[4:24] Okay. Good morning everyone. In the true

[4:28] spirit of reconciliation, we acknowledge all those who call this land home now

[4:32] and for thousands of years in the past. May we respect each other and find

[4:35] understanding together and recognize the benefits this land provides to all of

[4:38] us. We call the meeting to order this morning at 9:03 a.m.

[4:45] Uh we look at our agenda for today. We have two time commitments. We have uh

[4:51] two public hearings scheduled for 10:00 a.m. and we have our delegation at 11:30

[4:56] for our 2026 bary award recipients. Uh moving to the uh formal adoption of

[5:03] the agenda. Are there any proposed additions, deletions, any edits to the

[5:08] agenda as presented?

[5:14] » Go, John. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move

[5:17] to adopt the agenda as presented. >> Thank you, John. John is moved to adopt

[5:21] the agenda as presented. Is there any discussion? Call question. Those in

[5:25] favor? Opposed? That is carried. Uh moving down you before you you have the

[5:32] county council meeting minutes of July 16th, 2026. Are there any errors

[5:37] submissions? Anything arising from the minutes as presented?

[5:43] » Eric. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to

[5:46] approve the council meeting minutes from July 16, 2026 meeting.

[5:51] » Thank you, Eric. Eric has moved to approve the county council meeting

[5:54] minutes of July 20 July 16th 2026 as presented. Is there any discussion? Call

[6:01] the question. Those in favor opposed. That is carried. Uh we can move down

[6:06] then in our agenda to our subdivision applications. We have five subdivision

[6:11] applications for today. We'll start at number one. D1 subdivision application

[6:16] 2026-0291204158

[6:21] Alberta Limited. Goring Kalin, Goring, Steve.

[6:25] » Good morning, council.

[6:29] So, as mentioned, we have sub uh five subdivision applications before you as

[6:34] the subdivision authority. Um we'll start with subdivision application

[6:38] 2026-029.

[6:42] Um it is a subdivision of 10.09 acres um from an 86.7

[6:50] acre title for country residential use. It let me just pull up the map here. Um

[6:56] it is directly west of the town of Noble for boundary and north of Highway 519.

[7:03] And u with that I will pass it on to Steve for recommendations.

[7:10] » Good morning. this uh first application um just on the uh doorstep there to the

[7:15] town of Nobleford on the west side of the the town and the CPR tracks there.

[7:21] Um as you can see there, they're looking to subdivide at the very northern

[7:25] portion of their title that 10.09 acres. Um technically this is treated as a

[7:31] first parcel out subdivision for the applicant. Um the all the remnant of the

[7:37] quarter section on the east side is uh is the municipality for the town of

[7:42] Nobleford as well for the uh some road and the CPR rail line uh which doesn't

[7:49] count towards subdivision um of the landowner applicant. Um, one of the

[7:55] unique things about this parcel as well is there is a small little triangle

[7:59] piece at the very south end um, which is actually in the town of Nobleford. So

[8:04] this parcel, the title itself has a split municipal jurisdiction. So even

[8:08] though the subdivision is occurring on the Lethbridgeidge County side of the

[8:12] border, the town of Nobleford also has to uh um, do an approval uh, in order

[8:18] for it to go through land titles. Um so they'll be doing a concurrent um uh

[8:25] approval on this as well which I believe their meeting is next week uh for the

[8:29] town of Noford on it. Um so with that this is in the IDP area um with the uh

[8:35] town of um the that plan basically does allow um

[8:41] for a single type of subdivision um to come out. um anything additional or

[8:47] further um some of the policies in there then direct that an area structure plan

[8:51] that sort of thing has to be done. Um one of the things with this application

[8:55] there is um a small little piece on the east side running parallel to the tracks

[9:01] Lshaped there. Um as you cross the tracks um there's a easement access

[9:07] rightway that goes up to the north for the north land owner and there's a yard

[9:10] up there as well. there's access right away that goes directly to the west to a

[9:14] yard on the west side there. Um so as you come across the tracks um that

[9:20] little piece will be as Kayn shown there will be dedicated as road um in order to

[9:26] uh capture it now um so it doesn't get lost um if any further subdivision was

[9:32] to occur in this area. Um the IDP uh does talk about a a road concept plan

[9:37] has to be done on this west side uh to provide some continuity to the uh north,

[9:43] south and the west. Um so that piece will be uh that first um piece will be

[9:48] in place to cross the tracks. Um the IDP did identify this um crossing um as an

[9:55] access. Um however, the CPR does uh control the access of the crossing

[10:00] there. Um the applicants did have to obtain a uh CPR crossing agreement uh

[10:06] for the CPR for this subdivision in order to utilize that uh which they do

[10:11] have in writing uh that agreement. Um one of the things in reviewing the

[10:16] application um the town did request that that road just be kind of squared off or

[10:22] the line run all the way parallel on the west side there. um they have a little

[10:25] access that goes into their water reservoir parcel there uh to the south

[10:30] and and just to kind of keep that um squared off and then their area too

[10:34] would be included in that. Um so be reflected one of the conditions of

[10:39] approval. Um so with this um the south end of the

[10:45] parent parcel does touch uh highway 519. Um, so during the circulation, Alberta

[10:51] Transportation, uh, since they're using internal access has no concerns or

[10:55] objections, uh, to the application. Um, and there were no other objections or

[11:01] concerns, uh, received on it.

[11:06] Um, since the package came out, we've heard from the other utility companies.

[11:11] Um, at this time, nobody requires any easements or anything for utilities. Um

[11:15] the parcel itself will require a waiver to be approved because it is a bare land

[11:19] um parcel at the moment at the 10.09 exceeds the threeacre parcel size. Um

[11:25] the request for the parcel as is uh is for a couple of reasons. One is that um

[11:30] they do want to develop the main part of the yard more to the west to be away

[11:34] from the CPR tracks. And as well uh the parcel designed the way it is will

[11:39] follow that existing access right away and the driveway that's there for the

[11:42] neighbor to the west and their parcel will physically touch all the way to the

[11:46] east side um to that road dedication to the crossing to go across the tracks

[11:51] there. Um so with that um

[11:57] the recommendation in front of you is to approve the application.

[12:02] Um it does conform to the IED um it is in planning area 1B and it conforms to

[12:08] those policies as well. Um with the waiver granted um to approve the 10

[12:13] acres 10.09 acres rather than the three. um it otherwise complies with the land

[12:17] use bylaw and the subdivision criteria and the approval will be based on those

[12:22] um five conditions there that um taxes paid up to uh paid and up to date a

[12:28] development agreement entered into the county um where the county can outline

[12:32] the terms of that road um that surveyed plan be submitted which includes the

[12:37] road dedication that extends all the way to the south of plan 731HG and parcel B

[12:42] which is the town's water reservoir. Um the soils analysis would uh be done for

[12:48] the private septic system and the town of Noford um has to provide a concurrent

[12:54] endorsement um for land titles and approval as well. Um so with those five

[12:58] conditions the recommendation is to approve on that basis.

