[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.