we have pulled in for sure. They have pulled in like in the low spots and

[2:34:02] stuff. They will pull to get the water off of the low spots. That's why you'll

[2:34:07] see some of the roads. It goes wider too. Every time you touch that grass to

[2:34:12] get rid of the lip, your road goes wider. And but it's it's water

[2:34:16] management trying to get that lip off to get the water off. So you'll see that

[2:34:22] usually, you know, at the bottom or or maybe even down halfway down a big hill

[2:34:26] or something, you'll see it goes way wider. It's because we've tried to get

[2:34:29] rid of that lip to get the water off. >> Thank you.

[2:34:34] » Yeah, Deputy Ree, go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh just so I understand this

[2:34:38] a little better, when you're talking about sod management using the

[2:34:42] mechanical disc, is that not while they're grading or is that a completely

[2:34:47] separate pass for that machine? >> That's two different things. So by

[2:34:51] having it on the grater, you utilize the blade of the grater and that's where we

[2:34:56] can start to narrow up our roads if we need to. If they're the 10 m wide and we

[2:35:00] want them back to to nine, then that'll help us build our road slope up too. our

[2:35:06] shoulder of our road to help uh stabilize our road shoulder. So you use

[2:35:11] the blade, you use the discer first to disc that lip and to break the saw up.

[2:35:17] Then you use the blade to put that saw wherever you want it on your road slope

[2:35:23] on your road shoulder. >> Okay. So it's not a single pass. It's

[2:35:27] it's a two pass. >> Yeah. It's two, three, four, or five

[2:35:29] depending on where your breakover point is on that shoulder of the road.

[2:35:34] » I've just I've seen guys doing it while they're also using the

[2:35:38] blade too. >> You can It's just there's a lot going on

[2:35:42] and that's it. [laughter] >> Takes an experienced operator for sure.

[2:35:48] » Yeah. >> So,

[2:35:49] » but it's better to disc because and that's where now looking and showing and

[2:35:53] training everybody on on there's a breakover point on every rope and that's

[2:35:59] what makes us want to spray, want to um do shoulder pulls is that breakover

[2:36:05] pitch. So, it's the hinge of where the road shoulder starts. It could be a

[2:36:11] meter out in the grass. It could be right there. But we look at that and

[2:36:16] say, "Well, that's the shoulder of our road." And it is not. But that's where

[2:36:20] recognizing that and learning that it's not our edge of our road. It's been

[2:36:25] squished down and pushed out over the years. And now we've got that football

[2:36:30] shape. And that's the hinge. So, we disc that hinge. and then we can we can move

[2:36:35] our material or our road in or whatever. It it's it's pretty cool to see that

[2:36:42] work. Thank you. This is a significant discussion today

[2:36:48] here uh regarding maintenance of gravel roads. Are there any comments or

[2:36:52] questions or does administration have any further information they'd like to

[2:36:55] provide?

[2:37:01] Um if we could uh Mr. Rude and Mr. Leslie will we'll bring forward if we

[2:37:09] could just a little bit of information behind the use of the wobblies.

[2:37:13] Okay. Um so the wobblies are probably it's a

[2:37:20] they're not doing what we expect them to do on our roads. Uh,

[2:37:24] a round tire does not pack gravel roads. Round tire is for paving. We can maybe

[2:37:32] use it for our calcium spots to seal it off a little bit, but it goes back to

[2:37:37] our moboard placement. Getting the base hard with our blade. Um, not our not a

[2:37:44] round tire. If if a round tire would pack our roads, then our cars and and

[2:37:52] our tractors would be packing them hard as a rock every time we drive down. And

[2:37:56] it doesn't. It It's It's It's breaking our base apart. So, we compensate by if

[2:38:03] we pack them, we can get them harder. And where using

[2:38:09] the water truck is on using, you know, on our intersections or some hills for

[2:38:14] sure. wet it down to minimize the dust so we

[2:38:18] can blade it to get it packed in and then leave that. That's our goal. But to

[2:38:23] have a packer running around on dry dry material or even wet material, it's it's

[2:38:29] just touching the surface of that gravel. It's not packing and it's not

[2:38:34] doing what it's does what we think it's doing. Plus, it's not a [snorts] CSA

[2:38:41] approved attachment for our graders. And I've had other counties where

[2:38:47] they've they've dynamited their brakes, a brand new grater, by having this

[2:38:52] 10,000lb attachment on the back. It it it's hurting our axles. It's hurting the

[2:38:59] tandemss on the grers. It's wearing that machine out way faster. So, a $700,000

[2:39:05] grater in two years as we're we're fixing it because of the attachments

[2:39:11] we're using on the back end of it. And then that packer being up it that grater

[2:39:16] is constantly bouncing constantly. And you you will see it and feel it in our

[2:39:21] roads. And then it it's it's not doing what we think it should be

[2:39:27] doing. I I call them fill. Put them in the bottom of a dugout.

[2:39:33] They don't need to be on our roads.

[2:39:39] » Director Magus. >> Nope.

[2:39:42] Is there any comments, questions regarding this item or is this matter

[2:39:46] resolved? Councelor Humphrey, go ahead. >> Yes.

[2:39:49] » I was just [clears throat] wondering how we would uh how do we go about going

[2:39:53] forward with this uh demonstration that was mentioned? I would like to see that

[2:39:58] happen. So the administration could how we go forward with that. CEO

[2:40:04] Simpson. [clears throat] >> Uh we will coordinate between Mr. RDE

[2:40:09] and members of council for a date and we will do that over email. Once we have

[2:40:15] consensus, we'll schedule it. That works for you. Mr. Thank you.

[2:40:19] » One question have it. Would uh admin like a motion uh to direct

[2:40:23] administration to arrange a demonstration?

[2:40:27] » Certainly. >> Okay. Councelor Humphrey, would you like

[2:40:30] to make a motion in that regard? >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion that we

[2:40:34] have administration set up with uh Mr. route for a demonstration for council.

[2:40:40] Okay. Before we get to that motion, officially

[2:40:44] placing it on the floor, I'll go to councelor Surmach.

[2:40:47] » Well, [clears throat] I have a question on wobbly is not on this motion.

[2:40:50] » Yeah, we don't have an official motion on the floor at this time, but please go

[2:40:53] ahead, councelor. >> Okay. Can you explain your wobblies now?

[2:40:57] I see a wobbly is a 12 or a 15 tire trailer that goes behind a tractor

[2:41:03] that's pulled down a road that's getting repaired. What kind of wobbler are you

[2:41:08] talking goes on the back of a grater? >> It's the same. It's the same. It's a

[2:41:13] [snorts] It's got two sets of tires on it. I don't know what it'd be 12 10 ft

[2:41:18] 12 ft long and it's just controlled by the ripper uh attachment on the grater.

[2:41:23] So, it just lifts up and lifts down. It's it's for paving is what it's used

[2:41:28] for. Like on on any paving job, you'll see a bunch of them. The box pavers or

[2:41:33] the box packers, it's the same scenario. It's just got two two sets of wheels on

[2:41:39] it and then it just lifts up and comes down.

[2:41:42] » Yeah. Cuz the other ones that the county used to use is you fill it with full of

[2:41:49] water to get the weight, right? >> And then it's towed behind the tractor.

[2:41:53] » Yeah. >> For shoulder poles and repacking roads

[2:41:56] and narrowing roads up from a five pass to a four pass.

[2:42:02] » Yeah. >> Yeah. And that's where the the

[2:42:04] difference between packers. Um, and I don't know why it's moved this way now,

[2:42:09] but for building roads, you need a sheepfoot packer. That's what drives the

[2:42:15] material in. And it's the ones that have the squares on them

[2:42:18] » on that buggy. >> Yeah. And then now we using steel drum

[2:42:22] or tires to pack gravel roads. And I don't know why that's happened, but you

[2:42:29] see it everywhere. It it it's they're good for sealing off the last little bit

[2:42:33] for paving for sure, but for building a road, you're not getting or getting a

[2:42:39] compaction, you're not getting it with a round tire. You can't. It's just not

[2:42:43] there. But we think because it looks nice after

[2:42:47] a pass. Oh jeez, that's fact. Well, you go and put your finger into the into

[2:42:51] that uh gravel and it's still just as loose an inch underneath it. So, it it

[2:42:57] hasn't done anything. It's our base. We need to focus on getting our base of

[2:43:02] that road hard and then the gravel is just the icing on the cake.

[2:43:08] » So, does that mean that we have to take the gravel off to one side and repack

[2:43:14] our road base and then put our gravel back?

[2:43:18] » 100%. That's what we're doing. Every time we blade the road with the

[2:43:22] moleboard roll back, we're driving that rock into our base. Every time we pick

[2:43:28] that gravel up into a wind row, we have drove some of that material into our

[2:43:33] base. Every time we blade it, we're doing that 100%.

[2:43:37] Yeah. And then we put the gravel back so we have something to blade the next

[2:43:41] time. >> And then the water can run through the

[2:43:43] grains and goes. Yeah. Where where we forget is

[2:43:50] uh like a two or three day gentle rain softens even the hardest road up a

[2:43:56] gravel road because it's it's you you get a hard piece of clay that you can't

[2:44:01] even touch and you put it in the water in 15 minutes it starts to soften up. So

[2:44:08] that's the worst kind of rains we can have for a gravel road, but it's the

[2:44:13] best rains we can have for our crops because it's going into our ground. But

[2:44:17] it it slowly starts to loosen our base up and then the heavier the traffic, the

[2:44:23] more it'll move. >> Yeah. It's it's you try and seal that

[2:44:28] base off as tight and hard as you can get it, but there's still things that

[2:44:31] make a gravel road loose, and that's a four day rain, a a 2 inch

[2:44:37] rain in 10 minutes. That's where it saves it because we get rid of our

[2:44:41] curbs. The water hits our base, takes off, gone, nothing happens.

[2:44:46] » Yeah, >> counselor

[2:44:49] » that go ahead. >> Yeah. And u just for administration and

[2:44:53] yourself, rude. Um I do have a road picked out for you guys. So

[2:44:59] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[2:45:01] » Thank you, councelor Levin. Um, so officially we'll have a motion on the

[2:45:05] floor from councelor Humphrey to direct administration to arrange a

[2:45:09] uh demonstration with Don Rude and presentation to council as a

[2:45:15] demonstration. Is there any more clarification on that

[2:45:18] motion? Seeing none, I'll call question. All those in favor?

[2:45:23] Motion [snorts] has passed. Is there any more discussion on this

[2:45:26] item? I feel that there's still um Director Ben Kirk, please go ahead.

[2:45:31] » Oh. Um you'd would you still like the number for the cost of a one foot pass

[2:45:36] for >> the minimum recommended rates from uh

[2:45:39] for glyate if that's available for at minimum recommended rates for total

[2:45:44] control >> for sure. So we had done a tank mix of

[2:45:47] 240 and glyphosate just as that was the feedback from other municipalities that

[2:45:51] that was the most effective for a non-residual product. Um and it was

[2:45:55] around $11 per kilometer for a one foot pass and that was for both sides. um of

[2:46:01] the road of a kilometer of road. >> Okay. And was there a rate included on

[2:46:06] how much glycape per acre or is there any kind of

[2:46:09] » I don't have that on me but we would use a recommended rate that is effective um

[2:46:16] for that purpose. >> So $11 for the herbicide per kilometer

[2:46:22] » for both sides. >> Yep.

[2:46:23] » Okay. I feel that there's still more discussion to be had on road

[2:46:27] maintenance. So I'd hate to make the motion to accept it for information. I

[2:46:30] believe that this item could be postponed to a future regular council

[2:46:32] meeting and uh there may be additional information that comes out of after the

[2:46:36] demonstration with Mr. RDE. That's my thoughts on this agenda item

[2:46:40] here today. But uh Deputy Eve, go ahead. >> Just quickly, would I just want to

[2:46:46] clarify was that just for chemical or is that including operator and

[2:46:50] » Sorry, that includes operator. >> Okay.

[2:46:52] » Y thank you. >> Yeah.

[2:46:57] » Okay. I'll move that if there's no further discussion, I'll move that this

[2:47:00] uh agenda item be postponed to a feature council meeting.

[2:47:07] Deputy Eve, go ahead. >> Sorry, Ree. Is there maybe uh a more

[2:47:12] detailed motion that we need to make? Just

[2:47:17] I still feel like the uh the use of the water truck

[2:47:22] in problem areas like we I think we've still kind of missed the the mark on

[2:47:27] that. Is there more detailed motion that could

[2:47:31] be made for more of a cost analysis for savings on that?

[2:47:35] » Absolutely. I totally agree. I think that there is a more direct motion that

[2:47:38] could be brought forward. I was just thinking that uh after the presentation

[2:47:42] for Mr. rude in the field to give a a presentation or a demonstration to

[2:47:47] council. There may be an opportunity to have a very uh much more accurate motion

[2:47:53] reflecting what council's desires on behalf of the community and the

[2:47:57] residents to bring forward. So that's my intention is to just postpone this item,

[2:48:01] have that presentation, council can have a discussion and bring forward a a uh

[2:48:06] properly worded motion to direct administration if that's okay. So, I've

[2:48:11] placed a motion [clears throat] on the floor to postpone this agenda item until

[2:48:15] a to a future regular council meeting. With that being said, I see no further

[2:48:19] discussion. I'll call the question. All those in favor,

[2:48:22] that motion is supported by council. Thank you again for the time on behalf

[2:48:26] for from administration and Mr. RDE. Uh, please go ahead if you have a final

[2:48:30] comment or remark. >> I would just like to thank you guys for

[2:48:33] for letting me come and speak today. Um, I'm very passionate about this because

[2:48:39] we're all in the same boat and my goal at the end of the day is is all of us

[2:48:45] learning um more about our roads and then we can start defending what we're

[2:48:51] doing to the residents. And the ultimate goal is to start educating the residents

[2:48:58] on how we maintain our roads. And that's never been done before because

[2:49:04] everybody's done it their own way and we've all kind of sat there and went,

[2:49:08] "Hm, how do we maintain this?" So, by by you guys coming out and and and baby

[2:49:13] stepping, just learning what's what's happening on the roads, I I thank you

[2:49:18] very much for that. Um it's it's a step in the right direction to build that

[2:49:25] team. Um and us everybody learning. Uh there's no there's no ego. It's it's

[2:49:32] it's just we've all been told and taught different ways over the years and I'm

[2:49:36] just trying to bring that system together where we all support each other

[2:49:40] and and we can onwards and upwards the sky's the limit. So thank you for having

[2:49:46] me today. I appreciate that. >> We appreciate your time. Thank you very

[2:49:49] much. Moving on in our agenda and seems we have uh the directors in place in

[2:49:55] council chambers, could we move into item 7.1.1

[2:49:59] um if that would uh be appropriate with administration at

[2:50:03] this time. It uh it's item 7.1.1 is regarding the Caroline four-way stop. It

[2:50:09] is on page 84 of today's agenda and Mr. Ho, the floor is yours.

[2:50:12] » Thank you. Uh good morning again, council. So re NorCa requested a

[2:50:17] four-way stop intersection in Caroline be added to the council's agenda and can

[2:50:21] provide further context and comments regarding this item. Uh administration

[2:50:26] will just give a quick background introduction here and leave it vivid for

[2:50:30] council's discussion. So the original inquiry stems from concerns regarding

[2:50:35] noise generated by heavy haul trucks during acceleration and the use of

[2:50:39] engine brakes as well as the traffic congestion at this intersection.

[2:50:44] » [gasps] >> The intersection of concerns is at 50

[2:50:49] street and high 54 as shown in the attached image.

[2:50:53] Traffic count data for this intersection is available on AT's website and has

[2:50:58] been attached for the reference. The data includes annual average daily

[2:51:02] traffic, average summer daily traffic as well as morning and afternoon's

[2:51:08] highest hour traffic estimates. administration compared the annual

[2:51:13] average daily traffic data for the intersection between year 2012 and year

[2:51:19] 2025 to identify traffic trends and the results are summarized in the table in

[2:51:24] the agenda item. Administration also contacted the

[2:51:28] Alberta transportation e and economic economic corridor staff to inquiry

[2:51:34] whether there any previous traffic studies or analysis at this

[2:51:39] intersection. The TCA staff has circulated the inquiry back to the Red

[2:51:44] Dear office to identify any historic information. However, to date, there's

[2:51:49] no relevant information have been located so far. With that, I'll open the

[2:51:55] floor to council for any disc discussion or direction to administration.

[2:52:00] » Thank you, Mr. H, for the information and presenting that to council.

[2:52:03] Councelor McCauley, go ahead. Just so I'm just reading this. It looks like

[2:52:07] 2012. Like it's a I haven't read read a traffic map before. So looking at this

[2:52:11] initially I was like this looks like a crazy puzzle. I am lost. But just it it

[2:52:16] looks like traffic counts are somewhat similar between the two. Like it's if

[2:52:20] anything even the 2012 counts depending on what direction are higher than the

[2:52:24] 2025 counts. Um

[2:52:29] it's yeah interesting. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on this

[2:52:35] item?

[2:52:39] » Um, councelor Le, go ahead. >> Okay. And, um, just in case I missed

[2:52:45] something along the way, which wouldn't be the first time, you requested the

[2:52:48] four-way stop again. For what reason? >> Okay. I'll give a little bit background.

[2:52:52] Um, often in the hamlet of Caroline, it's actually I recognize that it's the

[2:52:57] only hamlet that has a four-way stop in the middle of it, Lesleyville. you get

[2:53:00] to drive right through at a reduced speed to 30 km an hour.