[13:02] » Thanks Steve. I'd open up to council on.

[13:07] » Thank you Mr. Chair. When I'm looking at this subdivision um proposal, I just

[13:14] want to make sure that I understand it correctly. The access right away that is

[13:18] going to the parcel on the left to the 0012977

[13:23] that is not that is remaining with the me part of the parcel and I'm assuming

[13:29] that that would be handled by by some sort of a private agreement between the

[13:33] land owners that that's not going to be turned into a roadway or a driveway.

[13:37] » Not at this point. That's correct. will remain in place on and it's on title

[13:40] currently. >> Okay. Thank you.

[13:44] » Mr. Chair, >> could you just tell me again which part

[13:47] is the towns? Is it that little square there

[13:52] » of of the title? >> Yeah.

[13:54] » At the very south end

[13:59] » that piece right there. >> Oh, so it's actually not part of this

[14:04] subdivision. >> I mean, it's technically part of the

[14:07] title, but They're subdivating on the county side of the parrot title and

[14:11] that's part of the remnant just the boundary between the two of you. Um

[14:16] where there was an old road plan there is just on the other side. So it's

[14:21] » so then does Kip Street end at the railroad tracks.

[14:25] » Yes. >> And then it becomes a private access or

[14:28] access agreement. Okay. That's correct. >> Thank you.

[14:32] » Anything further?

[14:35] » Thank you Mr. Chair. Let me zoom in >> with the land owner.

[14:40] » So to clarify for council, uh when this application came forward, it was really

[14:44] to try to figure out how to allow for a country residential subdivision, it

[14:48] being the first title out, but also rectifying some of the road plan issues

[14:52] we have today and trying to make sure that we will have road dedicated for

[14:56] future subdivisions. Um, so we looked back at the IDP and the conceptual road

[15:01] network and determined what what amount of road needed to be dedicated to make

[15:06] sure that other parcels will have access if they want to develop in the future

[15:10] while still allowing this subdivision to go forward. And then Nobleford did

[15:14] identify a really good opportunity to um square off the triangle so that they

[15:18] have a full road plan to access their water treatment plant. Um so there was a

[15:22] lot of opportunities to to fix existing line work.

[15:26] Anything

[15:29] else? Mark.

[15:32] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd move that subdivision application number 2026-

[15:37] » It is exactly 2 miles um east of the city of Lethbridge immediately east of

[15:42] the Highway 4. And this is really a reconfiguration and consolidation of

[15:48] four titles. And so the reconfigured titles will be um 998

[15:56] 178 and 1.7 acres in size. There's a substantial number of diagrams that

[16:00] Steve will walk through with his uh recommendations.

[16:05] And on this application, um I guess it the easiest way to describe it is by

[16:11] looking at at the the images um shown the land before and after the um

[16:17] basically what the proposal is is that it's enabled land swap and title

[16:21] reconfiguration between the adjacent parcels. Um largely as a result of a

[16:26] project driven by the SMR. Um there's a portion of former canal rightway in

[16:31] there that the SMRD no longer needs. They made agreement with the land owners

[16:35] um to dispose some of it and consolidate it into their lands and part of that too

[16:40] is just um realigning the boundaries to some of the existing land uses um on the

[16:46] property as well along with that. So the parcel sizes get adjusted. So um there

[16:52] will be approximately 1.7 acres that parcel remain as irrigation plan at the

[16:58] very west end for the SMID. Um there's a yard in there um that uh currently is

[17:06] that 3.37 hectares or 8.25 acres. Um that their

[17:12] yard, it's the same land owner that has the title to the east, the large

[17:15] agriculture parcel. Um and on the air photo, you can see that their yard kind

[17:20] of extends and there's fenced to the back. Um so there's kind of following

[17:24] the angle of their existing yard and such there and the land outside the

[17:28] cultivated land. Um and then there's a slight adjustment between the two egg

[17:33] pieces um based on the canal and that sort of thing. So um it is a a land swap

[17:40] and configuration occurring between all of them. Um just as you can see there

[17:46] where the former and the blue line the canal was just how in the end the new

[17:50] black line showed the parcel lines there just to try to clean that up and

[17:54] straighten it out in the end with that disposal um of the SMD canal them no

[17:58] longer needing it. So um so with this application um there um

[18:07] there was no um provincial interests uh historical resources that type of thing,

[18:12] environmental stuff that are affected by it. Um the application is in close

[18:17] proximity to Highway 4, although um transportation doesn't require anything

[18:20] and there's no concerns with it. Um the uh the parcels themselves um with the

[18:28] realignment is that there will be no additional titles created in the end. Um

[18:35] they start with four titles in the end there's still four. It's just different

[18:38] sizes a little bit between the two with that uh kind of land swap and

[18:42] configuration going on. Uh so this does align with the county subdivision

[18:46] policies for realignment reconfiguration of titles. There's no additional titles

[18:50] created. Um there's no objections or concerns received um since the

[18:56] application came out. Um we've now heard back um from the utility companies

[19:00] additional that didn't respond previous. Um there was no easements required. Um

[19:05] so on that basis um there's a recommendation of approval in front of

[19:09] you and that'd be based on the four conditions of the taxes being paid. If

[19:13] the county requires a development agreement that they enter into that with

[19:16] the county. Um the third condition is the survey final survey. It needs to be

[19:23] done based on the approval on that reconfiguration and the fourth just had

[19:27] talked about any easements there. Um it doesn't look like any required but um it

[19:32] does align with your reconfiguration policy. So the recommendation is to

[19:35] approve it. >> Thank you Steve. I'd open up to council.

[19:42] » Thank you Mr. Chair. well complicated in the paperwork side of things. It looks

[19:47] like it's been well laid out. And um with that, I would like to move the

[19:52] recommendation that subdivision application 2026-077

[19:58] be approved subject to the conditions as outlined in the draft resolution.

[20:03] Thank you, Eric. Eric's move the recommendation that subdivision

[20:06] application 2026-077 be approved subject to the conditions

[20:11] outlined in the draft resolution. Is there any further questions or

[20:14] discussion? Seeing none, I will call the question.

[20:19] Those in favor? Opposed? That is carried.

[20:28] » Uh, third subdivision for today. Subdivision application 2026-085.

[20:34] Kaylin, >> thank you. Um, so subdivision

[20:36] application 2026-085. It's within a portion of northeast

[20:42] quarter 11821 west of the 4th. Here is the map. So it is located um one

[20:53] mile west of Highway 4 and a half a mile east of the city of Lethbridge. Uh the

[20:58] proposal before you is to subdivide a 6.83 83 acre title from the existing 79

[21:04] acres and this falls under the legacy yard country residential use under our

[21:09] land use bylaw. And with that, I'll pass on to Steve for recommendations.

[21:14] » So, this application is I guess your uh second at the county here since the

[21:18] policy went in on the legacy yard site. Um this application was made on that

[21:23] basis. The uh parent title itself has existed since 1952.

[21:29] Um, the property has been in the same family for multiple generations. Um,

[21:33] there's still the older home that was built in 1950s on the property. Um, and

[21:38] then there's a second newer home on the west side of the parcel that was built

[21:42] around 1996. Um, that uh is on the west side. Um, so

[21:48] the application, as you can see there, they're taking the yard out of the

[21:51] northeast corner along the road. Uh, there's a 72.65 acre residual. Um there

[21:57] is an abandoned gas well on this property, but it's located um to the

[22:01] southwest on the agricultural portion and the existing yard and the

[22:07] subdivision coming out um meets the setback distances uh to that abandoned

[22:12] gas well. So there's no uh concerns with that. Um the application is in the IDP

[22:18] area um with the um city of Lethbridge um with the legacy yard site policy

[22:26] being put in and the or the city was circulated at that time. Um this

[22:31] application conforms to the county's bylaw subdivision criteria and on that

[22:35] basis uh the city of Lethbridge uh has no concerns and did not object to the

[22:39] application. Um as well it is within the referral distance of AT and AT also has

[22:44] no concerns uh since uh their infrastructure roads aren't being

[22:49] impacted by it and they take access off that uh local county road.

[22:54] Um so this application um does meet the legacy yard site um criteria it would

[23:01] appear. Um you as council have to be satisfied with that. Um but it does

[23:06] appear the yards has existed for at least 50 years or more and um the um

[23:11] it's been in the same family.

[23:16] So the recommendation in front of you uh is to approve the application. Um on

[23:21] this application there would be the applicability of a municipal reserve

[23:25] payment to the county. Um that market value did come in at 55,116

[23:30] per acre for the municipal reserve payment on that 6.83 83 acre yard

[23:34] portion only. Um it's not applicable on the other agricultural residual piece.

[23:39] Um so with the payment of municipal reserve um the other four conditions

[23:44] there with the taxes development agreement uh the final survey plan um

[23:49] and then the fourth referred to the utility easements um we've since heard

[23:53] back by from ATCO and foris and um they don't require anything at this point.

[24:02] Um, so with that, the recommendation is um to approve

[24:07] um the application as applied for. >> Thank you, Steve. I'd open up to

[24:13] council. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, just one

[24:16] quick, how many dollars an acre did you say it was valued at?

[24:19] » It came in at 55,116 per acre.

[24:27] » Okay. With that, I would move uh subdivision application 2026-085

[24:34] with the four conditions. Thank you, Lauren. Lauren has move the

[24:38] recommendation that subdivision application 2026-085

[24:42] be approved sub conditions for the reasons outlined in the draft

[24:45] resolution. Is there any further discussion? Go ahead.

[24:50] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. not so much question or whatever, but just a

[24:54] statement on it that I think the the land assessment is plenty high on it uh

[25:00] due to location and existing land around it. Thank you.

[25:06] Anything else? I'll call the question. Those in favor?

[25:10] Opposed? That carries. Our fourth subdivision application 2026-

[25:17] 0-086.

[25:27] Okay. Thank you, council. Um, so subdivision application 2026-0-086.

[25:33] It's a portion of the southeast corner quarter 10 1121 west of the 4th. It is

[25:41] located a mile north of the town of Picturebutes.

[25:45] So, right there. Um, and just west of Highway 25. The proposal before you is

[25:52] to res-split a title, which is 5.38 acres into two titles being 2.48 and 2.8

[25:59] respectively for country residential use. And with that, I'll pass it on to

[26:03] Steve for recommendations. So, this application in front of you is

[26:07] a uh res-split of an existing title, 20 acres less in size. Um that the county

[26:12] has a subdivision policy um uh to enable such. Um as you can see

[26:19] maybe in the photo there, they have a developed yard in the north side with a

[26:22] uh dwelling on there. They're looking to subdivide the south portion. Um that

[26:28] south portion a little bit larger at 2.8 acres. It will include on the west

[26:33] perimeter or sorry the east perimeter I should say um a a panhandle that goes up

[26:40] to the north end where the existing h access is that goes out to highway 25 um

[26:46] to provide direct physical access um to the uh that south parcel. Um so as part

[26:52] of the application there will be a little uh service road dedication at

[26:56] that very northeast corner there a little uh 20x 20 box um at the access

[27:02] point there. Um that is a requirement of Alberta transportation. Um they don't

[27:08] require and won't take service road along the whole um east perimeter there.

[27:13] Uh because as you can see the the parcel pretty much dead ends at the south end.

[27:17] it runs into the LNID um into uh reservoir land um at the

[27:23] south end there. Uh so there's uh no need no opportunity for additional

[27:28] subdivision or access at that south end there. Um that this last parcel here is

[27:33] it would be kind of like uh the uh end of the uh the street there so to speak.

[27:38] Um so with the road dedication being provided, Alberta Transportation has no

[27:44] objections to the application and has authorized that the county could u

[27:49] proceed to approve it. Um as part of the referral out um it is just outside the

[27:55] IDP area with um town of Picture but um or sorry it is just within the boundary

[28:03] but it's at the very uh kind of north perimeter of that IDP. Um this type of

[28:07] subdivision is allowed in the IDP as a respplit under the county's policy uh

[28:12] provided the uh policy is conformed with um in reviewing this application. There

[28:17] are a couple confined feeding operations to the west of this. Um it does meet um

[28:23] all the MDS's to the operations on the west and northwest of it. Um so lying

[28:30] outside the applicable MDS minimum distance separation area. Uh so there's

[28:34] no conflict there. Um

[28:38] as part of this application, Aqu gas uh was the one utility company that does

[28:42] require an easement for a gas line that runs through there. Um so with that um

[28:49] it does conform to your respplit um policy. The access um will be dealt with

[28:54] um through the condition there of providing that service road that shared

[28:57] approach kind of there at the northeast. Um there was no objections or concerns

[29:04] received on it. Um so the recommendation is to approve. Um there is also the

[29:10] applicability of municipal reserve payment on this application on the

[29:15] parent title which would be the 5.3 acres. Um that value came in at 66,037

[29:23] per acre. Um the other conditions be uh the six outline there. taxes paid the

[29:29] development agreement entered into uh to address the road and the access um the

[29:34] soils analysis be undertaken for that south 2.8 8 8 acre lot. Um their final

[29:40] plan of survey be submitted. Um that the ACO um and Ford has also requested

[29:46] utility easement be addressed through condition number five and that that road

[29:51] dedication um has to be um signed off and approved by Alberta Transportation

[29:57] um as part of the final endorsement which is addressed through condition

[30:00] number six. Um so with those six conditions and the municipal reserve

[30:04] payment um with those being applied the recommendation is to approve as applied

[30:10] for. >> Thank you Steve. Thank you Kayla. I

[30:12] would open it up to council. >> Good job.