[2:53:03] » Many of our other hamlets have no stop signs. Another community just to the

[2:53:07] east, Spruce View, has no stop sign through there. Um, what I've observed

[2:53:12] though as well, the speed limit is 50 km an hour on Main Street. So, when

[2:53:16] community members or visitors to community park on the side of Main

[2:53:19] Street, uh, they are often passed with vehicles doing 50 km an hour, um, does

[2:53:25] create some concern when you open your door and you have a vehicle go by you at

[2:53:27] 50. um the amount of dust when the vehicles come in. There's a lot of

[2:53:32] industry traffic, logging trucks, tank trucks. When they stop at that stop

[2:53:35] sign, there's often Jake brakes, engine noise [clears throat] from them

[2:53:39] stopping, creates a significant amount of traffic backlog, dust, and then they

[2:53:44] all have to accelerate again. So again, creates that additional engine noise for

[2:53:49] the community and the residents and the hamlet of Caroline. So what I've asked

[2:53:53] is to have this brought forward just to really that uh direct administration to

[2:53:57] write a letter to request a review as that is a provincial intersection. Um

[2:54:02] just to have a review and the potential impacts of what that may look like with

[2:54:05] a two-way stop and reducing the speed limit to 30 km an hour whether the you

[2:54:09] know the good, the bad, and the otherwise what that might look like. So

[2:54:12] that's the intention of having this brought forward here today in the agenda

[2:54:15] is for the to better serve the residents of Clearwater County. Um even for

[2:54:21] pedestrians uh there are pedestrian crosswalks but again the speed limit is

[2:54:25] 50 km an hour. So >> if there's any more question

[2:54:30] » No thank you. Yeah I I can see where you're saying now that's a huge safety

[2:54:34] issue and yeah absolutely no sounds good. Thank you.

[2:54:38] » And uh historically there was no four-way stop there. I believe that's

[2:54:41] four-way stop has been in place for roughly 20 years, but at one point in

[2:54:44] time it was a two-way stop. You could drive straight through Caroline, but um

[2:54:48] there was circumstances, I believe, that happened to get a four-way stop there.

[2:54:52] But at this point in time, I'm just requesting a review to see if there's a

[2:54:55] better alternative than having a four-way stop. And maybe that is still

[2:54:57] currently the best alternative or option for the community. So, with that all

[2:55:03] said, I'll move that council direct administration to request a review of

[2:55:07] the four-way stop and care from the Alberta Transportation Economic

[2:55:11] Corridors Department from with the province of Alberta.

[2:55:18] Council Mr. Director Magnus, go ahead. Um would you like to would you like us

[2:55:25] to um in the letter itself uh maybe provide some suggestions to them to in

[2:55:32] terms of what we would like to see in in uh in regards to that four-way stop?

[2:55:38] Maybe like specifically can we go back to a two-way? Can we ask for engine

[2:55:43] retarder brakes and and minimize the speed to 30 kil kilometers an hour?

[2:55:47] » You know, thank you very much for the suggestion. uh Director Magnus if it was

[2:55:51] what that could potentially look like if the speed limit was reduced to 30 km an

[2:55:54] hour or a two-way stop and speed indicators on each side of the hamlet

[2:55:57] that would show people coming into the community of Caroline that they are uh I

[2:56:01] find that those are fairly um there are visual signal to traffic

[2:56:08] coming in when they're flashing. So if there was maybe speed indicators on each

[2:56:13] side of the helmet >> and the reason as that I know we were

[2:56:16] very successful at the highway 22 and 54 and and we specifically asked for

[2:56:22] certain things and at your direction council at the day and we were

[2:56:26] successful at that time too. So I'm just thinking if we maybe just poke the bear

[2:56:33] a little bit in terms of providing [snorts] them with some suggestions.

[2:56:37] » Excellent. Thank you. Your memory serves very well. That was a few years ago. It

[2:56:39] took I think it was, if I recall, it was about 8 months to get that intersection

[2:56:43] to get a flashing lights. >> Got the flashing lights and the uh

[2:56:46] rumble strips. >> Yes.

[2:56:47] » Yep. For that intersection. >> So maybe at this time what I'll take

[2:56:51] we'll uh we could table this item. I'll draft an appropriate motion for

[2:56:56] consideration later on in the um I I'll withdraw the motion that I proposed.

[2:57:02] I'll take uh I propose that we table this item. I don't have the draft

[2:57:07] wording appropriate at this point in time for that motion. As you've

[2:57:11] indicated, Mr. Magnus, with that, all the key points that should be in that

[2:57:14] motion to the province. So, I'll move that we table item 7.1.1 until later in

[2:57:20] today's agenda. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the

[2:57:24] question. All those in favor of tableabling this item. Motion is

[2:57:27] supported by councel.

[2:57:32] At this time, I think we're going to take a 5m minute recess and we'll be

[2:57:35] back at 11:45.

[3:08:52] Welcome back everybody to the Clearwater County Regular Council meeting for

[3:08:55] September 8th, 2026. We're going to go back in our agenda to

[3:09:00] item uh 6.1 under bylaws. It is first reading of bylaw number 26104

[3:09:05] for application number 20/26 to amend the land use bylaw is on page

[3:09:09] 29 of the agenda. And I'd like to invite Mr. Bisson to present this item to

[3:09:13] council. >> Thank you uh Reeve. Good morning,

[3:09:16] council. Uh Darlene McMillan along with uh Chad and Jasmine Thompson hold titled

[3:09:22] to the Southeast 8397 containing 161 acres. Uh the subject land is located

[3:09:28] approximately 3 km southwest of the town of Rocky Mountainhouse. The land owners

[3:09:33] have made application to redesate uh 8.91 acres of the subject property from

[3:09:39] the agriculture district to the industrial district. If approved, the uh

[3:09:43] total amount of land that would be designated industrial uh within the

[3:09:48] quarter would increase to 13.91 acres as 5 acres was previously redesated by

[3:09:55] council in 2005. Uh the proposed 8.91 acres to be

[3:10:00] redesated is in the uh northeast corner of the quarter section. The majority of

[3:10:05] the land to be redesated is cleared flat uh land containing uh a gravel access

[3:10:11] and parking lot. Uh the area to be redesated also contains an industrial

[3:10:16] building and a coverall building. Uh the western portion of the uh of the subject

[3:10:21] lands uh to be redesated appear to be used for outdoor storage. Uh the

[3:10:27] application came about uh when it was realized that the business had been

[3:10:31] operating without development approval and uh it was determined that not all of

[3:10:36] the property was designated appropriately. It is the uh current uh

[3:10:40] current land owner's intent to redesate the rest of the land that the business

[3:10:45] is operating on to the appropriate land use district. Uh the original 5 acres

[3:10:50] was uh redesated in 2005 to allow for the operation of a plumbing and uh gas

[3:10:56] business to operate from the property. Should the redesation be successful,

[3:11:01] medium industrial operations are listed as permitted uses while heavy industrial

[3:11:06] and outdoor storage is listed as discretionary within that district. The

[3:11:11] balance of the quarter section is mainly flat cleared farmland. Uh the land is

[3:11:16] heavily treated along the uh north, east, and south property boundaries.

[3:11:21] There appears to be some lower uh wetland in the southern portion of the

[3:11:25] quarter and a creek does flow through the quarter section creating a natural

[3:11:29] divide between the east and west portions of the quarter. There's a

[3:11:33] farmard uh including a residence and farm structures located in the east

[3:11:37] central portion of the quarter. A second residential yard site including

[3:11:41] residence is located in the northwest corner of the quarter. And there is some

[3:11:46] oil and gas facilities located in the southwest corner of the quarter. Access

[3:11:50] is available to this quarter section by a county maintained which uh uh goes

[3:11:56] into the quarter approximately uh a third of the way uh up the quarter

[3:12:01] section along the east side and that is Range Road 7-4.

[3:12:05] surrounding land uses are mainly agricultural with a few residential

[3:12:09] parcels. If there are no uh uh questions about the policies that are before you

[3:12:15] council's not looking for any uh additional information, I'll skip right

[3:12:19] to uh policy considerations. >> Yes, please, Mr. Ren.

[3:12:23] » Okay. Uh the proposed redesignation request would result in a total of 13.91

[3:12:28] acres of the quarter being designated industrial. This would allow for the

[3:12:33] legalization of the existing operation that is uh uh already and continues uh

[3:12:38] to expand its business within our community which aligns with the MDP. Uh

[3:12:43] the area to be redesated does impact approximately 3 acres of agricultural

[3:12:48] land that is currently and will continue to be used uh uh will continue to be

[3:12:54] grazed by the landowner horses. The MDP outlines providing for a variety of

[3:12:59] locations for industrial uses within our county. And at this time, the applicants

[3:13:04] are not proposing any changes to the existing parcel boundaries, nor have

[3:13:09] they applied to subdivide the proposed redesated lands. And access is available

[3:13:14] off a uh maintain county road. So it is uh administration's uh recommendation

[3:13:20] that council consider granting first reading to bylaw 26-104

[3:13:25] and proceed to a public hearing. Thank you.

[3:13:28] » Yeah, thank you Mr. Bon for that presentation to council. Are there any

[3:13:31] questions? Uh I do see a couple uh council that one. Go ahead, please.

[3:13:36] » Um with this uh addition of the 8 whatever acres there would the two

[3:13:44] [clears throat] subdivisions be combined into one large one?

[3:13:47] or two separate ones. >> So it there there is no subdivision

[3:13:51] currently there. The five acres that's outlined in yellow is is what's

[3:13:55] currently just designated industrial. It is not separate title.

[3:13:58] » Oh, so this is this is the designation of industrial.

[3:14:01] » Yeah, we're just expanding the design. >> Thank you.

[3:14:04] » Thank you for the clarity. >> Deputy Reef. Go ahead.

[3:14:09] » Thank you. Uh Mr. Benson just uh with regards to this last paragraph here you

[3:14:13] say that there was there is 3 acres of agricultural land within this proposal

[3:14:19] uh what was the remainder of the land that is also part of this proposal the

[3:14:23] other five acres out of this eight would it not have been agricultural land as

[3:14:27] well? Uh yes, absolutely. It's agricultural land. Uh my point on on it

[3:14:33] was just simply that it's uh it's being used specifically for grazing. Um and

[3:14:39] within that 5 acres, uh some of it's heavily treated as well. Uh which isn't

[3:14:44] necessarily grazed. It was just the point I was trying to make on that.

[3:14:49] » I see. to follow that up. Um,

[3:14:55] is a small or medium size trucking business

[3:15:03] does it need to be industrial use or is there not another commercial

[3:15:09] rated district that it could become? you know, certainly uh within the industrial

[3:15:15] district, we felt that uh the it would be best uh uh best to be redesated to

[3:15:20] industrial. Uh there are certainly some options within the egg district that

[3:15:25] this could fit under as a use. Um however, being that there was 5 acres of

[3:15:30] the quarter already zoned industrial, we felt that it uh it would make the most

[3:15:35] sense to uh to redesate the additional eight to to combine the rest of that

[3:15:40] business operation. on industrial lands. >> And the only reason I ask uh Mr. Bisson

[3:15:46] is that on an industrial property, we could have anything from

[3:15:53] a cannabis production facility to a casino to an automotive test track. Like

[3:16:00] the there really is no restrictions when we reszone these properties

[3:16:05] industrial and I'm just not sure if that's the appropriate designation.

[3:16:09] » Okay. Thank you, Deputy Ree. I think you're looking at my Are you looking at

[3:16:13] my notes again? [laughter] >> Yeah. No, that's okay. Just in alignment

[3:16:18] and thinking, I believe. Um, councelor Powell, go ahead.

[3:16:23] » Um, so I do have a couple quick questions. First off, do we know um when

[3:16:26] these land owners >> purchased this quarter section?

[3:16:31] » Did they have it prior to 2005 when it was zoned industrial or did they

[3:16:36] purchase it after? I believe they this land after um the business operation for

[3:16:42] the uh current oil field service business started in 2014 uh according to

[3:16:47] the applicants. >> Okay. So it was already zoned when they

[3:16:50] purchased it. Correct. >> That's correct.

[3:16:53] » So maybe director Mazak can help me with this and the right verb I need to use.

[3:17:00] In a situation like this, does it have to be industrial? Because

[3:17:05] when I look underneath the egg and discretionary use, there is the few

[3:17:10] different ones that it could have been. Um, we could have done. What about the

[3:17:14] farm? I think it's farm subsidiary. Does that not fall underneath this? Like

[3:17:20] could this have not just gone straight underneath that instead of opening up in

[3:17:24] a like more different zoning in different areas? I

[3:17:29] mean to lessen the impacts on Eggland and to keep this really simple for the

[3:17:33] business owners who I did get to speak with on the phone and they just want to

[3:17:36] do whatever is best and easiest um for this procedure um do you have any advice

[3:17:43] or direction that you could give >> uh through the reef uh to council

[3:17:52] you have an existing uh designated land as industrial and when we were looking

[3:17:58] at different alternative land uses. Um, this encompasses the uses that they're

[3:18:04] currently proposing or actually using the site for

[3:18:10] to redesate the industrial to another use

[3:18:15] as well as this parcel to a different use.

[3:18:19] um can be accommodated under the existing

[3:18:23] industrial land use zoning.

[3:18:29] When you get to the public hearing, what council has at their discretion without

[3:18:35] having to revertise for anything, council can make motions to remove the

[3:18:42] other discretionary uses or permitted uses as they choose to customize that

[3:18:49] industrial use specific to that site. And so that was the approach. We're

[3:18:57] trying to be able to be flexible and accommodate. We're not introducing a new

[3:19:01] land use here and to change it from industrial to others. Um, this is a more

[3:19:07] of a housekeeping issue.

[3:19:14] If we're to um change the land use, we would have to

[3:19:19] revertise uh for a few more weeks to under the new

[3:19:24] land use district. Whereas if you take an existing land use

[3:19:29] and you eliminate uses, you do not have to revertise because you're making it

[3:19:35] more restrictive.

[3:19:45] One question, Mr. MAC for the existing

[3:19:50] industrial parcel and the mention of a farm subsidiary business.

[3:19:56] Um, would that five acres that's designated industrial be able to be

[3:20:01] zoned back to agricultural or or appropriate residential like with

[3:20:07] the designation not being industrial but then have that ability to be able to use

[3:20:14] that farm subsidiary business.

[3:20:20] » Mr. this on >> I I mean absolutely you could uh

[3:20:25] designate the the five acres back to to agriculture.

[3:20:30] Um I I believe you would have to technically go through a public hearing

[3:20:34] to do that uh as well. So similar to to the process that we're following now.

[3:20:41] » Yeah. Yeah, it would just be instead of creating industrial parcels, still have

[3:20:44] the egg zoning, but with the ability for the

[3:20:48] operator to still continue with the under farm subsidiary business.

[3:20:52] » Yeah. I'm not sure how the the landowner would feel about that. We didn't bring

[3:20:56] in the land owner today uh ju just simply because we for timing purposes we

[3:21:01] weren't sure what time they would uh they would be able to uh to get on the

[3:21:05] agenda but uh uh it is something uh we can certainly speak to her about as far

[3:21:10] as she made the application to go to to industrial

[3:21:15] if >> No, thank you very much. If if

[3:21:17] administration or Miss Rristen if you could explain

[3:21:21] just for the viewing public end for council if if it's if a property is

[3:21:25] reszone to industrial then you have your permitted uses then you have your list

[3:21:28] of discretionary uses. So there will be a public hearing for the to go from the

[3:21:33] current zoning to industrial. >> That's correct.

[3:21:36] » What about the process when the applicant wants to apply for a

[3:21:39] discretionary use under that zoning? What's that process and does it entail a

[3:21:43] public hearing? >> Sure. So, when it comes to a

[3:21:46] discretionary use uh listed in the uh industrial district, um someone could

[3:21:52] apply, whoever owns this this property could apply for one of those

[3:21:55] discretionary uses. Uh the administration would then uh send out a

[3:22:01] referral letter to adjacent land owners notifying them of what the proposed uh

[3:22:07] application is, what that use is going to be in the future. So, for instance,

[3:22:12] if they they wanted to uh do an automotive test tractor or cannabis

[3:22:15] production facility, uh adjacent land owners would be notified. They'd have 14

[3:22:20] days to uh to to submit comments [clears throat] to administration who

[3:22:25] would present those uh those comments to the mun municipal planning commission at

[3:22:31] uh at the next upcoming planning commission meeting.

[3:22:36] » Okay. So for the application to apply for discretionary use then there would

[3:22:41] be no public hearing for the community as a whole.

[3:22:44] » That is correct. >> And and and um [clears throat]

[3:22:49] with the under discretionary uses for industrial areas like deputy rea

[3:22:54] mentioned there's automotive test track cannabis production facilities casinos

[3:22:59] data processing centers funeral homes. So then there's no public

[3:23:05] hearing. So you're having a public hearing based on the application of the

[3:23:09] business of the day, but under discretionary uses, you could

[3:23:14] alter that with only really having the adjacent land owners notified, but not

[3:23:17] the community as a whole. >> Right. However, um land owners would be

[3:23:22] notified depending on the decision of the municipal planning commission if

[3:23:26] they uh if they approved uh the discretionary use. It would be adver ad

[3:23:30] advertised in in local newspapers. Again, it would uh it would be up to the

[3:23:35] public to to watch for those approvals. Um, and they would have the uh the right

[3:23:41] to appeal uh said development approval um at that point if they felt that they

[3:23:47] were impacted, >> but there would be uh the decision

[3:23:52] wouldn't be on would not come back to council through the municipal planning

[3:23:57] commission. Director Mesa, please go ahead.