[30:16] » Thank you Mr. Chair. Seems like a very straightforward um split of a parcel uh

[30:22] in an area that is heavily fragmented. Anyway, so I'd like to move that

[30:26] subdivision application 2026-086 be approved subject to the conditions as

[30:32] outlined in the draft resolution. Thank you, John. John has moved the

[30:36] subdivision application 2026-86 be approved subject to the conditions as

[30:41] outlined in the draft resolution. Is there any further discussion?

[30:47] Call question. Those in favor? That is carried.

[30:52] And our final subdivision application for today, uh, number five, subdivision

[30:56] application 2026-087.

[31:00] Kaylin, >> thank you, council. So, subdivision

[31:03] application 2026-087. It is within the north half 13821 west

[31:11] of the 4th and southwest quarter 24821 west of the 4th.

[31:19] So again, it's backlo immediately east of the city by one mile

[31:24] and it's adjacent to Highway 4. Um the proposal before you today is to

[31:30] subdivide a fragmented quarter and create a 76 acre agricultural title um

[31:36] from the current 110 acre um title. And with that, I will pass it on to Steve

[31:42] for recommendations. this one.

[31:46] » Yeah, this application uh the final one here is to um basically um divide the

[31:53] what's left of the quarter section on the west side of highway 4 and the CPR

[31:58] rail line um into the two agricultural portions. Um the south is the uh

[32:07] cultivated u vacant agricultural land portion at the 76.57 acres. The north

[32:14] portion will be the remnant of what's left in that title. Um that will be a

[32:19] title in two parts and currently has to remain that way. Um just the way the

[32:24] canal was done with this title and the um CPR rail line in Highway 4. Um and

[32:32] there's a irrigation canal um on the west side as well. That little northern

[32:36] triangle piece is basically a physical island. Um it doesn't touch any road at

[32:42] all. Um so that has to remain with the portion just south of it. Um so it's

[32:48] what we call a title in two parts. So it's a legally it is one parcel. Um they

[32:53] do kind of cross that canal to get in there. Uh the canal on the west side. Um

[32:58] but it there's no uh legal physical point where it it touches any public

[33:03] roadway at all. Um and that's the only way to get in there is by crossing the

[33:08] the canal. Um so this application um it is um an

[33:16] agricultural uh split. the um it is within the IDP area obviously along uh

[33:22] close to the city there. Um it's just uh beside Steuart Siding. Um the city has

[33:29] no objections or concerns to the proposal um as the applicants have

[33:33] applied for and for it being an agricultural subdivision. Um as well

[33:39] Alberta Transportation has uh no concerns um not taking any direct access

[33:44] to Highway 4 there. Um so the with this application um

[33:52] there was uh during the circulation um Aqu gas did request um a utility

[33:59] easement for the south piece there where they have a gas line running through um

[34:04] that's currently unprotected. Um so other than that um it is um does meet

[34:10] the policies as a as a fragmented title um being split into the two agricultural

[34:16] portions. Um and with that I think the conditions there uh the five outlaid in

[34:22] front of you with the taxes a development agreement into it if the

[34:25] county needs it. Um they would uh need a surveyor sketch just to confirm where

[34:30] they want to put that property line which is close to the existing dwelling

[34:33] and yard uh that there's no encroachments and it is able to meet the

[34:38] setbacks to the dwelling and such. Um and that the ACO easement as a fifth

[34:43] condition be applied. Um so with those five conditions um the recommendation is

[34:49] to approve um as applied for.

[34:56] » Thanks Steve. >> I would open up to councel.

[35:01] » John. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. When I first saw

[35:05] this I was trying to figure out why that that north parcel was

[35:09] sort of to be remained in there and why it wasn't subdivided out. But now I get

[35:14] it. there's absolutely no access to it because of way the way the railroad and

[35:18] and the canals run. So, I appreciate that explanation. And um seeing that,

[35:24] I'd like to move that subdivision application 2026-087

[35:30] be approved subject to the conditions as outlined in the draft resolution.

[35:35] Thank you, John. John has moved that subdivision application 2026-087

[35:40] be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the draft resolution. Is

[35:43] there any further discussion from seeing none question

[35:51] that's carried? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[36:17] Uh why don't we move in our agenda to item F uh department reports F1.2

[36:24] uh development permit application 26 uh D0134.

[36:32] » Good morning Jessica. Good morning everyone council. Um so in front of you

[36:37] here today is development permit application 26-d0134

[36:42] for Vanderhoff. I'm just going to pull it up here. So this particular

[36:47] application um in front of you is for an addition to

[36:52] an accessory building uh to operate a powersports business in Iron Springs.

[36:57] Um, you may recognize it from last year as we did have I apologize there's no

[37:04] map. Um, we did have an application come in for this exact use um in early 2025.

[37:11] Um, that application was approved. This is the same applicant. They are just

[37:15] wishing to enlarge the building by an additional about 500 square ft. Um so

[37:22] the proposed use is located on a parcel zoned Hamlet direct control for which

[37:26] council is the development authority. Um so the use of the existing shop as a

[37:32] power sports business as I mentioned was previously approved by county council on

[37:35] the property. The the actual addition footprint beyond what was approved last

[37:41] year is an additional 525 square feet for a total addition uh footprint of

[37:46] 1575 square feet.

[37:51] Um, under the land use bylaw 24-07, the commercial use is considered suitable by

[37:56] council um is a permitted use under the Hamlet Direct Control District. Um, for

[38:03] we we did receive uh comments back from Alberta Transportation since um this

[38:09] report was initially drafted. U they've come back stating that uh they are

[38:13] exempt from a roadside development permit. um that is listed as an

[38:17] informative on the drafted development permit um before you. Um additionally,

[38:22] the development permit draft lists that the previous development permit be

[38:26] rescended and that the applicant is to submit a grading and drainage plan um

[38:33] for approval by the county prior to beginning construction. Um at which time

[38:37] once it's approved, they would have two years uh to to complete that grading.

[38:42] Um, for these reasons, the recommendation here is that development

[38:46] permit 26-d0134 be approved as drafted. Um, the

[38:52] alternatives are that county council may refuse the development permit

[38:55] application. This would be at your discretion on the basis that the

[38:59] addition could be seen as an unsuitable use and uh the financial impact is that

[39:04] any future development on the parcel is subject to a commercial industrial tax

[39:07] rate. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jess. I'd open it up to

[39:12] council for any questions or discussion. John,

[39:17] » thank you, Mr. Chair. When I look at the U proposal on the recommendations, we're

[39:21] saying that um that the proposed addition increases the previously

[39:26] approved additional footprint by 525 square ft. But when I go and look down

[39:30] on the proposed plan, >> this plan,

[39:35] » it's saying a proposed 45 by35 addition. So that would give us an additional

[39:43] » 1,575 square feet,

[39:45] » right? Yeah. Okay. So that was just a typo then. Um,

[39:48] » no. So what it's saying is that last year we approved an addition for just

[39:52] over 1,000 square f feet. The applicant wishes to expand it further. So instead

[39:56] of the thousand, it will be just over 1500 total.

[39:58] » I'm less confused now. Okay. Thank you. I was trying to figure out where the

[40:01] math was not working in my head. So I appreciate that. Um, thank you. That's

[40:06] all I had.

[40:11] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and uh, I I think it fits within its area and

[40:17] existing business that's uh, doing well and has a place in the community. I'd

[40:21] like to move the recommendation that development permit 26-d0134

[40:27] be approved as drafted. >> Thank you, Eric. Eric has moved that

[40:31] development permit 26-D0134 be approved as drafted. Is there any

[40:37] further discussion? Call question. Those in favor post. That

[40:41] is carried. >> Thank you.

[40:43] » Thank you, Jessica. >> Uh why don't we now move up uh one item

[40:49] uh department reports F1 uh development and infrastructure F1.1

[40:54] bylaw number 26-016 Leers County subdivision authority bylaw.

[41:17] Okay. Thanks. So, thank you, council. Bylaw 26-

[41:22] bylaw 26-016. It is the Lethbridge County Subdivision

[41:26] Authority bylaw. Um, we discussed it last meeting and only passed first

[41:31] reading and I'm actually here to follow up on a few questions council did have.

[41:36] Um, so to start with, I will run through the subdivision authority bylaw and

[41:40] what's being proposed. Um, so the municipal government act requires every

[41:44] municipality to have a subdivision authority bylaw. Um, Lethbridge County

[41:48] has relied on bylaw number 1103 since 1995, which is dedicated council as a

[41:54] subdivision authority. Um I think since 1995 the Lethbridge County has faced

[41:58] substantial change in uh planning and development pressures and we do receive

[42:03] quite a few applications every year. Um it is reaching 40 applications um

[42:08] annually that are coming before council. Um so just practicality of what our

[42:14] application volumes are today and differing u planning administration

[42:19] practices and how this authority can be delegated and really placing routine

[42:24] decisions before council is how we are managing it today and um reflecting on

[42:29] modern practices where routine decisions are um delegated to administration.

[42:33] Um so the bylaw proposed before you today if I go to it

[42:39] it's really meant to identify um a two-tier model. Um basically the

[42:45] subdivision authority is delegated to the director of development and

[42:50] infrastructure where applications are considered routine. So examples when

[42:54] we're looking at agricultural um title reconfigurations, the first

[43:00] parcels out um when a area has already been resoneed for group country

[43:04] residential by council um subdividing those out into the two acre appropriate

[43:09] lot size that complies with area structure plan. Like those are the

[43:12] examples of very routine applications that we're seeing that the the director

[43:16] would be the authority. Um this bylaw is indicating that a decision would all

[43:23] would be rendered by council in very c certain circumstances. Um so if the

[43:28] applicant requests that the application go before council. So this probably

[43:32] would be in a circumstance where administration and the applicant don't

[43:35] agree maybe we're in a circumstance of a refusal. They may ask for it to be heard

[43:40] by council before the subdivision authority makes a decision. The second

[43:44] is if there is any referring agency. So, Alberta Transportation, a school board,

[43:49] if any of those referring agencies object the application, it would come

[43:53] before council instead of administration making the decision.

[43:57] Um, if there's any variance or waiver in the application, if a statutory plan is

[44:02] not being applied that council approved, any circumstance where um a

[44:07] consideration outside the land use bylaw, that would have to come before

[44:10] council. So, if you recall, there was one application today um that we heard

[44:14] that required a very slight waiver that would have had to come before council if

[44:18] this is the bylaw we're considering. Um if there's any if the director

[44:23] determines that there's any significant policy, technical, community impacts,

[44:26] they would have the discretion to bring it before council instead of them making

[44:29] a decision. Um and then if council passed any resolution or bylaw that

[44:34] dedicated subdivisional authority for a specific area. So, if we look at some

[44:38] specific subdivisions in the county that in the past we've made decisions about

[44:43] um McDermott SE section 26 where like we've put very prescriptive land use

[44:47] policies in place. Those could be circumstances where council would make

[44:50] the decision at a long-range planning perspective that I want to continue to

[44:54] be hearing the the subdivisions coming before us. So, those are the kind of

[44:58] prescriptive cases where council would hear the application even though you're

[45:01] de delegating it to the director. Um, and so I just want to roll back up.

[45:07] No, in the council report, I did give you an outline of application

[45:12] statistics. I pulled applications since 2020 um to through 2025 and then 2026

[45:18] year to date. So, we've received 187 applications over five years. Those have

[45:24] all came before council. It's averaged about 31 applications per year, but in

[45:29] recent years, it's been more like 35 to 40.

[45:32] We have had 16 um year to date. I know there's currently six applications with

[45:37] orus um under review. So there is six more coming. Um during this period there

[45:43] was only three applications refused and subsequently I only found one

[45:48] subdivision authority appealed um which went to Lapert.

[45:52] Uh 21 of the applications were considered for waiverss. 18 of those

[45:56] were approved of the 21. And in terms of processing time, because

[46:01] I think this is the biggest impact that we will see if if authority is

[46:04] delegated. Um so from an application being received to deem complete,

[46:09] currently the county averages about tw 12 days. Um the municipal government act

[46:14] requires that we're doing that within 20 days. Um complete to a decision. So once

[46:20] we deem it complete, we do the circulations, draft up the decision,

[46:23] schedule it for council, we're at 56 days. Um, so the municipal government

[46:28] act requirement is 60 days. So yes, we're hitting the target, but I want to

[46:33] say one in five applications are taking more than 60 days. So about 20% of

[46:38] applications are exceeding the municipal government act requirements and we're

[46:42] having to ask the applicant for an extension to get it before council.

[46:46] Um, from decision to endorsement, the average is 160 days. This is a really

[46:51] hard one to nail down and it's because it's a a lot under the control of the

[46:55] applicant meeting the conditions that are being set. Um so different personal

[46:59] circumstances happen, there's delays, financial delays, like that is really

[47:04] out of our control, but I just wanted to give you a ballpark of where we're at.