[3:23:59] » Yeah, through the Reeve. Um provided the industrial land use is

[3:24:05] approved, the application would be submitted for a

[3:24:09] development permit uh for a discretionary use that would go to MPC.

[3:24:17] It would be advertised. It would be circulated to the adjacent land owners.

[3:24:23] The opportunity for the public in that circulation of adjacent land owners is

[3:24:30] available through that circulation process through the development permit.

[3:24:36] MPC has the ability to either approve it or not approve it.

[3:24:42] But before it gets there, what you what I was mentioning before is when you take

[3:24:48] an industrial use and you eliminate some of the uses,

[3:24:54] those uses, it would become an a DC industrial site

[3:25:00] where you have restricted the uses so that if you approved it as a DC

[3:25:07] industrial site, eliminating some of those uses, It's

[3:25:12] still an industrial site, but they don't have the opportunity to come in with an

[3:25:17] application for a racetrack. They don't have the

[3:25:22] no with with it being eliminated as discretionary or permitted at at

[3:25:27] council's decision making at the public hearing on

[3:25:31] the land use for industrial. It basically eliminates those

[3:25:37] applications of ever coming forward to MPC.

[3:25:41] If you leave them on and you approve just a general industrial land

[3:25:46] [clears throat] use zoning, then any application can come forward

[3:25:52] with those permitted and discretionary uses uh to MPC.

[3:25:59] Thank you very much for that, Mr. Mayac. My my my thoughts are not to to limit

[3:26:04] any business, you know, or ventures of community members that may have a desire

[3:26:09] to to have what it is, but my thoughts are to be able to have if you're having

[3:26:12] a public hearing on based on today's business that's being presented for the

[3:26:16] reasonzoning it that it's often the municipal planning commission doesn't

[3:26:21] have the p it's not in the public eye as much as as council as we're here live

[3:26:25] streamed and recorded today. Municipal planning commission meetings are not.

[3:26:29] But uh so to have the my thoughts are to be to give the community and the

[3:26:35] residents opportunity to be able to have that ability to be able to provide

[3:26:39] supportive comments to a proposal in the future or their concerns of a

[3:26:44] development in the future where what I'm seeing here is when it's reszoned the

[3:26:48] discretionary uses are authorized by the municipal planning commission. So any

[3:26:53] this is really good discussion and thank you very much for administration for the

[3:26:56] understanding of council deputy grief. Go ahead.

[3:27:00] » Thanks R and thank you Mr. MAC. Um I I do understand the approach you're

[3:27:05] taking. Appreciate it. However, just to expand on what the Reeve was saying for

[3:27:09] the for the public viewing it it is a real problem within municipal

[3:27:16] governance. the fact that the MPC does not include

[3:27:20] council as a whole. So everyone believes that these decisions are being made by

[3:27:26] council through MPC. That's not true. So there's some of us that are not

[3:27:34] considered at all in those decisions and they do affect the entire community. So

[3:27:39] I think that's sort of the the point here is just to

[3:27:43] if we can avoid that then we're representing the entire community

[3:27:53] » at the municipal planning commission. So after first reading this will be sent

[3:27:56] out to if if it was supported by council sent out to referral agencies which

[3:28:00] would include the municipal planning commission and the municipal planning

[3:28:03] commission consists of three members of council which is councelor Humphrey,

[3:28:07] myself, councelor Powell and two members of the public

[3:28:12] and then that referral will be sent to council for consideration. But yes, all

[3:28:16] of council or five members of council, some members of council do not get to do

[3:28:21] that site visit to uh physically see the application in the

[3:28:28] field. Having said that, councelor Powell, go ahead.

[3:28:32] » I just have one more question for director. Do you see any what would be

[3:28:36] the negative impacts if you put this all back to egg and ran it as a farm sub

[3:28:43] business just under that designation? What would be

[3:28:50] » uh through the reef to revert the the back to agg um the challenges would be

[3:28:58] even greater for the applicant to continue to utilize the site the way

[3:29:04] they're have been using the site. Then we would have the issue of well how do

[3:29:10] you make this site work based on the proposed and existing operations. they

[3:29:16] would not be able to achieve that under the agricultural land use zone

[3:29:22] and

[3:29:25] right now the the flexibility of the industrial

[3:29:31] district and I'm just want to reiterate until the land use is approved in any

[3:29:39] shape or form whether it's industrial industrial DC minus all these permitted

[3:29:44] and discretionary uses is that would give council the the the authority to

[3:29:51] regulate what actually happens on the site. Ultimately, MPC would just be

[3:29:57] restricted to allowing or reviewing applications that meet with council's

[3:30:04] direction in the DC bylaw or DC industrial land use.

[3:30:12] Um it's it's kind of like You have a whole bunch of different uses

[3:30:18] that you could have on the site and you go casino, no [laughter]

[3:30:24] racetrack, no. Any cannabis? No. And that

[3:30:30] land use district would just identify the limited scope and uses. The

[3:30:37] fundamental difference between a DC uh industrial and an industrial is

[3:30:43] the provisions that you put into your bylaw.

[3:30:48] Um whether you make it more restrictive, but making it more restrictive,

[3:30:53] they can appeal it. So there's no right of an appeal based on the use

[3:31:02] which is very powerful from the perspective of don't expect anything

[3:31:06] else other than what you allow under the the direct control industrial.

[3:31:12] It's the same use. It's just council gives direction

[3:31:17] uh and a motion to say we're going to strike these permitted and discretionary

[3:31:20] uses. Um hopefully that helps. answer that

[3:31:26] question. >> Excellent discussion. I do know that

[3:31:29] there's been many land use amendments that have taken place in the past, but

[3:31:33] uh to have that explained that clearly and for the viewing public to understand

[3:31:38] that the discretionary uses and the impacts that they can potentially have.

[3:31:43] Councelor Pal, >> thank you for explaining that to me. I

[3:31:46] did get a chance to speak with the applicants and I know that they would

[3:31:48] just like the most um efficient and easy um application as possible. They're a

[3:31:54] wellrespected business in the community and have been for a long time and I know

[3:31:59] they'd like to continue.

[3:32:05] Okay. Thank you for that councelor P. Is there any further discussion? If not or

[3:32:09] does administration Mr. Pon do you have any additional information on this item?

[3:32:13] We'd be looking for a motion for consideration of first reading on this

[3:32:16] item.

[3:32:21] Council sack, go ahead. >> I will make that motion that council

[3:32:25] consider granting first reading for by line number 26104

[3:32:30] and proceed to a public hearing. >> Okay. Thank you for the motion council

[3:32:34] surmac. Um we do have uh officially place a motion on the floor from

[3:32:39] councelor Serach that council consider council grant first reading to bylaw

[3:32:43] number 26104 and proceed to a public hearing. That is a motion on the floor.

[3:32:47] Seeing no discussion council surach do you have any further comments? Nope.

[3:32:50] Seeing no further discussion I'll call the question. All those in favor and

[3:32:54] that motion is supported by council. At this point in time we're going to take a

[3:32:58] recess until uh we'll return approximately at uh 12:45.

[4:14:50] Welcome back from our recess uh to the regular council meeting for

[4:14:54] September 8th, 2026. Moving into bylaws, item 6.2.

[4:15:02] And we are joined here today by our chief and our deputy chief. And uh at

[4:15:05] this point in time, I'll pass it floor over to you to present uh this item

[4:15:10] provide any additional information for councils.

[4:15:14] » Good afternoon, Reven Council. Um good to see everyone again. I know we had uh

[4:15:18] some good discussion on this item uh before council at previous council

[4:15:22] meetings. Uh we're back today for uh third reading of bylaw

[4:15:27] um 26102 fire rescue services bylaw. at uh first

[4:15:33] and second reading on uh our July or August 25th council meeting. Um we did

[4:15:38] find uh one error in the bylaw that was uh amended uh before council today and

[4:15:44] that was a change to the uh nonfire season dates of November 1st to April

[4:15:49] 30th to read November 1st to February 28th or 29th. Uh so that uh change has

[4:15:55] been made and is attached in the redline text um of the bylaw you see here today.

[4:16:00] Uh resuming discussions from first and second reading. Uh options in front of

[4:16:04] council today are uh to direct uh administration for further amendments.

[4:16:09] Uh and staff recommendation would be that council reviews bylaw 26102

[4:16:14] fire rescue services bylaw complete with amendments and grants third reading. Um

[4:16:19] just to open the floor up to council and discussion. Uh Chief Emerick is back

[4:16:22] from a much needed vacation. So he's here to provide me with some help uh

[4:16:27] speaking to council. Um we had lots of discussion about uh fire pits and

[4:16:32] fireworks permitting at our last meeting. So I did do some uh quick uh

[4:16:39] research over last week and and this weekend basically on the environment

[4:16:45] around fireworks in Canada essentially. Um, so since the adoption of the

[4:16:50] National Fire Code 2019 Alberta edition, so since 2019, there's been an increased

[4:16:55] responsibility placed on local authorities to regulate and control the

[4:16:57] use of consumer fireworks in their jurisdictions. Uh, with the Federal

[4:17:01] Explosives Act continues to govern the classification, manufacture, sale, and

[4:17:04] distribution of fireworks. Municipalities are expected to determine

[4:17:08] when, where, and under what conditions they may be locally used. So, just some

[4:17:12] some information for councils. The the National Explosives Act was never

[4:17:15] intended to permit or not permit the use of fireworks. It is a large act that

[4:17:20] deals with everything explosives in Canada is predominantly uh designed to

[4:17:25] govern the manufacturer, sale and distribution. A lot of crossber what

[4:17:28] what is allowed to be in Canada? How is it allowed to be stored and utilized

[4:17:32] essentially um our review of the current regulatory environment became apparent

[4:17:36] that Clearwater County has a gap in its ability to safely authorize and regulate

[4:17:39] the use of fireworks. Without a local bylaw and permit process, the county has

[4:17:43] limited ability to establish fire safety conditions, manage risks during periods

[4:17:47] of elevated fire danger, or provide clear direction to residents who wish to

[4:17:50] use fireworks responsibly. Um,

[4:17:54] the proposed bylaw is to create consistency between Clearwater County

[4:17:58] and the Rocky Forest area or the forest protection area of Alberta. Uh,

[4:18:02] residents often live and work and recreate throughout the region. Uh, they

[4:18:05] don't necessarily spend all of their time on one side of the border or the

[4:18:08] other. Uh, some of our folks do live on one side, some of our folks live outside

[4:18:12] the FBA. We're intending to reduce confusion around permitting

[4:18:16] requirements, fireband restrictions, and safe use of fireworks regardless of

[4:18:19] where the residents are located within our service area. The proposed bot is

[4:18:23] not intended to promote increased fireworks use. Rather, it provides

[4:18:26] Clearwater County a clear regulatory framework that will allow the county to

[4:18:29] establish permit requirements and safe conditions for fireworks display,

[4:18:33] restrict and prohibit fireworks during fire bands and periods of elevated risk.

[4:18:37] Uh that one's an important one because technically today when we put a fire ban

[4:18:41] on that's not related to fireworks. Uh because we don't have a fire uh we don't

[4:18:46] have a a system to allow their use. We don't have a system to restrict their

[4:18:50] use. Um provide clear enforcement and comp compliance and mechanisms and

[4:18:54] improve public safety and reduce the risk of wildfires and property damage.

[4:18:58] So again, we did speak about this at the last council meeting, but it's not just

[4:19:01] about wildfire risk when it comes to fireworks specifically in the FBA today.

[4:19:06] Unless someone has written permission from a forest officer, it illegal to

[4:19:09] discharge fireworks in the FBA without that written permission from a forest

[4:19:13] officer. It is not granted very often and not many people seek that

[4:19:16] permission. Um [snorts] but as it stands today, there is no

[4:19:20] ability for us to restrict their use at all uh outside the forest protection

[4:19:25] area. Uh it is not our intention to restrict their use beyond safe uh use

[4:19:30] [snorts] of fireworks. There is obviously safe ways to to discharge

[4:19:34] fireworks in Clearwater County. We intend to continue to allow that to take

[4:19:37] place. Um, however, there are some some competing uh issues when we come to sale

[4:19:43] storage and today as if if a a a business that is selling fireworks isn't

[4:19:49] following the clear stipulations in the explosives act on collecting information

[4:19:53] on who's buying them and where they're going to discharge them, they're still

[4:19:56] discharging them illegally. Uh so there is uh a lot of illegal use of fireworks

[4:20:01] in Clearwater County today. Um another thing that I wanted to bring up

[4:20:07] before handing the floor back over to council was around fire pits. We had

[4:20:10] lots of discussion around fire pits. Uh and through some research, the the

[4:20:16] standard in Alberta, the industry standard that most municipalities have

[4:20:20] in their bylaws, including rural and urban municipalities, is a maximum

[4:20:24] diameter of 1 meter, a maximum wall height of 60 cm, a maximum set back from

[4:20:29] any constru uh combustible construction of 3 m or flammable vegetation and a

[4:20:34] spark arrest with openings not exceeding 12.5 mm and it needs to be built of

[4:20:39] non-combustible construction. So, this bylaw is actually less restrictive than

[4:20:42] that. Our fire pit our fire pits in this bylaw do do not stipulate a spark

[4:20:46] arresttor or actually any minimum setbacks unless we're talking about

[4:20:49] underground or above ground utilities specifically. There are a lot of

[4:20:52] municipalities in Alberta that are much more restrictive like regional

[4:20:56] municipality of Wood Buffalo, uh the county of Grand Prairie, um uh Rocky

[4:21:02] View County. uh those municipalities in some cases have four meter setbacks from

[4:21:07] combustible construction or flammable vegetation require non-combustible

[4:21:11] aprons around pits. So ours is is pretty reasonable and meets the industry

[4:21:15] standard for the majority of municipalities. So that's where our

[4:21:18] information comes from. It wasn't made uh without uh speaking to an industry

[4:21:24] standard for an example. We're not asking to do anything different here

[4:21:26] than what everybody else is is doing in Alberta. Now, that's uh council's

[4:21:31] prerogative on if we want to follow uh industry best practice on that or if we

[4:21:35] want to have a different standard in Clearwater County. But those are really

[4:21:38] the the two pieces of information that I can I can speak to a little bit more

[4:21:41] detailed and Chief Hemer can speak about why we're trying to align things between

[4:21:46] the FBA and and the rest of the county essentially. But I will pass the floor

[4:21:49] back over to council for questions, comments.

[4:21:54] » Deputy Eve, go ahead, please. >> Thank you, Eve. Uh, [clears throat]

[4:22:00] first off, I guess um I will respectfully in the most utmost

[4:22:07] respectful way disagree that the rest of the county should fall under the FBA

[4:22:11] regulations. I don't believe that agricultural residents should have to

[4:22:17] fall under the same rules as the forest protection area.

[4:22:21] I think it will cause a lot more problems than than it will do good

[4:22:26] because people will maybe do things in spite of as what

[4:22:31] people tend to do with new regulations. Uh secondly, with regards to the dates,

[4:22:39] um previously in Clearwater County, no burn

[4:22:43] permits were required in the month of March or April. So now we've removed two

[4:22:49] entire months and said that permits are now required for the entire county. Is

[4:22:54] that correct?

[4:22:58] » Deb Reef. Um just asking for some clarity. Um in Clearwater County outside

[4:23:04] the forest protection area, we have not required permits at all any month of the

[4:23:08] year. Um this bylaw would require fire permits from March 1st to October 31st.

[4:23:14] » Pardon me. It was previously notification was required.

[4:23:17] Yes. Uh, in all of Clearwater County, inside the FBA and outside the FBA, our

[4:23:22] bylaw currently requires folks to notify the county through a burn notification

[4:23:26] 365 days a year to uh to notify the county if they're going to burn. That's

[4:23:32] the current bylaw. >> Okay. Thank you.

[4:23:36] And then with regards to fireworks,

[4:23:41] so just to understand what you had said at the start of this, um

[4:23:47] there are currently no provincial regulations that require Clearwater

[4:23:52] County to have a fireworks bylaw. And the idea that by not having one,

[4:23:59] they are then illegal because we don't have a law. That idea has been pushed

[4:24:04] forward by lawyers over the last decade. That that is not the way that anyone in

[4:24:08] Canada thought about anything until the last 10 well even say 20 years. But just

[4:24:16] the idea that if we don't have it, it's automatically illegal.

[4:24:21] Is is that really the approach that we need to take here?

[4:24:26] um eperee it they are not by default declared

[4:24:32] automatically illegal but you know I liken it to

[4:24:36] you know a new type of firearm is built in Canada that doesn't fall under the

[4:24:40] national firearms act and because it's not the way it actions or the way it's

[4:24:45] built doesn't necessarily fall within the current bylaw or the current

[4:24:48] legislation doesn't mean that that new firearm is is by by default legal. there

[4:24:54] would probably be some stand data that came out that would that would put that

[4:24:57] into into some kind of legislation. So, you know, to to clarify my words, they

[4:25:03] are not illegal. Um, but we have no way of safely allowing their use. So, by not

[4:25:11] safely allowing their use in in a in any way specifically, uh it will default to

[4:25:18] the very high level legislation that the National Explosives Act is. that very

[4:25:23] high level legislation was never intended to fill the gap in uh locally

[4:25:28] permitting their use. So if we default to that legislation, we're in the

[4:25:33] situation we find ourselves in now, which is different than before 2019. We

[4:25:37] were in a different situation where their their use was in the fire code and

[4:25:41] we had an ability to control their use, uh their safe use, their safe sale,

[4:25:46] their safe storage, all of these things. Now we can only look at their storage in

[4:25:50] a building under the fire code. So we've lost the ability to safely regulate

[4:25:54] fireworks since 2019. When that change happened, there was a lot of of ask from

[4:25:59] the provincial governments or provincial bodies to for municipalities to look

[4:26:02] inward and say if you guys want to retain that control of fireworks use

[4:26:06] that you've had in the previous decades, you will need to put a bylaw in place to

[4:26:10] do that. And as the fire service sitting in front of you today, it is our it is

[4:26:15] our opinion and our our our um [clears throat] ask of council that we

[4:26:20] have those safe controls put in place. Uh now that is council's decision. Uh

[4:26:24] for sure they are not blanket illegal. However, it defaults to we have a

[4:26:29] legislative gap that we didn't have before 2019 when the laws changed uh

[4:26:33] specifically the Alberta fire code. When that change took place, Alberta Forestry

[4:26:38] was very quick to put regulations in control of that within the FBA. Many

[4:26:43] municipalities in Alberta did the same thing. Rural municipalities just like us

[4:26:47] um because there is safe ways and unsafe ways to discharge fireworks. There's a

[4:26:53] lot of risk with them, uh storage, sale, and use. And we lost the ability to

[4:26:59] control those pieces. And if that is uh you know from a fire service

[4:27:04] perspective, we we have a risk there and this bylaw would control that risk for

[4:27:08] us as a municipality. And um that's why we have it in front of

[4:27:14] council here today. >> Thank you. And I guess maybe in

[4:27:20] an an administrative change would be suggested rather than

[4:27:24] putting a blanket fire permit requirement on

[4:27:29] every resailer, everyone that has possession

[4:27:33] of everyone wishing to discharge for the entire year. Could that not be worded

[4:27:39] that fireworks shall not be discharged without a permit during fire season

[4:27:45] rather than creating like I I don't know if we fully

[4:27:51] understand the amount of fireworks that are purchased and utilized within

[4:27:55] Clearwater County. Like this permitting system,

[4:28:01] how how is that even going to work, right? Like you're you're having a kid's

[4:28:05] birthday party and there's no risk of fire. there's snow on the ground. You

[4:28:09] decide you're going to set out some fire bricks that you have. Now, you have to

[4:28:12] get a permit or your neighbor has the right to call bylaw. I I can't get on

[4:28:19] board with that. >> Understood, Deputy Reef. Um uh that

[4:28:23] change to the bylaw would uh if we were talking about permitting fireworks only

[4:28:28] during fire season would uh manage the wildfire risk component to fireworks

[4:28:32] permitting. Uh for sure, it would manage that piece. uh what it wouldn't manage

[4:28:37] would be the risk to property and the risk to public health. Uh that is one of

[4:28:42] the reasons why they still require written permission in the FBA 365 days

[4:28:46] of the year. And we can definitely make those changes if and if council does not

[4:28:50] want to uh mimic the rules that are in place in the forest protection area and

[4:28:54] wants to have a different standard of rules for that uh portion of Clearwater

[4:28:58] County outside the FPA, that is council's prerogative. uh the intent of

[4:29:01] the bylaw as written was to decrease uh confusion um uh from one side of the the

[4:29:08] FBA line to the other. So trying to realign uh our requirements for burning

[4:29:14] and fireworks regardless of where you live in Clearwater County was the

[4:29:17] original spirit of how the bylaw was written because that is a that is a

[4:29:21] significant challenge we see as the fire service is our public not understanding

[4:29:25] the difference between west of the forest protection area boundary and east

[4:29:29] of it. Uh but there's definitely an ability to rewrite a bylaw. That's

[4:29:33] council's direction that we have different rules outside the FBA. That's

[4:29:38] within our our authority as a municipality.

[4:29:42] Thank you,

[4:29:45] » Council Lewin. >> Yes. Uh 18-3.

[4:29:50] [clears throat] No person shall have in their

[4:29:52] possession, sell, offer for sale, give away or otherwise distribute,

[4:29:57] distribute, discharge, fire or set off firecrackers within the county.

[4:30:02] Firecrackers [snorts]

[4:30:05] um what? So firecrackers are illegal then within the county.

[4:30:11] » So firecrackers are different than fireworks. They're the uh explosive

[4:30:16] or the auditory [clears throat] explosive bang that you hear without the

[4:30:21] display of the flashy lights. And those are illegal in Canada. So that's why

[4:30:27] that one is separate and that was uh when reviewed by law or the legal team

[4:30:33] that was suggested that that be put in uh independently.

[4:30:37] Wow. Did not know that. I better burn all my fireworks or firecrackers and and

[4:30:43] with within the county firecrackers. How is that like the wording of that? How is

[4:30:47] that? >> Don't I don't have it from

[4:30:52] » I'm just looking at it here now. >> Chief the last um it's part of the whole

[4:30:56] entire sentence but it say uh fire set off firecrackers within the county

[4:31:02] firecrackers. [snorts]

[4:31:05] » Yes. Yeah. Section 18 or uh section 183. No person shall have in their

[4:31:09] possession, sell, offer, sale, or give away otherwise distribute, discharge, or

[4:31:13] fire or set off firecrackers within the county. Essentially, what that line is

[4:31:16] saying is that firecrackers and their sale [clears throat]

[4:31:20] and use within the county would not be permitted.

[4:31:23] » Oh, firecrackers within the county, firecrackers,

[4:31:29] » they are. >> So, firecrackers are legal in Canada

[4:31:32] now. >> Yeah. under that same explosive um

[4:31:35] explosive [clears throat] act federal federal legislation. They're they're

[4:31:38] defined independently there.

[4:31:42] » So much for New Year's Eve. Thank you,

[4:31:52] » Councelor Humphrey. Do you have comments?

[4:31:55] » Yeah, [clears throat] I I do. I'm on the firecracker thing. If they're if

[4:32:01] they're already illegal in Canada, why do we even have to talk about it

[4:32:06] then? Cuz we don't want to cover every law that in Canada with our county if if

[4:32:14] it seems like a a moot point. If they're illegal, you can't buy them.

[4:32:20] Correct. Can we can because you can't buy them anywhere.

[4:32:24] » Correct. You cannot buy them. >> So, we can't buy them and we can't have

[4:32:27] them if they're already illegal. Seems like we don't even need number three in

[4:32:32] there. >> So again, I think

[4:32:34] » just some clarity on them, too. If if you can buy them at the store, then they

[4:32:37] shouldn't fall that that device that they're selling at the store should not

[4:32:41] fall within the explosives. What the explosives act is designated a

[4:32:45] firecracker specifically. So there [clears throat] are some pyrochnics that

[4:32:48] you can buy that are still considered a firework because they have some kind of

[4:32:52] visual display like a sparkler or uh something of that nature that would not

[4:32:57] be considered a firecracker. I think this is specifically in here because our

[4:33:01] legal uh our legal council told us that it should be listed in this portion of

[4:33:06] the bylaw. Um but uh you would be correct like if it is listed in the

[4:33:12] explosives act that it is illegal. We don't necessarily need to reference it

[4:33:15] in our bylaw as long as we're referencing that only legal fireworks

[4:33:19] under the explosives act are are permitted under this by

[4:33:23] » Yeah. [clears throat] seems like we're just kind of

[4:33:25] » if I can just add in there, I I think that there's provisions, if I remember

[4:33:29] correctly, and I don't have it in front of me, uh, in the Federal Explosives

[4:33:33] Act, there's regulation for um,

[4:33:38] [clears throat] like you go to a concert and they have some type of a, you know,

[4:33:42] show, [snorts] fire, firecrackers, fireworks. there's

[4:33:46] provisions in there for them to be permitted for those type of events, but

[4:33:50] for like the general population, they are they're not allowed. Um, so I think

[4:33:56] my interpretation of of uh the legal team's recommendation to include that is

[4:34:01] is because of that. Yeah. Pyrochnics, for example, in a

[4:34:05] movie set, right? If they were filming a movie in Clear Water Count, they would

[4:34:08] have they would have licensed pyro technicians that are there to do that

[4:34:12] show and provide those special effects for the movie. they have different rules

[4:34:16] under the explosives act on what they can use to simulate, you know, gun

[4:34:20] blasts and explosions and things like that that the normal population aren't

[4:34:23] aren't legally allowed to possess and utilize day-to-day. So that's part of

[4:34:27] the reason why there's some clarity in here on that, you know, if you have a

[4:34:30] firework, you can't use it in clear or a firecracker, you can't use it in

[4:34:34] Clearwater County. that doesn't preclude a licensed power technician from from

[4:34:40] putting a uh an event permit forward that they would normally have to do now

[4:34:44] anyway. So, for an example, if we had a a commercial fireworks show in Caroline

[4:34:49] [clears throat and cough] uh in Clearwater County today,

[4:34:52] independent of this bylaw existing or not, uh commercial grade fireworks need

[4:34:56] a fire safety plan uh that's signed off by the fire department. They need uh

[4:35:01] licensed power technicians with their license numbers on that application.

[4:35:04] They need to show us their their uh danger area, their fall area, where the

[4:35:09] components of that are going to go. They have to put all of that into place and

[4:35:11] have a plan set ahead that we have to sign today. That's under the explosives

[4:35:15] act. Uh so that still exists today, even independent of this bylaw. This is

[4:35:20] talking specifically about the public utilizing things like that on dayto-day.

[4:35:25] And and I can, you know, from a fire perspective, there's a fire risk to

[4:35:30] firecrackers. There's also a health risk to firecrackers, but there's also a law

[4:35:33] enforcement uh, you know, asked to not have these things in in ready use

[4:35:40] around. You can imagine that they sound very similar to guns being fired, all

[4:35:44] kinds of things, right? So, there's a lot this is very encompassing piece on

[4:35:48] where a lot of this information legislation come from, not necessarily

[4:35:51] just fire risk. [snorts]

[4:35:55] » Yeah. None of that. I mean, if you if you got firecrackers,

[4:36:00] it's just like anything else. If you you know, it's

[4:36:05] it's illegal to have firecrackers. It's illegal to rob a bank. I don't think we

[4:36:09] need to put it in here that in our stuff that it's it's already illegal. Just

[4:36:14] seems like it's redundant to me. Um council,

[4:36:18] » I'm not sure. just it just does because no matter any way you look at it, it's

[4:36:23] legal to buy them. If you got a special permit because you were doing this and

[4:36:27] you were going to put on a special show, you would have to get that at a way

[4:36:32] higher level than what we are at and they would h they would either have that

[4:36:36] to have it or they wouldn't or they wouldn't have it. They'd use something

[4:36:39] else. So, um just a redundancy and I'll I'll let it go now.

[4:36:44] » Yeah. If I can just add some perspective to [clears throat] that potentially

[4:36:46] would be uh the enforcement uh side of that by not having it in a bylaw. Uh the

[4:36:54] county would have no no provision to uh enforce any compliance around that

[4:36:58] either. It would be just federal which would be just the RCMP under the federal

[4:37:03] explosives act. Uh so probably another reason why the legal team would have

[4:37:08] recommended including it in this bylaw um [snorts]

[4:37:11] and and uh making it holistic that way. >> Yeah. And I still think if it's a law

[4:37:18] enforcement issue, they would be the ones we'd want to to deal with that, not

[4:37:23] us. My take on it. And I just think we don't want to overlap into their

[4:37:28] jurisdiction. Um, I'll leave that one go now because I I

[4:37:33] just don't I think there's still some stuff that we need to address in here.

[4:37:38] One of them comes back to the fire pits and I expressed my thoughts on that last

[4:37:45] time. It's uh everywhere you go that just because it's

[4:37:50] in the fire protection area and just because some other counties say that

[4:37:54] three foot is the is the size when we know that we have

[4:38:00] multiple fire pits in our county that are over three foot. We shouldn't be

[4:38:05] putting a a [clears throat] size restriction on that's going to impose

[4:38:12] restrictions on our current residents, on a large population of our residents

[4:38:18] that have that live out in the country and have a a 4ft or a 5ft fire pit and

[4:38:22] have for years. [clears throat] Uh crusher cones are a great example.

[4:38:27] They're they're very safe to have a fire in a crusher cone. Um,

[4:38:32] and they're utilized throughout the county, but they're way they're they're

[4:38:36] larger than 3 foot. So, for us to put a a restriction like that on them just

[4:38:42] doesn't seem right. I think we need to revisit this in a little more detail.

[4:38:47] There's there's some issues here. Thank you, [clears throat] councelor

[4:38:51] Humphrey. I did see councelor Pal. Did you have indicated you had garments? No.

[4:38:56] Councelor McCauley, >> just on the fire pits, our current bylaw

[4:39:01] is more restrictive right now for the entire county on fire pits.

[4:39:06] » Correct. >> Okay.

[4:39:14] » Yeah, I think uh just having a just for charging devices for the computers.

[4:39:20] » Yeah, technical difficulties. We'll take a just a fivem minute recess here.

[4:40:22] before we go back to live

[4:42:43] Welcome back from our short recess. Councelor Lewin uh his charger was not

[4:42:47] working on his device there, but uh everything is good now. So, uh welcome

[4:42:51] back and we'll resume the meeting and we are on item uh 6.2, fire

[4:42:57] services bylaw. Councelor Le, do you have comments? Um yeah, when it comes to

[4:43:02] the size of the fire pits, uh instead of stipulating the size of the fire pits,

[4:43:06] what about a safe non-burn zone around the fire pit? So if you wanted a meter

[4:43:11] and a half fire pit or 2 m fire pit, you'd have to have a longer no fire zone

[4:43:16] around that, a b a boundary or border around that, you know, introduce

[4:43:21] something like that. is I know um I know lots of people that have the cones but

[4:43:30] they'll have a size outside of this table that is all green rock nothing

[4:43:35] growing there at all and the trees are all back there's no upper branches or

[4:43:38] whatever. So this is suggestment or or a way of manipulating that grab. I

[4:43:44] » I mean I I think that's a possibility. I would maybe just put out there that uh

[4:43:49] there could be many that also do have combustible material right up to them as

[4:43:53] well. Just as many as the people who have them safely, you know, gravel

[4:43:57] around them, etc. You'll probably have just as many with grass around them and

[4:44:02] and realistically that grass is only a hazard in the spring while it's dead,

[4:44:07] unmowed, and cured uh until it greens up and then it becomes less of a less of a

[4:44:13] problem uh throughout the year. So, but but definitely possibilities to look at

[4:44:17] that. We could look at uh increasing the size

[4:44:20] » uh to what maybe council thinks would capture the majority of the residents.

[4:44:25] Uh you know, like DC Stewart has suggested, we we need to have a standard

[4:44:29] of of some sort uh to put in here moving forward. The intention was never to go

[4:44:35] after somebody who had a fire pit over 3 ft or 1 meter um just because it was,

[4:44:41] you know, new in the bylaw. Um there is you are right there's a lot of safe

[4:44:46] larger probably larger fire pits out there and I would suggest not many are

[4:44:50] greater than a crusher cone would probably be the most common one.

[4:44:54] » Mhm. >> Thank you

[4:44:57] councelor Serach. Go ahead. You know, with the fire pits, I kind of agree that

[4:45:01] you need a standard and anything outside of that standard should be permitted and

[4:45:08] be allowed and it's just a one-time permit.

[4:45:16] Yeah, that's that's an option we can explore as well. We can we could leave

[4:45:20] the bylaw as written uh with that standard for [clears throat]

[4:45:24] new development um or or the in installation of a new fire pit. Uh and

[4:45:29] anybody, you know, the communication could be that if your uh fire pit is

[4:45:33] outside of these parameters, please get a hold of us and over time we could

[4:45:39] visit them and and inspect them and permit them. uh that just does increase

[4:45:43] workload uh on on the fire services team to to do that for every resident

[4:45:47] potentially in in Clearwater County. >> But that way there it'd be safe and

[4:45:54] health and and healthy for our people for our constituents.

[4:45:59] » Absolutely. >> And if you are building a new one, then

[4:46:04] you know what the standard is, what's acceptable

[4:46:08] with the exception of a permit.

[4:46:13] That's my feeling, gentlemen. Then >> okay,

[4:46:17] councelor, uh, Deputy Ree, go ahead. >> Thanks, Re. Um, maybe it would be be

[4:46:24] appropriate at this time to, uh, make a motion

[4:46:28] that, uh, we seem to be hung up on on three specific things here being

[4:46:33] fireworks, fire pits, and, uh, the dates required for burn permits.

[4:46:40] So, Would it maybe be appropriate to request that fire services come back

[4:46:43] with more information regarding uh leaving the dates until I believe it

[4:46:50] was the end of March before instead of the end of February as well as having

[4:46:56] fireworks requiring a permit only during fire season as well as fire pits being

[4:47:04] 1.5 m rather than 1 m.

[4:47:11] or is there really anything else to bring back?

[4:47:16] » I'm not sure if it There we go. Um, we we can definitely do that, Deb. Uh, we

[4:47:21] can come back with some information for council on those changes and what those

[4:47:24] look like. Um, [clears throat] just for clarity, the March 31st versus March

[4:47:28] 1st. The current fire season that the province uh speaks about is March 1st.