[47:08] Um there is applications taking a number of years to actually get endorsed to

[47:13] land titles because meeting conditions is is challenging.

[47:17] Um, so then I want to talk about the types of applications. I kind of gave

[47:22] you a breakdown the best I could. So about 25% of our applications are

[47:26] agricultural reconfigurations. They're very routine. 55% are rural egg existing

[47:33] um farmards or bareland farm farmsteads. Routine again. 8% are that group country

[47:40] residential where you've already heard a previous decision. So you've heard a

[47:44] resoning or an area structure plan before you and the subdivision is just

[47:48] that subsequent step. And then 12% is commercial industrial. Again, usually

[47:53] there is a council decision related to resoning or area structure plan at some

[47:56] point in time. So it has been before council before.

[48:00] Um so I hope that information clarifies the questions that we had last meeting,

[48:04] but I'm more than happy to answer some more questions.

[48:10] Any questions?

[48:15] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I am opposed to this. I believe the council should

[48:20] remain the subdivision authority and I would agree that there are some

[48:24] exemptions to that. I think we had a perfect example today where you

[48:28] reconfigured the property lines out by Steuart siding. Uh both cases were

[48:34] fairly simple. I think both of those are more than adequately handled by

[48:38] administration. However, I do feel it's part of our duty as a municipally

[48:43] elected counselor to do uh act as a subdivision authority.

[48:49] Ultimately, regardless of whether administration is the authority or we

[48:53] are, council is still responsible to the rateayers. So, we will hear about it one

[48:58] way or another. I think the current process is working

[49:03] and it's fitting in the MGA timelines and uh according to all we've heard

[49:09] before once you take over from Old Man River uh you will be able to speed up

[49:14] the process and should narrow down the times.

[49:18] So I think uh that it should speed up and be more than a more than adequate

[49:23] time. Thank you. Thank you, Lauren. John,

[49:30] » thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I would e echo the statements that councelor Hickeyi

[49:34] has said. I believe that it is uh it is our responsibility as a public

[49:40] facing figures to deal with public facing decisions like this. Um and you

[49:46] know looking at the the load in terms of the applications that have have been put

[49:52] in over the years um you know I I don't see this as being an extremely

[49:59] burdensome process as it is. We're meeting the do the timelines within the

[50:03] MGA and appreciate that you know at 20% of the time there may have to be an

[50:08] extension for one reason or another. Um, in in terms of, you know, if we're

[50:14] looking at the decision to force at 160 days, well, that really doesn't factor

[50:18] into this decision- making process whatsoever in my mind because that is

[50:22] something that is uh related to information or or you know, how fast the

[50:29] applicant actually gets his stuff together and gets put into place. Um, I

[50:34] I do agree that things like a simple property realignment would be something

[50:39] that we wouldn't necessarily need to see. Um, but anything more complicated

[50:45] than that, I would still like to be to see come in front of council and council

[50:50] be the ultimate decision. Thank you, John.

[50:55] just maybe for the benefit of of Lauren and John that weren't here at the last

[50:59] meeting. Um I think we anticipated some of the comments that you would make

[51:03] today and I think that was um part of the reason why council at the time

[51:08] decided to push this to today. So I would look around at your fellow

[51:11] counselors and just acknowledge the fact that I think we did see this being

[51:15] something that we felt was something that should come to council and for

[51:19] further discussion with a full albeit Kevin not being here today. um group of

[51:24] council here. Um I think the conversation that we had at the time was

[51:29] perhaps different. Um and I guess maybe I'll just speak from my perspective. I I

[51:34] I guess I see our role differently than maybe John and Lauren do in the sense

[51:38] that um I don't feel that it's council's role to necessarily face public facing

[51:44] issues. I think it's our job as council to put in good policy, solid policy,

[51:50] good bylaws, and then react to those living documents in a way that I think

[51:56] stewards a better future for the community. I don't think it's

[51:58] necessarily our job to be in the mud on every single decision.

[52:03] I know I I will give this credit, this council credit. I think we do a good job

[52:08] of of staying the course, but I have seen in the past when you have

[52:10] counselors talking about doing it for their guy or their people, and I think

[52:15] that's a slippery slope. I think at the end of the day, we're elected to

[52:19] represent all of the municipality, whether they live in our division or

[52:23] not. So, I do think there's a bit of a a balancing act there. And and I and I do

[52:27] think it's opened up interpretation how you see your role. I don't think there's

[52:31] a right way or a wrong way. I just think that maybe we see it differently. Um,

[52:35] Kayn, I thought with some of the comments we had last time, I appreciate

[52:40] some of the information you brought back and and I would again counter both

[52:44] Lauren and John and that I think what you're saying and what you where you

[52:48] have concern I think has been addressed within the draft and that, you know,

[52:53] there there's the opportunity for every applicant to come before council. Um, I

[52:57] think it takes away some of those maybe rubber stamp ones, which I would

[53:00] suggest, um, by and large every subdivision application we had today.

[53:05] Um, and I think as Kayn outlined, one perhaps. Um, but I still feel that was I

[53:11] would have felt comfortable with uh with staff making that call. Um, yeah, I I

[53:17] guess it just comes down to what you as council want. Um, how you see us moving

[53:21] forward and evolving and I just think this is a further step in that

[53:25] evolution. Um yeah, those are just my thoughts. Eric,

[53:31] » thank you, Mr. Chair. Um yeah, read it the first time, read it

[53:37] the second time. Still, uh don't have any

[53:41] solid um uh yay or nay on it. There's there's

[53:45] definitely uh apprehensions on to not current, but future that at some point

[53:51] down the road. Um the whatifs are definitely

[53:55] dark and lurking on um on things going not in a positive direction. Uh I I

[54:03] think I can comfortably draw consensus that um there's room for improvement and

[54:09] as council we can we can be part of that uh to to help some of this out. So, what

[54:17] I'd like to propose today is that we proceed with a second reading and um and

[54:24] then once again uh those that are opposed um state the

[54:32] state the the direct concerns and see that they're they're not being

[54:38] addressed. I a bunch of them are being addressed I think by by reading it

[54:44] comprehensively and then there's a few that I think could also be looked at a

[54:49] little bit further. So that's my proposal that I'd like to move the

[54:55] bylaw. Let me pull this up. that bylaw 26-016

[55:02] being the subdivision authority bylaw be read for a second time

[55:08] with the idea that we table the third and make sure that we have it fully

[55:14] fleshed out. Thank you. >> Thank you, Eric. So, Eric has moved that

[55:20] by 26-016 being the subdivision authority bylaw be read a second time.

[55:26] I'd open it again up for any discussion or comments. Go Mark.