[4:47:33] It was March 31st or

[4:47:38] about 10 years ago. >> Yeah. So, the old provincial legislation

[4:47:41] was was April, but they've moved it up to March. So, it's March 1st to October

[4:47:46] 31st is the provincial fire season. And we would align our

[4:47:52] the wording in here that's been adjusted presented to you today makes that

[4:47:55] adjustment to uh match that fire season. >> So, that's provincial. Okay. So that one

[4:48:01] is kind of struck off the list if Yeah.

[4:48:10] » One other thing to address councelor Serach's comments as well too is is you

[4:48:15] know we can we can really take a look at this bylaw and how it's written here

[4:48:18] now. I I believe the way it's written allows that today. Um essentially that

[4:48:24] what it's saying is a is a fire pit that meets what's in this does not require a

[4:48:29] permit. If your if your fire pit is built this way, you do not need a

[4:48:34] permit. Anytime during the year, as long as there's no fire ban or fire

[4:48:37] restriction in place limiting your burning, uh you don't need a fire permit

[4:48:42] for this. Anything outside of that would be considered a permittable burn. So, if

[4:48:46] you have a bigger pit uh or you want or it doesn't meet these requirements, you

[4:48:50] could request a fire permit. We could do it similarly to how we do burning

[4:48:54] barrels where they get a permit and for the life of it could be for the life of

[4:48:59] that burn barrel. Uh it could be as long as it's stays in in uh in the way it's

[4:49:05] manufactured when we issue the permit. It is a permitted burn barrel. Now uh we

[4:49:09] could do something similar with fire pits where if it doesn't meet this

[4:49:12] requirement and you want to maintain it, you could request a permit. We could go

[4:49:15] out take a look. we could permit that pit because it has, you know, a safe

[4:49:20] boundary around it or it is it is a safe crusher cone and it's not within 3

[4:49:26] meters of anything that's burnable. Uh we could give them a permit for that

[4:49:29] pit. Uh so that's another way we could handle that as well too. Really what

[4:49:34] this bylaw is saying is this is the standard that it needs to meet if you

[4:49:37] don't want to have to get a permit when you burn in it. Uh if you want to burn

[4:49:41] something outside of this, you would require a permit. Um, so I I believe the

[4:49:45] way the B is written today would allow us to do that. It would allow somebody

[4:49:48] that has a a crusher comb pit that's 1.5 meters to ask uh for a permit and we

[4:49:53] could permit it or we could simply change uh our safe standard to encompass

[4:49:59] the majority of the pits in Clearwater County that exists today

[4:50:02] » which would drastically reduce the workload.

[4:50:05] » Yeah. And and we specifically didn't put uh in the bylaw a time restriction on

[4:50:11] the duration of the permit. We left that up to the issuing officer at the time or

[4:50:15] fire fire services personnel so that maybe it is a lifetime permit on this

[4:50:20] burn barrel, this fire pit. Maybe it's annual, maybe it's 2 weeks, right? But

[4:50:26] but for something like that, we would we don't want to be running out there every

[4:50:29] time you want to roast a wiener uh in your backyard. So those would be things

[4:50:33] we would treat at least annually, I would suggest, if not greater. But by

[4:50:38] going from 1 meter to 1.5, we would eliminate 90% of those that need to be

[4:50:43] permanent. >> Correct.

[4:50:45] » Potentially. >> Yeah. I'm I'm not familiar with how

[4:50:47] many, but it would be probably a significant amount that would we we

[4:50:51] would reduce requirement. >> Sorry, we shouldn't use percentages, but

[4:50:54] Yeah.

[4:50:59] » Do you have any further comments, Deputy Reef?

[4:51:03] » Yeah. No, it's uh there's a lot of discussion. And I think there's it's a

[4:51:06] good bylaw in many ways and there's been a significant amount of discussion, but

[4:51:10] it does, you know, we'll have a [clears throat]

[4:51:15] before the question is called, I think council needs to have a good

[4:51:18] understanding whether they're in supportive of this bylaw or not. Um,

[4:51:24] councelor Humphrey, I'll be quick. I just think it would simplify everything

[4:51:29] a lot and lighten your load if if we just [snorts] made it 1.5. that would

[4:51:34] cover the vast majority of them. And any that were would be able were larger than

[4:51:42] that would still be able to get a permit for

[4:51:46] them if they were an existing one and you'd be able to check, but it would

[4:51:49] just eliminate a whole bunch of extra

[4:51:54] steps and paperwork. So, I I think that 1.5 is a good idea, but I think we need

[4:51:59] to have all that brought back. I agree. So, thank thank you, councelor

[4:52:04] [clears throat] Humphrey. And uh if council was to move, we could uh

[4:52:07] potentially direct administration to bring back additional information on the

[4:52:10] implications of increasing the size to the 1.5 fireworks and the dates is what

[4:52:16] I'm hearing. And then that could be brought brought back for consideration

[4:52:19] and the implications of what that could look like at a future

[4:52:24] at a future council meeting. I think if we're going to adopt a bylaw, we might

[4:52:27] as well do take the time and and do it appropriate and do it right to best

[4:52:30] serve the community. Deputy Eve, go ahead.

[4:52:35] » Yeah. Um, I guess is there anything else anybody wants to add to this so that it

[4:52:40] does just come back once? I mean, I I know I kind of took the liberty of

[4:52:43] listing those three, but maybe there's more.

[4:52:46] » What I'm hearing is that consensus is sort of those have been the three items

[4:52:49] has been the dates, the fireworks, and the size of the fire pits. Councelor

[4:52:55] Humphrey >> also whether also in regards to the fire

[4:53:00] protection area versus the remainder of the county. I I think we need to

[4:53:08] or I need some clarification on on that yet. So on

[4:53:15] whether it's essential that we differentiate

[4:53:18] that line so that uh is our is our

[4:53:25] permitting time going to be any different

[4:53:31] for one side of the line now or the other

[4:53:35] with with the province having said this is when you need burn notifications. Are

[4:53:42] we still there for the nonfire protection area?

[4:53:50] » So, right now, this bylaw is written, it would align both sides uh of of the

[4:53:56] line, both inside and outside the forest protection area of Clearwater County.

[4:54:01] So, eliminating any confusion that currently exists.

[4:54:06] So is our notification time now as it sits is different?

[4:54:13] » Our notification time currently is year round.

[4:54:18] » Okay. On both sides. >> On both sides for the county.

[4:54:25] » So our permitting time on both sides is not the same right now. Currently, we

[4:54:31] don't have a permitting system uh in Clearwater County, but the province

[4:54:36] requires uh fire permits during their fire

[4:54:40] season, which is March 1st to October 31st.

[4:54:43] » Okay. >> In the FPA.

[4:54:45] » So, which is about 4 fifths of Clearwater County.

[4:54:50] » Just just for some clarity uh for for council as well uh on process. So today

[4:54:56] we're in the fire season, although it has rained and the wildfire risk is

[4:55:00] extremely low here right now. If you want to burn something that isn't in a

[4:55:05] uh an approved fire pit based on the FPPA or the Forestry Prairie Protection

[4:55:10] Act and its regulations, your first stop is to get a fire permit

[4:55:15] from Alberta Forestry. If you're in the forest protection area, our current

[4:55:19] [snorts] bylaw then asks those people to notify the county as well because we

[4:55:24] when it when [snorts] a 911 call comes in for a fire, it comes to us first and

[4:55:28] we generally notify Alberta wildfire that there's a wildfire in their area,

[4:55:32] especially if it's in one of the populated parts of Clearwater County.

[4:55:35] So, we ask for that notification. We actually don't have authority in the

[4:55:39] forest protection area to change the way the province does anything, but we're

[4:55:43] asking that they add one more step west of the of that line to notify us as the

[4:55:48] regional fire service because we're going to get the 911 call and have to

[4:55:51] respond there as well. Uh if you're outside that line and you're east of the

[4:55:56] forest protection area, your first stop and only stop is to notify Clearwater

[4:56:00] County. So people in the forest protection area today have to get a

[4:56:03] permit from Alberta Wildfire and notify us. That permit is only in fire season,

[4:56:08] March 1st to October 31st. That notification is 365 days a year in the

[4:56:13] FBA. So even if they're burning in the winter and they're burning a brush pile

[4:56:16] the size of a house, we want them to notify us.

[4:56:20] Outside the FBA, we still have that annual notification, but there's no

[4:56:25] permitting at all any time of the year. Currently today, this bylaw is asking

[4:56:30] that the first stop for people outside the FPA be a permit from us instead of

[4:56:36] just notifying us and then burning whenever they'd like, whatever they'd

[4:56:40] like. So, we're we're basically trying to decrease the amount of escaped

[4:56:44] wildfires we have in March, April, and May are are usually April and May are

[4:56:49] busiest times of the year. Uh because of many reasons why uh these burns get away

[4:56:55] on land owners. Some of it's negligence, some of it is is happen stance, bad

[4:57:00] things, but the majority of them can be prevented by us double-checking where

[4:57:06] they want to burn, what they want to burn, and making sure they understand

[4:57:09] the requirements of extinguishment when it's done. And that's what we don't have

[4:57:13] today. And this is what this bio is intending to bring us is the ability to

[4:57:17] to talk to them first before they start their burn. Today, they just have to

[4:57:20] tell us. And that can come on a Saturday through email when no one's in the

[4:57:24] office to process that. They can send an email in through the county website on a

[4:57:29] Saturday and say they're burning that Saturday. And that can be in May uh when

[4:57:33] wildfires can get away on us. And there's no check and balance for us to

[4:57:37] say, "Hey, no, wait. Let us come look at this and see if it's safe for you to

[4:57:40] burn it or do you have the appropriate means to extinguish it or are you going

[4:57:43] to be able to to look after this burn while you're burning it? Do you know

[4:57:47] that the weather is going to change in 2 days from now and you need to make sure

[4:57:50] it's extinguished? things like that. That's what the intent is for is to put

[4:57:53] that [snorts] check in place and try and decrease the amount of escaped wildfires

[4:57:56] we have from burns that are happening in Clearwater County outside the forest

[4:58:01] protection area. This spring is a great example of that. We had almost 30

[4:58:05] escaped wildfires in the non-forest protection area in Clearwater County.

[4:58:09] All of those was a response from us. Usually multiple stations, you know, 15

[4:58:14] to 20 firefighters from us for hours to go and extinguish this. Risk to traffic

[4:58:19] on highways because of smoke. Risk to adjacent land owners, us having to

[4:58:23] evacuate people from their homes temporarily because a landowner let a

[4:58:28] burn get away from them on an adjacent parcel. Um, and we had a large response

[4:58:33] from Alberta wildfire to many of those fires as well. So the dollar value in

[4:58:37] response to these fires is astronomical in a in a year. When we talk about how

[4:58:42] much we spend Clearwater County and Alberta Forestry on responding to these

[4:58:46] escaped wildfires, we're trying to decrease that. We were lucky this year

[4:58:50] that the mutual aid assistance program came into effect where Alberta Wildfire

[4:58:54] will come and assist us on these fires outside the FBA and the first $125,000

[4:58:59] of that response is is a wash. They won't bill us for it. But the second a

[4:59:03] fire goes over that, which can happen really quickly depending on what's going

[4:59:07] on, um, we start as the county receiving bills from the province. And because we

[4:59:15] don't have a bylaw in place, we have no way of penalizing those individuals or

[4:59:20] trying to recuperate any of those costs. that every other land owner in

[4:59:23] Clearwater County that is burning safely is now on the hook for their tax dollars

[4:59:28] paying for that individual that wasn't burning safely because we have no way of

[4:59:32] recovering that or or penalizing that individual. And we have been to repeat

[4:59:37] offenders year over year over year, sometimes the same individual in the

[4:59:40] same year or we go back to the same property for unsafe burns or people not

[4:59:44] extinguishing piles correctly or burning them in areas they shouldn't be burning.

[4:59:48] and we're trying to reduce that and put some mechanisms in place where we have

[4:59:51] some enforcable means in a bylaw to to decrease that from happening. That's

[4:59:56] that's why the permitting piece exists in here. That's why we've put everything

[5:00:00] into the bylaw to try and manage it similarly to wildfire. Not just to

[5:00:04] decrease confusion to the public, but actually put something enforceable in

[5:00:07] place to decrease the frequency of us going to these fires. It is a it is a

[5:00:11] significant energy for us in the spring that I I we ran for probably two and a

[5:00:16] half weeks in May, April 28th to May 15th this year. We were out on at least

[5:00:22] one if not more than [clears throat] one a day north and south, east and west. We

[5:00:25] had fire trucks all over the county with wildfire, helicopters, crews all over

[5:00:29] the place chasing escaped wildfires. And all but one of them was natural cause,

[5:00:34] was human caused. Only one was lightning cost. every other one was human cause

[5:00:38] and the majority of them was people either willfully burning when they

[5:00:41] shouldn't or an a brush pile that was burnt two weeks before that that they

[5:00:46] didn't extinguish properly. And I I'll just add to that that that's

[5:00:52] why initially the the first iteration of the bylaw presented to you required year

[5:00:56] round permitting from our side was because we wanted to know where people

[5:01:01] were burning all times because a a fire in

[5:01:06] December, January can show itself in May.

[5:01:12] Okay. So the way way we have it now it would be permitted

[5:01:19] March fire season, right? >> March 1st to October 31st.

[5:01:23] » Yeah. >> Okay. I can probably wrap my head around

[5:01:26] that one. Um there has to be some time in the winter when uh when people can

[5:01:33] responsibly go out and just if it snows a foot on Friday night,

[5:01:38] they can light that brush pile. And I think the the intent of the the force

[5:01:43] protection having the March 1st, October 31st was to direct most people to

[5:01:47] burning in the winter months when it was safer.

[5:01:50] » Yeah. >> Right. [snorts] And um you know, Chief

[5:01:52] Neck alluded to the reason why we originally came with year round is

[5:01:55] because we are seeing that fire season extend in the spring. It's happening

[5:01:59] earlier. It's going later in the fall. And there is talk at the provincial

[5:02:03] level now uh of them changing the act for year- round permitting as well. that

[5:02:08] hasn't come to fruition. But if that happens, we may be back in front of

[5:02:11] council in coming years to ask to amend that to realign with year- round

[5:02:15] permitting. But the the reason being is that you guys have probably heard in in

[5:02:20] the news quite a bit about these, they call them zombie fires in the media, but

[5:02:23] essentially the industry term is a holdover fire. That can be days, it can

[5:02:27] be months, it can be a fire that burned last year that burns all winter

[5:02:31] underground and then re reignites in the spring. They happen more than you'd

[5:02:35] think. Uh with our drought codes becoming higher and higher in the

[5:02:38] province every year. It's a big problem up north. It's been a problem in the

[5:02:42] south. Um anytime you burn on an old standard timber where there's a lot of

[5:02:46] what we call duff soil or or burnable organic soil or on a muskag pete pete

[5:02:51] field, things like that, if they burn on that, if they're not dug up down to

[5:02:55] mineral soil, they very commonly burn below grade and will smolder all winter.

[5:03:01] And then as soon as we have our hot, dry, uh, southeast winds that we

[5:03:05] generally get in the in the spring dip, they wake up and away they go. And

[5:03:10] everybody thought they were extinguished, but they take off on

[5:03:12] people. And we've seen that as a municipal fire service here. We've we've

[5:03:15] had a fire up north of Leyville that showed up three years in a row. Mhm.

[5:03:20] » And and so so f further to that, you know, while having our mimic uh the

[5:03:27] forest protection area during fire season uh is acceptable to me is because

[5:03:32] this bylaw also includes new provisions for us to uh pursue that negligence if

[5:03:40] if that's the case. Um because as as much as I agree with you that, you know,

[5:03:45] it snows a foot on Friday night and people should be able to go out there

[5:03:47] and light their brush pile up and and dispose of it, I want them to go out

[5:03:52] there with that same enthusiasm uh to make sure it's extinguished, which which

[5:03:57] is really the problem. Um people aren't following up on the extinguishment side.

[5:04:02] It's easy to throw the match. It's a lot more difficult to uh to ensure that fire

[5:04:06] is out. and this new [clears throat] bylaw the way it's written uh would

[5:04:11] allow us at least to follow up with that person whether permanent or not

[5:04:16] um depending on on the fire season time. So I I agree aligning for for

[5:04:20] consistency um [snorts] across you know the entire entirety of Clearwater County

[5:04:27] uh and try to eliminate that this side that side of the line um works great for

[5:04:32] me. It's a it's a good suggestion. Um, but more importantly, this bylaw allows

[5:04:36] us to to follow up when when uh required or needed.

[5:04:43] » Yeah. I I uh I'm just not a big proponent of you've got a few bad apples

[5:04:48] and we and we go out and we penalize everybody because some people don't use

[5:04:54] their head and don't think, oh, this, you know, it's dry. I'm going to light

[5:04:58] it anyhow because I got to get it burnt. That's a bad idea. But then we punish

[5:05:02] everybody. So that's why I've got all these questions and and stuff on on

[5:05:09] these issues cuz I I've never been a fan of that. You know, if we've got a few

[5:05:13] bad apples, well, let's deal with the bad apples,

[5:05:17] » right? Okay. >> CEO Simpson, go ahead, please.

[5:05:21] » Just to to point out, without the bylaw, we can't even punish the bad apples. And

[5:05:25] the good apples wouldn't receive any punishment if they were following the

[5:05:28] specs. Just to make council aware, one of the questions that I will direct my

[5:05:32] fire chief and the deputy chief to examine is whether or not the greater

[5:05:36] permissions around fire pit sizes and such may have any impact on our

[5:05:39] insurance or whether it may negatively impact the insurance eligibility

[5:05:44] eligibility, sorry, for the folks who have those larger ones. That's just

[5:05:47] something that wasn't covered in discussion. And at all times when we

[5:05:50] talk about fires, the other side of the coin is insurance coverage. So, we will

[5:05:55] also try to get some information on that to inform council when they're having

[5:05:58] these conversations. I think it's great that we're considering the enjoyment of

[5:06:02] use for the rateayers. However, uh our duty must also examine that liability

[5:06:08] coverage and whether we increase our own risk for being named as an additional in

[5:06:11] a lawsuit where a claim was successfully awarded due to something that was

[5:06:16] permitted in our fire bylaw, such as an overly large fire pit size. Now, that's

[5:06:20] an outside gamble, but I think it's prudent that we examine that. So, just

[5:06:24] be aware. Hopefully, we'll have some answers on that, too, whether it

[5:06:27] increases or doesn't make any difference at all whether it changes our premiums,

[5:06:30] whether rateayers may want to know that having a a fire pit that's 5t wide as

[5:06:35] opposed to the provincial standard of 24 in, which may or may not be considered

[5:06:39] by the courts as the reasonable standard. And we talked about that the

[5:06:42] last time this came up about what reasonable would be. So I will be

[5:06:45] directing them to do that and hopefully they'll have some answers for you by the

[5:06:48] time this comes back if that's okay. >> Excellent. Thank you. CEO Emmens um to

[5:06:54] bring back that information for council consideration. Um would administration

[5:06:58] if you've been able to capture discussions taking place by council or

[5:07:01] is a motion required? I was just uh looking to administration

[5:07:06] for

[5:07:10] » Okay. So, okay. So, I'm getting no motion would be required. Administration

[5:07:15] will bring that information forward. >> I am hearing from my uh legislative

[5:07:19] coordinator that a specific motion would be best.

[5:07:22] » Yeah, absolutely. Okay. [clears throat]

[5:07:27] Before we get to a motion, I'm going to defer to councelor Powell.

[5:07:32] » It's kind of passed now, but I just thank you for everything you do. I have

[5:07:36] been firsthandly experienced 5t of snow. people burning and then in the spring

[5:07:42] they were huge huge brush piles and they did start back up and it happens quite

[5:07:47] often more than people I think realize and no matter how responsible you are

[5:07:51] stuff does happen and I totally think that even though this may seem like red

[5:07:55] tape to some people fire is so dangerous and it moves so quickly and I just want

[5:07:59] to thank you guys so much for everything that you did this spring because I have

[5:08:02] firsthandly seen people who I thought had were being responsible fires take

[5:08:07] off like crazy and when they go across those fields they go fast. So, thanks

[5:08:11] for everything you're doing, >> Councelor Serach.

[5:08:16] » Yeah, getting to the fire bits. If we're going to go the 50% larger

[5:08:23] and there was two to my questions and one was the insurance. I was going to

[5:08:28] ask that the CEO already did, but mine is that if we're going to go 50% larger

[5:08:35] on the fire itself, then are we going to go 50% larger on the non-combustible

[5:08:43] around it?

[5:08:46] Uh right now, counselor, uh I'm not I'm not sure. I'll explore that as we do the

[5:08:52] research around uh what that might look like.

[5:08:56] um potentially I I I just can't say without

[5:09:01] kind of doing some homework on that for you.

[5:09:03] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[5:09:08] » Okay. So, we're going to attempt a motion here uh to capture the discussion

[5:09:11] that has taken place here today. And that was the fire pit size,

[5:09:16] the firework permitting, the

[5:09:23] dates in the fire protection area.

[5:09:31] Is that the three items that uh CEO Simpson?

[5:09:37] » Uh also just a question on firecrackers because um there was one comment on it.

[5:09:43] uh it was pointed out we can't enforce it and it would fall to the RCMP. So the

[5:09:47] plain question to council on that one would be do you want us to remove that

[5:09:50] definition and not have our peace officers be able to respond and enforce

[5:09:54] it and leave that to the RCMP. I would suggest that it is highly

[5:09:59] unlikely they will attend that call if they are dealing with other files.

[5:10:02] However, we don't necessarily have peace officers working the night shift either.

[5:10:06] So, do you want us to just pull that one out or leave it in and leave it subject

[5:10:12] to the discretion of any peace officer that's called at the time? But I have a

[5:10:16] question, CI Simpsons. Would our peace officers have jurisdiction to enforce

[5:10:20] that for firecrackers? [snorts]

[5:10:23] » Not without it being included in this bylaw

[5:10:28] » because we don't have the ability to enforce under the act for the

[5:10:32] designation of authority that peace officers hold. So, um, they have limited

[5:10:37] jurisdiction in certain statutes such as the upward of traffic safety act, I

[5:10:41] believe, is one of them, right? But they can't do firecrackers, but if you put it

[5:10:44] in the bylaw, yes, we could impose our own municipal tags for violations with

[5:10:48] respect to possession and discharge of firecrackers.

[5:10:54] » Councelor Pal, >> I guess I would just comment on that if

[5:10:57] it was referred by legal, there may be some legal. I'm not a lawyer. And if if

[5:11:01] legal has asked that it be in there and that we

[5:11:05] didn't put it in there, sorry, you guys didn't put it in there. If legal has

[5:11:08] requested it to be in there, maybe there's a reason that they have that

[5:11:11] none of us here are aware of. And that probably before it's taken out should,

[5:11:16] in my opinion, maybe be looked at. Just a suggestion.

[5:11:19] » We can bring the rationale around the firecracker piece back as part of that

[5:11:23] discussion with the other information if council wishes. That would be prudent

[5:11:26] perhaps. >> Okay. If council's going to take the

[5:11:29] time and administration has presented a lot of information to council, if we're

[5:11:32] going to adopt a bylaw, we should do it the right way. So, um, I'm going to move

[5:11:36] that council direct administration to bring back additional information

[5:11:39] regarding the fire pit sizes, firework permitting,

[5:11:47] firecrackers, and the dates of the fire protection

[5:11:52] area. I think that captured most of the

[5:11:56] discussion. Miss Thompson,

[5:12:00] » I had it noted to clarify whether it's beneficial or not to differentiate

[5:12:06] between the FPA and the non-FPA. Do you want that included or not?

[5:12:10] » Yes, please include that in in the information that'll be brought back to

[5:12:13] council for future consideration.

[5:12:19] Miss Thompson, have you been able to capture the motion?

[5:12:23] would uh just for council's information if we can get a repeat of

[5:12:27] that motion and then we'll have a vote >> that council direct administration to

[5:12:31] bring back further information regarding allowable fire pit sizes firework

[5:12:36] permitting the dates of the fire season rationale surrounding firecrackers and

[5:12:41] whether it's beneficial or not to differentiate between the FPA and non

[5:12:46] FPR FBA. >> Okay,

[5:12:50] thank you Miss Thompson. Seeing no further discussion, I'll call the

[5:12:54] question on that motion. All those in favor

[5:12:58] and those opposed. That motion is supported by the majority of council.

[5:13:05] Thank you again to chief and deputy chief for all the information. And uh

[5:13:11] move into item actually looking at item 6.3. We need a

[5:13:16] motion to postpone item 6.3.

[5:13:21] Council, that one. You're willing to make the motion to postpone item 6.3. I

[5:13:25] see. >> Okay, I'll make that motion to postpone

[5:13:31] » 6.3. >> Excellent.

[5:13:33] » We have a motion from councelor Lewin to postpone

[5:13:36] bylaw 26103, revising former village of Caroline Community Standards bylaw.

[5:13:42] I've got a question. All those in favor? That motion is carried.

[5:13:48] I'm going to go back to item 7.1.1 which is the Caroline 4-way stop. That item

[5:13:53] was tabled. So, um

[5:13:57] I'll [clears throat] move that we lift item 7.1.1 from the table. That is the

[5:14:02] motion on the floor to lift it from the table. Call question. All those in

[5:14:05] favor? Motion is carried. Councelor Lewin, do

[5:14:10] you have comments? >> No, I have my hand up.

[5:14:12] » Okay, >> we voted.

[5:14:14] » Yes. Yeah. No. Excellent. I just seen your light was on so I just wasn't sure

[5:14:18] if you had any comments that you wanted. >> All is good. So moving back to item

[5:14:23] 7.1.1 which is regarding the Caroline four-way stop and I see that

[5:14:29] um director Magnus has joined us here again.

[5:14:35] I would like to uh do you have any comments Mr. Magnus at this time or if

[5:14:39] not I do have a proposed motion. >> Uh no no comments at this time.

[5:14:44] » Thank you very much Director Magnus. So on this item, I'll move uh that council

[5:14:48] direct administration to draft a letter to the Ministry of Transportation and

[5:14:51] Economic Corridors requesting a review and consideration of implementing the

[5:14:56] following. The four-way stop be implemented to a two-way stop at the

[5:15:01] concerned intersection. Number two,

[5:15:05] the maximum speed limit through the Hamletic Airline on Highway 54 be

[5:15:08] decreased from 50 km an hour to 30 km/h. Item three, a digital speed warning

[5:15:14] device be placed on both east and west portion of Highway 54 within the Hamlet

[5:15:18] of Caroline. Number four, a placement of no engine retarder brakes signage on

[5:15:24] Highway 54 prior to entering the Hamlet of Caroline. And number five, the

[5:15:28] placement of crosswalk with indicator lights crossing Highway 54 at the

[5:15:33] concerned intersection.

[5:15:38] That is the motion on the floor. Director Magnus

[5:15:42] » that uh I concur with those uh recommendations.

[5:15:46] » Excellent. Thank you for your input. Deputy Reeve,

[5:15:49] » just one quick question. Ree, just regarding the uh the speed limit through

[5:15:53] Caroline with that 30 km an hour then be placed out at the

[5:15:58] museum where the current 50 is that might be problematic.

[5:16:03] » Yeah. So typically what happens is um there is a progression. So they'll Yeah,

[5:16:10] exactly. do that. They'll probably leave the 50 and then it then it goes down to

[5:16:16] 30 typically. That's how the sign package goes.

[5:16:18] » I just want to clarify. Thank you. You're welcome.

[5:16:22] And uh some of that additional information would come back from Alberta

[5:16:25] Transportation Economic Corridors with the review of that intersection and

[5:16:28] maybe this is the best solution um to currently leave status quo with the

[5:16:33] four-way stop that might come out of that review or there might be a better

[5:16:36] option to better serve the community. Councelor Humphrey, I just had a couple

[5:16:41] things. So there is not a engine retarder brake sign at either ends of

[5:16:47] the town currently. >> Okay. Yeah. Not that I'm aware of at

[5:16:51] this time unless we've Northcaught. Uh >> that's odd because

[5:16:56] » because there should have been a long time ago. Most towns have that when

[5:16:59] you're coming into most. >> So I was just surprised. And uh

[5:17:05] » my my next concern would be on the on the four-way stop. We're talking just a

[5:17:12] two-way. So the there just be the requirement to stop going east and

[5:17:18] west. >> That's correct.

[5:17:20] So then um I'm I'm wondering how that would be better than having a stop and

[5:17:25] go because you could end up sitting at those other ones for a long time before

[5:17:28] you got through. I I just seems I I thought maybe we'd be wanting a

[5:17:36] four-way rather than a cuz it it regulates your traffic. It completely

[5:17:40] stops the traffic and what happens or what I've observed is it actually

[5:17:43] creates congestion and traffic backup. um

[5:17:48] the uh community. >> Oh, so you're having you're thinking

[5:17:51] stop signs just on the north south, >> right?

[5:17:54] » Yeah, that's why I said east west. So you're you're talking taking it out on

[5:17:57] the highway. >> Yeah, you would flow through going east

[5:18:00] west. >> East west 30 km an hour rather than 50.

[5:18:04] » Okay. So traffic going north and south would stop.

[5:18:07] » Yeah. I I was thinking, oh, you're going to take the stop signs out going north

[5:18:11] and south and you sit there for days to get through.

[5:18:14] » Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, clarification on which is

[5:18:17] the two-way stop should be added to that.

[5:18:20] » It is. >> Okay.

[5:18:21] » Yeah, we mentioned I missed that. I'm so sorry.

[5:18:23] » Yeah, we mentioned and our apologies. Yeah, Ree Northcut during the uh putting

[5:18:27] the motion forward. It's that we specifically asked for 50th Street.

[5:18:32] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[5:18:36] » Yeah, >> that makes sense. Didn't make sense.

[5:18:40] So, and and like I say, it's just requesting review and possible

[5:18:43] consideration of implementation of this. Um, it might be identified that the the

[5:18:48] current four-way stop is the best to serve the community. So,

[5:18:54] with that being said, uh, director >> Yeah.

[5:18:57] » Magnus, do you have any further comments?

[5:19:01] Yeah, what we found is uh with uh Alberta transportation economic

[5:19:04] corridors is to u be as specific as possible and usually we found most

[5:19:09] success with that um number of years ago, two three years ago and Reeve

[5:19:15] Northcot was involved in that too in highway 54 and 22 in regards to um that

[5:19:20] intersection and uh we specifically asked them uh uh provided some requests

[5:19:27] and uh actually they where they uh um um agreed with it. I believe if you

[5:19:34] remember uh Reef Northcot and us putting the letter forward to them, it ended up

[5:19:39] being a flashing stop sign [snorts] and rumble strips. At that time that was

[5:19:44] not there and uh so we tried to be as specific as possible and um they

[5:19:50] reviewed that intersection and they agreed with us and implemented. So, like

[5:19:55] Reeve Northcot indicated as well, uh they may come back upon the review and

[5:20:00] stick to the four-way stop, but nonetheless, we may still be successful

[5:20:05] in some of the other requests in regards to that. So, yeah.

[5:20:11] Okay. Seeing Thank you very much, Director Magnus, for that. I'm seeing no

[5:20:15] further discussion. Um I'll call the question. All those in favor?

[5:20:20] And that motion is supported by council.

[5:20:27] Moving on in our agenda to item 7.2.1.

[5:20:33] It is the is under agricultural and community services the Alberta community

[5:20:37] partnership intermunicial collaboration grant application. It is on page 93.

[5:20:51] Welcome director Van Newkerk.

[5:20:58] » Good afternoon council. Um as the reef mentioned, this is in

[5:21:03] regard to the Alberta Community Partnership um intermunicipal

[5:21:07] collaboration grant application. For some background information, the

[5:21:12] town of Rocky Mountainhouse has started the process of engaging consultants to

[5:21:15] prepare a multiplex concept plan. The town council and Clearwater

[5:21:20] [clears throat] Council have met to discuss the project and the town has

[5:21:23] requested that the county reallocate $50,000 from the recreation expansion

[5:21:27] expansion concept drawings project which was a carry forward

[5:21:31] project from the 2025 to the new multiplex concept plan project and

[5:21:36] approve the submission of the ASP ACP grant application. There is an

[5:21:42] opportunity to apply for up to $150,000 from the Alberta Community Partnership

[5:21:46] Intermunicipal Collaboration Grant Program to help fund the multiplex

[5:21:51] concept plan project. Maximum pro provincial support per IC project

[5:21:56] reduced to $150,000 from 200,000 to enable extended program reach. There is

[5:22:02] a cost share requirement introducing a 10% municipal contribution toward total

[5:22:08] project costs. The cost share requirement will need to

[5:22:12] be met by the town and county's budget commitment for the project. As part of

[5:22:17] the ACP grant application, both the town and county must provide a resolution

[5:22:21] approving the submission of the ACP grant application.

[5:22:25] The town of Rocky Mountain House um town council has passed a resolution

[5:22:30] supporting the grant application at their September 1st, 2026 regular

[5:22:34] council meeting. The deadline for submitting the application is October

[5:22:37] 1st, 2026. While no funds have been expended to date, the grant is

[5:22:41] retroactive to April 1st, 2026. And we do have two recommendations for

[5:22:48] this as it's kind of a two uh part uh recommendation. Uh firstly, that council

[5:22:54] support the town proceeding with the submission of the Alberta Community

[5:22:58] Partnership intermunicipal collaboration grant application for the multiplex. And

[5:23:03] then secondly, the council direct administration to draft a letter of

[5:23:06] support for the Alberta Community Partnership intermunicipal collaboration

[5:23:10] grant application for the multiplex project to be included um in the town's

[5:23:16] application.

[5:23:19] And that's all I've got on that. Thank you for Thank you, Director

[5:23:25] [clears throat] Newkerk. Council comments, questions, or motions.

[5:23:33] » Deputy Ree, go ahead. >> Thanks. I'll make the first motion the

[5:23:37] council support the town proceeding with the submission of the Alberta Community

[5:23:39] Partnership Intermunicipal Collaboration Grant for the multiplex project.

[5:23:45] » Okay, we have a motion on the floor from Deputy Re.

[5:23:49] As he's indicated, the council that council supports town proceeding with

[5:23:53] the submission of the Alberta Community Partnership intermunicipal collaboration

[5:23:56] grant application for the multiplex project. Seeing no discussion,

[5:24:02] councelor. So the second recommendation says to be

[5:24:08] included in the town's application. Do we we would not want to include it with

[5:24:13] or we got to make two motions. >> Oh, good grief. Okay.

[5:24:18] » Okay. as part of the requirements. Yeah. >> So, two motions.