[55:30] » Sorry, just one comment. I don't see this as a as a threat to the authority

[55:34] or the control of council. I see this as a compromise. It gives council still we

[55:39] have, you know, we still have the final discretion. If there's an issue,

[55:43] residents can bring it forward to us and council can oversee that and and address

[55:47] that and adjudicate it. I think it's moving forward as we've progressed and

[55:52] as things are changing. Um I this is just another piece of of of of the um

[55:58] county moving forward and being more proactive and progressive. Um so I

[56:03] understand Lauren and John's concern and uh you know given the history and we've

[56:07] always done it that way. Um but I think moving forward

[56:12] um you know there's room for for change and improvement and I don't see anything

[56:16] threatening in here. Um so I I would you know I'm support I would support it. Um,

[56:22] so we can move on to the motion.

[56:28] » Yeah, go ahead. Cool. >> I'm not going to speak for or against

[56:32] it. Just a couple points of clarity. Um, one thing that we tried to balance in in

[56:39] this is a change like this provides I mean like was already mentioned the

[56:44] applicant the right to bring it before council anyways. It would also allow for

[56:48] council to be the appeal. um board for subdivisions which provides

[56:55] a different oversight and one that provides more contextual awareness of

[56:59] the county and some of the land use conflicts and the actual bylaws and

[57:03] policies that are in place. And so we're trying to walk that balancing act of

[57:09] council maintains oversight. The flip side of that concern for me is I've been

[57:15] here three years. I can think of one subdivision that council amended and

[57:19] maybe there's more, but I can only recall one subdivision recommendation

[57:22] that was even amended from what was proposed in three years.

[57:27] Now, at the same time, we get a lot more

[57:30] feedback on development permit applications and other things that

[57:33] council doesn't have the full context on, and it's an information gap because

[57:37] you're not in the weeds on those. So, it's like, well, what about this and

[57:40] what about this? But I have yet to see something that has been a a gross change

[57:45] in direction from what's been recommended. And so I think for us the

[57:48] line that the challenge I have I think this

[57:52] provides a better customer service and maintains council oversight. The

[57:56] challenge I have on the other side is you're going to have less context on all

[57:59] of those things until they come or if they come before council. So it is a bit

[58:03] of a like trust that we can hand that off. And so I know Kaylin tried to walk

[58:08] this with this bylaw, but if there's things you guys want to see differently,

[58:11] we I'm it cuts both ways. I just wanted to put it out there that we're not

[58:16] pushing one one way or the other. We're trying to set the stage for the

[58:19] strategic plan and some of the other things we've heard from council. So

[58:25] » thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I I appreciate uh Reef Campbell's comments about, you

[58:31] know, the fact that that this particular council has been very good about making

[58:36] sure that it, you know, we're the perspective that we give isn't about

[58:40] helping out one of our friends or our rate payers. Um, but I also think that,

[58:45] you know, we have to take the and that's taking the people out of the the

[58:49] situation in the sense that it can be a slippery slope and there are there may

[58:53] have been times in the past and there may be times in the future where where

[58:57] that may be an issue, but that also goes with the the people in the

[59:03] administration that we have right now. I have the utmost confidence in in um you

[59:08] know our administration and how they handle things but that may not

[59:13] necessarily be the case down the road as well. So you know I think that that that

[59:17] comment can be sort of can work on both sides of it. you know, when we're we're

[59:23] talking about if there's a change in the individuals, I I still, you know, my

[59:29] opinion on this is that uh that, you know, we're involved in this and we see

[59:35] this and even though there isn't necessarily a lot of uh denials or or

[59:41] massive changes, we're actually involved and we know what's happening with it.

[59:45] And to um to CEO Beck's comment about, you know, we see more problems with the

[59:52] development side. Why I think that is an a natural progression of the fact that

[59:58] that has been delegated away from council meaning council isn't aware of

[1:00:02] what's happening and when those complaints come in we're not aware of

[1:00:06] it. Um and and you know moving this uh subdivision authority into

[1:00:13] administration's hands will start to garner the same problems that we're

[1:00:17] having with the development permits in the sense that there's a lack of context

[1:00:22] around what's happening with it. So I um I still can't support this. Thank you.

[1:00:33] » Thank you Mr. Chair. So just the one thing that you had mentioned, Cole, I I

[1:00:37] would be adamantly opposed no matter how this turns out to be council being the

[1:00:41] subdivision appeal authority or board because it should be an independent

[1:00:46] body. I mean once it gets mixed up, it gets back to that old thing, oh it's my

[1:00:51] neighbor, so I better support it. I think it's completely uh an independent

[1:00:56] process and it needs to remain that. >> Go ahead.

[1:01:01] » Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, for myself, I just find, um, you know, you get the

[1:01:06] the counselors, we're the the eyes and ears out in the community. You you're

[1:01:11] out there talking to people, you're hearing the concerns, you're um, yeah,

[1:01:15] you bring that stuff forward when you come into uh, you know, dealing with the

[1:01:19] subdivisions and um, it's just not necessarily will everybody always

[1:01:25] contact the office for information or guidance or whatever. So,

[1:01:30] um I still think that it should be held with the um us the counselors and um

[1:01:38] just because we are kind of out in the in the public there.

[1:01:44] Thank you, Tony. Uh so, Eric has moved uh second reading of bylaw 26-016

[1:01:56] being the subdivision authority bylaw. Uh second reading. If there is no

[1:02:01] further discussion, I'll call the question. Those in favor?

[1:02:05] Those opposed? That is lost. Thank you, Kaylin.

[1:02:11] » So, I just want to inform council I do have like we do need to amend the

[1:02:15] subdivision authority bylaw um just with us leaving Man River Regional Service

[1:02:19] Commission. So, I do have an amended version um and that simply remains

[1:02:25] subdivision authority with council and the only thing that is delegated is the

[1:02:29] subdivision extensions which are already delegated to Old Man River regional

[1:02:33] service commission. So, it's rather allowing subdivision extensions to only

[1:02:37] be dealt with administration which is the status quo. So, I do have that

[1:02:40] bylaw. I can um it can be discussed today or I can bring it forward at the

[1:02:45] next meeting. Yeah, perhaps just given the time um if we could bring that

[1:02:49] forward that'd be wonderful. >> Thank you.

[1:02:51] » Thank you.

[1:02:55] » Thank you. Uh it is past 10:00.

[1:03:00] So why don't we move in our agenda to item E, our public hearings. If we could

[1:03:06] recess the public portion of our meeting and move towards our public hearing

[1:03:11] number one, uh 2610. Uh we are here today to hold the public hearing for

[1:03:16] bylaw 26-010 amendment to the land use bylaw to redesate a portion of plan

[1:03:22] 0815575 block 1 lot 212026

[1:03:27] range road 223 within the southwest 151123 west the 4th from rural

[1:03:33] agriculture to business light industrial. I would entertain a motion

[1:03:36] to open the public hearing. John. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I move to open the

[1:03:42] public hearing on bylaw 26-010.