[5:24:21] » Thank you for clarification. >> Excellent. Motion on the floor from

[5:24:25] Deputy Reeve Mccay. Seeing no further discussion, I'll call the question. All

[5:24:29] those in favor? That motion is supported by councel?

[5:24:33] Councelor Humphrey. I'd like to make a motion that

[5:24:36] council [clears throat] direct administration to draft a letter

[5:24:39] of support for the Alberta Community Partnership intermunicipal collaboration

[5:24:43] grant application for the multiplex project to be included in the town's

[5:24:47] application. Excellent. I've officially placed that

[5:24:52] motion that councelor has just indicated on the floor for a vote. See no

[5:24:57] discussion. I'll call the question. All those in favor?

[5:25:01] Those opposed? Okay, that motion is supported by the

[5:25:05] majority of council.

[5:25:12] Moving on to item 7.3.1, development node area structure plans and memorandum

[5:25:17] of understanding. I do see that Miss Gillum has joined us here today. So,

[5:25:22] when you're when you're ready, Miss Gil. >> Sorry, I was like, oh, I'm next.

[5:25:27] » No worries. Uh, >> whenever you're ready.

[5:25:31] » Um, yeah. So, uh, members of council and county administration met with two

[5:25:36] branches of the provincial government, Alberta tourism and sport and forestry

[5:25:40] and parks to discuss changes to the development node ASPs discussion about

[5:25:44] uh, next steps based on feedback received at the open houses. The county

[5:25:48] hosted uh, this spring and the what we heard report. The provincial

[5:25:51] administration agreed uh, with council that changes could be made to the ASPs

[5:25:56] to suit the needs of both groups. So it is uh was indicated that the memorandum

[5:26:01] of understanding should be updated to address the current desires. Further

[5:26:05] administrative discussions will be required to make those changes. Council

[5:26:08] also requested that more research and information be made available from the

[5:26:12] province regarding support in these areas. So administration is now bringing

[5:26:16] this in to council for further direction. So um we are asking that

[5:26:21] council direct administration to work with the province um the sorry the

[5:26:24] provincial government to update and renew the current memorandum of

[5:26:27] understanding review and amend development node area structure plans

[5:26:31] and identify pressures and solutions related to infrastructure operational

[5:26:35] supports emergency response and v visitor management strategy. Sorry.

[5:26:40] » Excellent. Thank you Miss Gillum for that. We'll open the floor for

[5:26:44] discussion or comments. Deputy Ree go ahead. Thank you. Uh I would make the

[5:26:49] motion that council direct administration to work with the province

[5:26:54] to update and renew the current memorandum of understanding and bring it

[5:26:58] back to council for approval.

[5:27:04] » Thank you for the motion, Deputy Reev. Just a question for administration.

[5:27:07] Prior to that, um, my my comment that I'd like to make is will council have an

[5:27:14] opportunity to provide input into this memorandum of understanding?

[5:27:18] » Yes. >> Okay. Just wanted to have that clear

[5:27:23] council. >> So inut number on the staffing. Did I

[5:27:28] just hear that correctly? >> Yes. So if coun administration will make

[5:27:33] amendments and then will that be sent to council for consideration or input

[5:27:37] » before the province is that correct? >> Yeah, I think the discussions will be

[5:27:41] had with theou with the province and like administration will try to work

[5:27:44] with the provincial administration to come up with updates based on what we

[5:27:47] had discussed and then we'll bring something forward for you for you to

[5:27:50] consider and then if council would have to be comfortable that obviously before

[5:27:54] anything was signed. I just guess my concerns are the

[5:27:58] province has their vision, Clearwater County and its residents have their

[5:28:01] vision when it comes to these development notes. So th this is Yes.

[5:28:07] Fair. Um the memorandum of understanding is just agreement about how we work

[5:28:10] together um with the the province and and you guys would have the final

[5:28:14] approval on that anyways. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.

[5:28:18] Just to get a little bit more clarity, Miss Gil, the perspectives from council,

[5:28:22] can that input be gathered and put into the memorandum of understanding before

[5:28:27] it is sent to the province for their consideration rather than having the

[5:28:31] considerations of the province brought back to council. Can we have that an

[5:28:35] opportunity for council to have input for a draft memorandum of understanding

[5:28:40] to go to the province before it goes there? I think I think they were going

[5:28:43] to be drafting it with us andor drafting it, but um James might have some other

[5:28:49] thoughts. >> Maybe I'll just Okay.

[5:28:53] » Um to the re uh to council um the

[5:28:58] memorandum of understanding you already have one.

[5:29:01] » Y >> this is updating and revising it. We

[5:29:06] will have meetings with the province to discuss what sort of items that they

[5:29:10] will want to update along with the direction from council as to what things

[5:29:18] we want to update based on our our last conversation with the province.

[5:29:24] And you'll have an opportunity to provide input and direction on those

[5:29:28] items uh while we're having those initial

[5:29:32] conversations. And then ultimately when there's a draft

[5:29:38] um memorandum of understanding that draft will will be circulated to council

[5:29:43] for your feedback and comment and once it's into a proposed um

[5:29:50] component that's when council would look at appro going through the the process

[5:29:55] of approving it. >> [snorts]

[5:29:57] » So it's it's it's not a onestep today is not to approve anou by any

[5:30:05] shape or form. >> Okay. No, and I abs I think that's very

[5:30:09] well understood by council. Just wanted to have that reassurance that council

[5:30:12] will have an opportunity to have input into that memorandum of understanding

[5:30:16] before it's um >> we may even sorry um it it may depending

[5:30:23] on what comes out of those discussions and those drafts. We may even have

[5:30:26] another meeting with the province similar to what we had before to discuss

[5:30:29] the items within theou and how it can be adjusted and come up with you know a

[5:30:34] revised item before it would be coming back officially to council for review.

[5:30:39] » Okay. Thank you, Miss Gil. Councelor Lewin, go ahead.

[5:30:41] » Yeah, I guess where I'm coming from, I'm just a little bit scared that if uh you

[5:30:45] have meetings with the province and the province thinks haha, they're doing what

[5:30:48] we want, comes back to council and we say, "No, that's not what we want." And

[5:30:53] then we start friction right off the top. That's my concern.

[5:30:57] » I I mean, we did already have the those discussions with them at that last

[5:31:01] meeting, and I think they have a pretty good idea of where this council is is

[5:31:05] wanting to go um and what they're comfortable with. So I don't know that

[5:31:09] we'll be um we'll be too far off the mark. I would hope anyway

[5:31:13] » based on those those past discussions. >> Okay. Thank you.

[5:31:18] » Okay. So we have a motion on the floor from Deputy Ree Mccay that council

[5:31:22] direct administration to work with the provincial government to update and

[5:31:25] renew the current memorandum of understanding. That is a motion on the

[5:31:29] floor.

[5:31:32] Is there any more discussion on that motion? Seeing none, I'll call the

[5:31:35] question. All those in favor? That motion is supported by councel.

[5:31:41] Further discussion or additional motions. Councelor McCauley.

[5:31:46] Make a motion that council or direct staff to review and amend development

[5:31:50] node structure development node area structure plans.

[5:31:56] » Excellent. [clears throat]

[5:31:58] » Thank you for the motion, councelor McCauley. Um, Deputy Ree, go ahead.

[5:32:04] I may have misunderstood, but were we not was step one not to uh renew theou

[5:32:11] before proceeding with the ASP review or reconstruction.

[5:32:18] » I believe that is like the beginning part of the process. This is just

[5:32:21] getting the directions so we don't have to come back to you guys every step of

[5:32:23] the way. Like we I mean the ASP review is going to happen as well, right?

[5:32:27] That's the plan is to do the M. So just basically getting directions. So this

[5:32:31] we'll start off with theou and then move into the ASP once we have that newou

[5:32:34] kind of nailed out. >> I'm just asking procedurally

[5:32:38] » if step one needs to be completed first or if we can make all three motions.

[5:32:43] » I I think all three motions are fine today. It's just so we don't have to

[5:32:45] return to council to like knowing that we're planning to move through those

[5:32:48] process or steps. Yeah. >> Thank you.

[5:32:52] » Excellent. So we have a motion on the floor from council mccully that uh

[5:32:58] council direct administration to work with the provincial government to review

[5:33:00] and amend the development node area structure plans.

[5:33:05] Seeing no discussion go ahead council not really to amend but

[5:33:11] to review and then to report back right we don't want them to amend anything

[5:33:16] without us talking about it. >> Yeah. Um the review sorry the review and

[5:33:23] amendment um would be like obviously council had expressed that they would

[5:33:28] like to see changes in it. So we anticipate amendments. So obviously

[5:33:31] there's going to have to be review and suggested areas of of edit and change

[5:33:35] and then we'll bring it back. But um yes initially we'll go through but we there

[5:33:40] have been areas that have been identified based on previous discussions

[5:33:43] of where changes will likely be made. Um and obviously we will have to get um

[5:33:48] further direction from council on where those are but theou is a factor and then

[5:33:52] obviously that third point identifying the pressures and solutions um is going

[5:33:57] to factor in to probably some of those changes as well. So we may actually have

[5:34:02] to like during theou process and or after get some hopefully some of that

[5:34:06] information from the province as well in order to make some of those changes to

[5:34:10] the ASP.

[5:34:14] Councelor McCauley, if I may, you're looking, if I may have heard that right,

[5:34:19] potentially make amendments, but have those amendments back come back for

[5:34:22] council consideration. >> Yes.

[5:34:25] » Is that that's kind of what I'm hearing and that's I think the balance of

[5:34:28] council would probably agree as well, but go ahead, director Mak.

[5:34:32] » Uh through the Ree Council, the area structure plan is a statutory

[5:34:38] document. So any amendments would have to be publicly advertised and brought

[5:34:43] before this council through the regular public process.

[5:34:48] Um so reviewing it, amending it is just giving us direction that uh you'd like

[5:34:55] administration [clears throat] to proceed with working with the province

[5:34:59] to make sure that we can get those amendments

[5:35:02] understood so when it's brought back uh with to council that we're incorporating

[5:35:09] the what we heard report comments that were received from the community.

[5:35:14] » Okay. If maybe the word just a slight amendment to the wording, but uh

[5:35:18] potentially the motion could be better suited if it read that council direct

[5:35:22] administration to work with the provincial government to review and

[5:35:26] prepare amendments to the development node area structure

[5:35:30] plans. >> Yeah. Even draft amendments.

[5:35:32] » Yeah. >> Would you accept that?

[5:35:35] » Yes. >> Amend or amendment to the motion. Can

[5:35:39] councelor McCully has agreed that he would accept those amendments with that

[5:35:42] wording? Seeing no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in

[5:35:46] favor, that motion is supported by council.

[5:35:50] There's one last third third item on this. Further discussion motions.

[5:35:54] Councelor Humphrey, go ahead. >> I'd like to make a motion that council

[5:35:58] direct administration to work with the provincial government to identify

[5:36:02] pressures and solutions relating to infrastructure, operational supports,

[5:36:07] emergency response, and visitor management strategy.

[5:36:12] » Excellent. Thank you very much councelor Humphrey. Um this process has uh

[5:36:17] allowed for an opportunity to have many discussions and build a relationship

[5:36:20] with the provincial government regarding this and uh I know initially the motion

[5:36:25] was to repeal the area structure plans which this council chose not to do but

[5:36:28] has able to gain in many ways a better relationship with the provincial

[5:36:33] government and more opportunity to better serve the residents of not only

[5:36:36] Clearwater County but the region and uh it's been a lot of work on council and

[5:36:43] I'd like to Thank administration for doing all that work. So we have a motion

[5:36:46] in four from councelor Hunt Humphrey that council direct administration to

[5:36:50] work with the provincial government to identify pressures and solutions

[5:36:52] relating to infrastructure operational supports emergency response

[5:36:58] and visitor management strategy. Seeing no further discussion, councelor

[5:37:03] Humphrey, do you have comments? Okay, councelor McCauley,

[5:37:08] » just on the uh the area. So I guess it's we would be thinking that this is just

[5:37:15] covering the ASP nodes or maybe the areas that are covered under theou but

[5:37:20] after that meeting is this is really about either all of the county or the

[5:37:24] entire west country as a whole not just the ASP nodes and the and the area

[5:37:28] discussed but with in theou. So, is that something that we could change to either

[5:37:33] have theou encompass all of the west country or to add the entirety of the

[5:37:39] west country to the end of that last motion?

[5:37:43] I think if if I was to um through some of the discussions that we have with the

[5:37:48] province, the visitor management strategy was encompassing more of the

[5:37:52] county and the region as a whole. uh the memorandum of understanding was more

[5:37:55] specific to those area structure plans, but I think with additional information

[5:38:00] from administration and discussion that they have with the province, we can we

[5:38:04] can have those further discussions and uh once that information is brought back

[5:38:08] to council but I do see Mr. Mazak or director Mazak would like to speak. Go

[5:38:12] ahead please. uh through the uh reeve to um council.

[5:38:19] The other option or the other additional consideration where we say operational

[5:38:25] supports um we may want to consider capital

[5:38:30] supports as well. um given the commitments for certain

[5:38:37] types of things that the province may wish to pursue that do not become the

[5:38:44] obligations of Clearwater County. >> Excellent. So potentially we could have

[5:38:50] an amendment to councelor Humphrey's motion to include uh capital

[5:38:57] » infrastruure >> capital and operational supports

[5:39:01] » yeah cab

[5:39:07] » capital supports council arrey you'd accept that amendment to your motion

[5:39:10] » yes I accept that amendment >> okay

[5:39:16] miss gllum >> sorry I just wanted to know one thing

[5:39:19] just based on uh council's comments too. Um you definitely could identify the um

[5:39:25] last point related to West Country or the county as a whole. I think the MLOU

[5:39:29] it it's because it's like provincial land and so our agreement of being able

[5:39:33] to like manage those um manage those lands and development within those lands

[5:39:38] is kind of the the concept of theou being that they're the kind of like the

[5:39:42] land holder. So that's um I don't know if it would make sense to have the MLOU

[5:39:47] the whole area or if it would be a separate thing, but I just wanted to to

[5:39:51] note that

[5:39:55] » I'm really looking forward to a lot of the information that's going to be

[5:39:57] coming back to council for consideration through the discussions that we've had

[5:40:00] with the province and now giving administration formal direction from

[5:40:04] council. >> I think there'll be some great

[5:40:06] information that's brought back. Director Mesa, go ahead.

[5:40:10] Yeah, my my recommendation to council would not necessarily to um hamster

[5:40:16] yourself to being west country for the development nodes. It's both crown land

[5:40:23] and non-crown land within the that geographical location that we need to

[5:40:31] mitigate a number of different issues and concerns and this is our opportunity

[5:40:36] to to do so.

[5:40:40] No, I really think this is this is a reflection of this council listening to

[5:40:43] the residents of Clear Roa County and and uh working very hard on their

[5:40:46] behalf. So, with that said, I'll call the question. All those in favor?

[5:40:52] And that motion is supported by councel.

[5:40:58] Moving to item 8.1, chief administrative officer report. And I'm going to pass it

[5:41:03] over to Mr. Simpson. >> Thank you, Mr. Ree. Uh, short and sweet,

[5:41:08] folks. Uh, just a heads up. Uh, we will have a road closure in Leslieville on

[5:41:12] September 12th from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. due to the Leslieville block party.

[5:41:18] It's a nice community event that is going to have organizations, not for

[5:41:22] profofits, and businesses from Leslieville out and about on the

[5:41:26] streets. There will be some live entertainment, a car show, a craft sale,

[5:41:29] local artisans, and of course, family activities. So, if you're looking for

[5:41:32] something to do on that particular day, you should head on down and see for

[5:41:35] yourself all that Leslieville has to offer.

[5:41:38] Um, as well, just uh two a note on two uh educational opportunities for elected

[5:41:44] officials. We have the AB MUN's riskaware webinar series. The uh

[5:41:49] webinars are taking place on three different dates, three different topics.

[5:41:53] October 5th, we have municipal sidewalks, managing risk and liability.

[5:41:57] October 21st, emergency management in Alberta, AMA and what municipalities

[5:42:00] need to know and again harassment of elected officials and staff, risks,

[5:42:05] liabilities and strategies to deal with them happening on November 25th. Uh the

[5:42:10] second one would be the elected officials education program and some

[5:42:13] webinar dates are being offered there for a class or a course rather.

[5:42:17] Council's role in CIO employment which will uh I guess give you a a broad

[5:42:22] overview of how you can act as my employer.

[5:42:27] So, uh, that will be happening on three different dates from October 7th,

[5:42:30] October 14th, and October 21st at all occurrences. They are taking place from

[5:42:36] 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. So, do email administration if you wish to partake in

[5:42:40] any of those educational offerings and we will get you registered promptly.

[5:42:43] Thank you. >> Excellent. Thank you, CEO Simpson. Does

[5:42:48] council any council members have any questions or comments for Mr. Simpson?

[5:42:52] If not, I'd be looking for a motion to adopt or accept uh CEO Simpson's report

[5:42:57] as information. Councelor McCauley, you'd like to make that motion? Okay.

[5:43:01] Councilor McCauley makes a motion to accept CEO report for information. I'll

[5:43:05] call a question. All those in favor? Motion is supported by councel going

[5:43:09] into verbal council reports. And I'll start with councelor Powell.

[5:43:13] » Thank you, Reev. Um okay. Well, I hope everyone had a great long weekend. I got

[5:43:18] to spend mine with my kids. Also just um watch out for the school buses everybody

[5:43:23] and the kids. They are all back in school. It was a busy few weeks. Um we

[5:43:29] had a meeting with the town. We had a meeting with the province to discuss um

[5:43:34] the development nodes. We had a meeting with Caroline Egg Society. Oh goodness.

[5:43:39] We had a planning and development workshop which was excellent. um and NIC

[5:43:45] and I will keep saying this every single verbal counselor report. I sure hope

[5:43:50] people pick up their phones and call their counselors. Um we are here to

[5:43:56] answer questions and to listen and thank you.

[5:44:01] » Thank you, Councelor Pal. Are there any questions for councelor Powell?

[5:44:06] Seeing none. Councelor Lewin, the floor is yours. Yeah, the same like uh

[5:44:11] councelor Powell mentioned, we met with um town over the new uh Rex complex

[5:44:18] which or multiplex which we went over today also and we did the development of

[5:44:24] JSP. Um it was interesting that we got an ecological reserve

[5:44:30] uh letter from the province for the Kney Plains that they're doing something out

[5:44:35] there. We're not quite sure yet what. And we had an egg service board meeting.

[5:44:40] Uh did our strategic plan. We talked about uh used oil uh getting used oil

[5:44:46] taken out. So if there's any uh farmers that need to get rid of their used oil,

[5:44:50] their main uh their only drop off is at their main station out by the airport

[5:44:55] there um two days a week. And other than that, a few calls from citizens of

[5:45:01] concern over dust control, noise, and um broadband. Yeah. One one one person was

[5:45:09] very concerned about broadband. It came within a half mile of their place and

[5:45:12] then slopped and went a different direction. So,

[5:45:17] and that's all I have for report for now. Thank you.

[5:45:20] » Excellent. Thank you, Councelor Lewin. Are there any com comments or questions

[5:45:23] for councelor Lewin's report? Seeing none, Deputy Reeve, the floor is yours.

[5:45:28] » Thanks, Reeve. Uh, much the same. We, uh, met with the province last week. We

[5:45:36] had an excellent planning seminar. We also met with the town regarding the,

[5:45:40] uh, plans for the possible future multiplex.

[5:45:45] But uh something extremely important uh that we need to

[5:45:52] bring awareness back to is there was another accident involving a school bus

[5:45:57] in Clearwater County. I'm not sure if everyone's aware, but on Highway 11 in

[5:46:02] the exact place that I have been harping on our enforcement and the RCMP

[5:46:09] and fighting with the school division about, there was a semi rear ended a

[5:46:13] vehicle right behind a school bus. And there was two vehicles that would have

[5:46:18] had to have hit the school bus, but they each had to take the ditch. and the

[5:46:23] young person that was exiting the school bus had to jump back on the bus again

[5:46:28] to avoid being struck. So, I don't know what more we need to do.

[5:46:35] » [clears throat] >> Um, there is some rather uh

[5:46:41] I guess understandable community outrage as apparently there was only a small

[5:46:47] fine issue to the driver of the semi and there really doesn't seem to be

[5:46:54] anything else is going to come of this. So I guess I'm putting it out there to

[5:47:00] administration to other counselors for suggestions. I know we've already told

[5:47:04] our our enforcement to focus on that

[5:47:08] specific area. Um I guess that day they weren't able to be out there, but I

[5:47:16] don't think the next time we're going to get so lucky.

[5:47:20] Thanks

[5:47:24] » on Deputy Ree on on that topic and school

[5:47:28] bus safety is highly important [clears throat] to many of the parents

[5:47:32] in the community. Um, we could take this time to make an a

[5:47:37] motion to direct administration to write a letter of concern from Clearwater

[5:47:40] County to the Minister of Transportation and Economic Corridors. Um, requesting

[5:47:47] mitigation measures and letting them know that this is an ongoing concern in

[5:47:52] that location. Would that be appropriate?

[5:47:57] » Yes, I would gladly make that motion. Could we also add to that motion a

[5:48:02] letter to the RCMP or to the Alberta Justice requesting

[5:48:10] stiffer penalties and

[5:48:14] I I don't know how how else to word that, but yeah, I guess just requesting

[5:48:19] stronger penalties for incidents like this. [sighs]

[5:48:23] So essentially requesting that two letters be drafted.

[5:48:27] What we could do is we could potentially have one letter to the Minister of

[5:48:30] Transport Transportation Economic Corridors to start with and then we

[5:48:33] could potentially have a fall resolution or a spring resolution at RMA to to

[5:48:38] possibly lobby and have those fines or penalties increased. But uh and and some

[5:48:42] of that could be pending the information that we get back from the province. But

[5:48:46] for now, we could have a letter requesting

[5:48:50] um mitigation measures andor just notifying

[5:48:54] them that that area where the collisions are taking place needs to be addressed.

[5:48:59] » That's a great step forward. Yes, >> absolutely. Mrs. Thompson, were you able

[5:49:04] to capture the wording in that motion?

[5:49:09] Yeah, I believe you landed on directing administration to draft a letter of

[5:49:13] concern to Alberta Transportation and economic corridors regarding

[5:49:18] investigating the safety measures implemented in that location.

[5:49:23] » Does that work, Deputy Reef? >> It does. Thank you.

[5:49:25] » Excellent. Councelor Lewin, go ahead. >> Yes. Um, this area of concern, I think

[5:49:30] all areas of concern are out there when it comes to school buses, children.

[5:49:34] Whereabouts was this one? >> Highway 11. Highway 11.

[5:49:40] Well, sorry. Just west of Wall Street. >> Wall Street. Dis west. Okay. Thank you.

[5:49:45] [snorts] Okay. I have a motion on the floor. Um

[5:49:52] I can't have I can't remember the wording. Miss Thompson. Would you be

[5:49:55] able to repeat that? And we'll officially place that on the floor. My

[5:49:59] apologies. uh directing administration to draft a

[5:50:03] letter of concern to the Minister of Transportation Economic Corridors uh

[5:50:07] requesting an invest in investigation for safety measures regarding school bus

[5:50:12] safety in that location or along Highway 11.

[5:50:16] » Yeah. >> Okay. I'll declare that motion

[5:50:20] officially on the floor for a vote. If there's no more discussion and I'm

[5:50:23] seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor?

[5:50:27] That motion is supported by council. Are there any questions for any other items

[5:50:31] on Deputy Reef's [snorts] report? Seeing none, councelor McCauley, go ahead,

[5:50:36] please. >> I have most of the same stuff everyone

[5:50:39] else has. Um, just a couple comments. The, uh, meeting with the province on

[5:50:44] the development nodes was really, really, um, well, I guess everyone was

[5:50:49] there. They they really were listening to us, so it felt like we made progress

[5:50:53] in that meeting. Uh I was at Nord Days all weekend and it was a lot of fun.

[5:50:59] Really good to see all the energy in the area. Got to watch a helicopter land

[5:51:02] like 40 ft in front of me. So it was uh it was a lot of fun to see everything

[5:51:07] everyone out there. Um that's really all I have that's different from everyone

[5:51:12] else. So thanks. >> Excellent. Any comments or questions for

[5:51:16] councelor McCully? Seeing none. Councelor Serat, go ahead, please.

[5:51:20] » Thank you. Uh on the 27th of I attended a meeting out at Caroline with the

[5:51:28] Carolina Society. It was quite a meeting. I won't go into

[5:51:34] more than that. On the 28th, we were in here at a planning and council meeting.

[5:51:41] I found that meeting had great information and insight to what planning

[5:51:46] does and what we can do to help planning.

[5:51:49] That was kind of a close session. So I won't go into the information on that.

[5:51:55] Um then I was drove to Fort McMurray and attended the care up there for three

[5:52:04] days. What a fantastic um

[5:52:10] bunch of information we got from the people up there. the manager of the um

[5:52:16] waste facility up there does some pretty fantastic stuff. Anybody in that facil

[5:52:23] in that town of I think there's 60,000 that live in the city,

[5:52:29] they have a compost pile there. They can go and get this rich black soil, no

[5:52:34] cost. Just drive up there and get it. Um and and then they they got into the new

[5:52:43] um AER review of the person that makes the packaging that

[5:52:53] you buy your stuff in has to look after disposal of that packaging. So the AER

[5:53:00] now has got 500 [snorts] depots in Alberta

[5:53:07] that they are getting contractors and they have the contractors have to

[5:53:14] supply the bins [clears throat]

[5:53:17] and in certain areas I'm in Alberta they don't have bins they use bags

[5:53:23] the contractors have to use that the AER have deced decided that if you

[5:53:30] have bins, the county gets to keep their bins and

[5:53:35] the contractor has to supply new ones, which is a total waste of money, but

[5:53:41] that's how I how it is. Um, and all of this stuff has to be

[5:53:47] collected in Alberta, but there's only two main places where these 500 depots

[5:53:53] have to go to, and that's Calgary and Edmonton.

[5:53:58] And this all has to be signed by the 1st of October.

[5:54:03] And they're just starting to do it right now. They have a lot of work ahead of

[5:54:08] them. Um,

[5:54:14] and the other part of of the one that we were at in one meeting that was in, the

[5:54:20] one thing that really stuck out to me is that onethird of the provincial revenues

[5:54:26] for Alberta comes from the Fort McMurray area.

[5:54:32] There's one plant there that contributes 11 and a half tr billion dollars a year

[5:54:39] to our coffers. Just one plant up there. It's amazing the money that is spent up

[5:54:47] in that area. That's my report.

[5:54:53] Any questions for councelor Serach's verbal counselor report?

[5:54:58] Seeing none, councelor Humphrey, go ahead.

[5:55:00] » Yes. Thank you. Um [clears throat] once gone around the around the room and

[5:55:07] pretty much everything that everybody else went to and was involved in, I was

[5:55:12] there. Uh with the exception of the uh I was at a mutual [clears throat] aid and

[5:55:19] industry crime reduction meeting uh in conjunction then with the West Central

[5:55:24] stakeholders meeting. Uh um it was uh quite interesting. The uh

[5:55:32] [clears throat] Rocky RCMP and Rimi RCMP were both represented there. Um, Rocky

[5:55:37] RCMP said their industrial uh related crimes were were only there was only

[5:55:43] three reported in the in the rock areas as opposed to uh they had a dozen uh

[5:55:51] industrial crimes. And it's usually the uh

[5:55:55] theft of copper copper wires and batteries and that kind of thing that

[5:56:01] there is kind of the big ticket items that are being gone after. They said uh

[5:56:06] in the Rimi area there was uh a little uptick, but that's kind of natural for

[5:56:11] the summertime. They said they'll lots of times get a little uptick in the

[5:56:15] crime and stuff that happens there. They did get uh two arrests which are be

[5:56:20] followed up with two court appearances. So, uh there's a opportunity and a good

[5:56:25] chance that maybe some of the bad guys won't be out on the on the roads for a

[5:56:31] while. So, that's always a positive. Um, [clears throat]

[5:56:36] at the West Central stakeholders meeting, I guess one of the things there

[5:56:40] was a uh there was a presentation uh not a county

[5:56:49] opinion. It was just an information. There was some information presented on

[5:56:56] data centers. Again, it wasn't anything to do with the county's opinions on

[5:57:02] them. It was just an information on water usage and and this kind of things

[5:57:07] and and uh information about the one that was going to go in down at Olds and

[5:57:12] how it had been uh cancelled. Just some general information.

[5:57:20] And that's uh pretty much it for what I have uh to say other than start

[5:57:27] repeating everything that everybody else said. So I'll sign off.

[5:57:33] Uh thank you councelor Humphrey and uh regarding the data centers information

[5:57:38] and facts is key on so many subjects of discussion. So thank you for that. Are

[5:57:45] there any questions for councelor Humphrey?

[5:57:49] Seeing none. Um my is consistent of many of the same activities that the balance

[5:57:54] of council has attended. uh the meeting with the provincial uh representatives.

[5:58:00] I think there's been a a great relationship gained there over the last

[5:58:03] roughly 10 to 11 months uh to better serve Clearwater County. Um, regarding

[5:58:09] the recycling conference, uh, the extended producer responsibility

[5:58:12] program, many Albertans have been paying the fees

[5:58:16] associated with the product themselves, but yet municipalities have been having

[5:58:20] to subsidize and/or pay to assist in the recycling programs where this um there

[5:58:26] was no provincial legislation in place. This does come into effect October 1st.

[5:58:33] um municipalities will not have to subsidize or pay for the recycling of

[5:58:37] the materials or getting them to the recycling depots that uh is now on the

[5:58:42] the producer themselves. So, it's actually it'll be a benefit to the

[5:58:45] residents. We've we've been paying this these fees for maybe a decade or more.

[5:58:51] We're just going to be able to get the benefit from and not have to pay

[5:58:55] additional m municipal taxes for that service.

[5:58:59] Um, I've just had uh many great phone calls

[5:59:03] and some great communication with residents over the last little while.

[5:59:07] But other than that,

[5:59:10] many of many of my meetings have been in line with the balance of council. Are

[5:59:16] there any questions for me from council members on my report?

[5:59:21] Seeing none, I'd be looking for a motion to accept council verbal reports for

[5:59:24] information. Deputy Reeve McCay makes a motion to

[5:59:27] accept the council verbal council reports for information. Seeing no

[5:59:32] discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Motion is supported by

[5:59:35] council. We do have a close session item on today's council meeting. So, I'd be

[5:59:39] looking for a motion to go into close session.

[5:59:45] » I do I've been no aware of notices of motion.

[5:59:50] » There's no notice motion from anybody coming forward and I'm not aware of any.

[5:59:54] But uh >> I just haven't know if it had to be

[5:59:57] before or after. >> Um

[6:00:00] » it can be brought forward at another meeting then if that's the case.

[6:00:03] » Okay. At this point in time then I can declare that there's been no notice

[6:00:07] motion being brought forward at this point in time.

[6:00:09] » Can I make a motion?

[6:00:15] Um I just I haven't been made aware of

[6:00:18] anything just regarding the agenda, but um if you'd like to propose a motion, we

[6:00:23] can we'll work through this and uh we'll direct administration accordingly.

[6:00:27] » It's one that's very simple >> and it's uh it's um resident to

[6:00:33] resident request. Um, I would like to mo make the motion that administration

[6:00:40] bring back a proposal for revised stop when lights flashing stop for school bus

[6:00:48] signs throughout Clearwater County.

[6:00:53] And that information should include costs and uh appropriate locations, I

[6:00:58] suppose. Do those signs and this I think that's a

[6:01:04] I would have to support this motion. Um I do have a question for administration.

[6:01:09] Those signs are they provinially regulated in any manner or

[6:01:15] » That's a good question. >> Uh it's unclear to me at this time, Mr.

[6:01:19] Ree. I would suggest you just give us a little bit of time to make the necessary

[6:01:21] inquiries. That would be uh also cross referencing the Alberta traffic safety

[6:01:25] act for areas where that may take place on the provincial roadway and then

[6:01:29] probably some consultation with the transportation division of the school

[6:01:31] division to see where the bus routes are and those indicated stops so that we

[6:01:34] might have the ability to cross reference that with our I guess

[6:01:39] proposal. I'm assuming uh Mr. Deputy Rearity purposes that this is something

[6:01:43] you would like to incorporate into a roads bylaw or just that its own

[6:01:47] separate piece of enforcement? I know it it was more just uh for the

[6:01:53] awareness, you know, like the large signs that they just say stop when

[6:01:57] lights flashing. >> Okay. You see them along highways

[6:02:00] occasionally. >> So placement of additional signage then.

[6:02:02] » Correct. >> Okay. Thank you.

[6:02:05] » The cost of and location that would be appropriate.

[6:02:11] » So just uh going to defer to administration. Could this be brought

[6:02:15] back with information and there could potentially be additional information

[6:02:18] brought back to a future council meeting regarding the costs, the locations and

[6:02:23] maybe even there will be some additional information that may come out of this

[6:02:25] but regarding legislation. So so information and then if when we

[6:02:30] get that information we can make a further direction to give with with an

[6:02:35] action with a we'll get the proper information and then we can move forward

[6:02:38] with an action. Excellent. >> Miss Thompson, are you able to capture

[6:02:43] that motion?

[6:02:46] Yes. That administration bring back a proposal for revised and additional

[6:02:52] signage for stop when red lights flashing signage for Clearwater County

[6:02:56] roadways.

[6:03:03] » Seeing no discussion, I'll place that motion officially on the floor. Seeing

[6:03:07] no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor

[6:03:10] and that motion is supported. Now, are there any other motions or notices of

[6:03:16] motions? I do not believe there are any at this time. So, we'd be going into

[6:03:19] close session at this time. Council Humphrey, you're indicating you'd like

[6:03:22] to make the motion for to enter into close session.

[6:03:26] » Yes, I'd like to make a motion that we proceed into close session. Okay. Have a

[6:03:30] motion on the floor from Council Humphrey that we move into close

[6:03:32] session. Call question. All those in favor? Motion supported by councel.

[7:21:33] Welcome back from our closed session for our September 8th, 2026

[7:21:40] regular council meeting. There are no motions coming out of closed. Um that

[7:21:44] does conclude our council meeting for today. So our last Motion would be item

[7:21:50] number 11, which is adjournment. Councelor Humphrey makes the motion for

[7:21:54] adjournment. Um, I'll call the question. All those in favor?

[7:21:59] Motion is supported by council. Thank you very much for watching and have a

[7:22:02] good evening everybody.

Regular Council Meeting - 08 Sep 2026

Transcript