[1:03:48] Thank you, John. John has moved to open the public hearing for bylaw 26-010.

[1:03:53] Is there any discussion? Call the question. Those in favor?

[1:03:57] That is carried. Uh public hearing is being held pursuant to the municipal

[1:04:01] government act as amended. The public hearing is being live streamed via the

[1:04:04] county's YouTube page. Public hearing for viol 26-010 is now officially open.

[1:04:09] I'll now ask for a review of the nature of hearing and an overview of what is

[1:04:13] being proposed.

[1:04:24] » Thank you, council. So, bylaw 26-010 is an amendment to our land use bylaw. It

[1:04:29] is to reddesate a portion of plan 0815575,

[1:04:34] block 1, lot 2. It is 1126 Range Road 223.

[1:04:40] Um, it is red designated from rule A to Business Light Industrial.

[1:04:45] Let's pull up the Oh, I'm on the wrong application.

[1:04:49] There it is. Okay. Um, so the proposal is um related to a transportation depot

[1:04:57] that is currently operating on the site in non-compliance. It was identified

[1:05:01] back in 2025 when the landowner wanted to expand their existing property and

[1:05:06] business. Um, we identified that we actually needed to work with the town of

[1:05:10] Nobleford on an intermissible development plan amendment which was

[1:05:13] passed before council back in 2025. Um, and one of the next steps was

[1:05:20] requiring the landowner to do a wetland assessment prior to applying to a

[1:05:24] resoning. Um so now they've completed the wetland assessment which you'll see

[1:05:27] on the resoning map is specifically that eastern boundary which is defining the

[1:05:32] resoning area. Um so the redesation area landed at 43

[1:05:40] acres and it is explicitly excluding that wetland and the redesation to the

[1:05:46] business light industrial will allow the existing business to be brought into

[1:05:49] compliance as well as accommodate their proposed building expansion.

[1:05:54] Um so before you today is um recommendation to read this bylaw for

[1:06:00] the second and third time and this is on the basis that it does align with our

[1:06:03] municipal development plan to support industrial and commercial expansion in

[1:06:07] areas that are supported through the IDP and it does accommodate the growth of an

[1:06:12] existing operation. And with that any questions?

[1:06:16] » Thank you Kayn. Any questions from council?

[1:06:21] This is council soul's opportunity to receive input from the public. Those

[1:06:24] making presentations are asked to state their name and review their points. We

[1:06:26] ask that you refrain from asking questions to council. The intention of

[1:06:29] the public hearing is not to debate or defend the contents of the bylaw or the

[1:06:31] position which individual counselors may have on the bylaw. Questions asked of

[1:06:35] the council by presenter may be ruled out of order.

[1:06:38] Presentation to council will start with the applicant who has made a submission

[1:06:41] followed by any other persons wishing to comment on the proposal. Please keep

[1:06:44] your comments to the point. After each speaker, members of council will be

[1:06:47] permitted to ask questions for the presenter to clarify any details. No

[1:06:50] debating or questions from the floor will be allowed. Each speaker will be

[1:06:53] allotted up to 10 minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of

[1:06:57] councel. With that, I would ask if the applicant

[1:07:00] wishes to speak. I would then ask if there's anyone else

[1:07:06] wishing to speak to the proposed bylaw. And for a third and final time, I would

[1:07:10] ask if there's anyone wishing to speak to the proposed bylaw.

[1:07:15] If there's nothing further, I would entertain a motion to close the public

[1:07:18] hearing. Eric, >> Mr. Chair, I move to close the public

[1:07:22] hearing. >> Eric has moved to close the public

[1:07:24] hearing for bylaw 26-010. Is there any further discussion? I'll

[1:07:28] call question. Those in favor? Opposed? That is carry. Can now resume our public

[1:07:33] meeting. Kaylin, do you have anything further?

[1:07:35] » No, I don't. Thank you. >> Okay. I would then uh open up to

[1:07:39] council. Mark and then John. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like to move by

[1:07:45] 26-0 be read a second time.

[1:07:49] » Thank you, Mark. Mark has moved that bylaw 26-010

[1:07:52] be read for a second time. Is there any discussion? Call question. Those in

[1:07:56] favor opposed that carries.

[1:08:03] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move that bylaw 26-0 be read a third time.

[1:08:09] Thank you, John. John has moved that by 26-0

[1:08:12] be read for a third time. Is there any discussion? Call the question. Those in

[1:08:17] favor? opposed. That is carried. I think Kaylin,

[1:08:22] » sorry.

[1:08:25] » Thanks, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I should have mentioned this before third

[1:08:30] reading, but um I wanted to kind of express my

[1:08:34] appreciation for our administration and the the landowner to actually uh you

[1:08:40] know, get this into compliance and get things moving in a direction where it's

[1:08:46] uh you know, he's he's acting well within our bylaws

[1:08:51] and becoming a a uh you know, more in line with uh with our policies. and

[1:08:57] procedures rather than just sort of operating rogue. So, thank you very much

[1:09:01] for all the effort put in on both house on administration and on on the part of

[1:09:06] our uh rateayer.

[1:09:09] » Thank you, John. Uh moving down our second bylaw, bylaw 26-019.

[1:09:15] Uh we are here today for the public hearing for bylaw 26-019 amendment to

[1:09:19] the land use bylaw to revise the definition of specialty

[1:09:22] manufacturing/cottage industry in part 9 definitions. I would

[1:09:27] al ask for a motion to open the public hearing for

[1:09:32] bylaw 26-019. Mark

[1:09:36] » thank you mr chair I move to open the public hearing.

[1:09:40] » Mark move to open the public hearing for bylaw 26-019.

[1:09:43] Any further discussion? Call a question. Those in favor? Opposed? That is

[1:09:48] carried. Uh, this public hearing is being held pursuant to municipal

[1:09:51] government act as amended. The public hearings being live streamed via the

[1:09:54] county's YouTube page. Public hearing for bylaw 26-019 is now officially open.

[1:10:00] Excuse me. I'll now ask for a review of the nature of the hearing and an

[1:10:02] overview of what is being proposed. Kaylin,

[1:10:05] » thank you. So, bylaw 26-019 is an amendment to the land use bylaw to

[1:10:09] revise the definition of specialty manufacturing the cottage industry. So,

[1:10:14] it's part nine of our bylaw. And this application became about from a

[1:10:19] Lethbridge County business who who is a specialty manufacturing cottage use on

[1:10:23] their parcel. Um, they're currently operating on 11.4 acre title and they

[1:10:28] have an existing shop and they're actually unable to expand due to the

[1:10:31] restrictions of the definition in our land use bylaw. Um, so our land use

[1:10:35] bylaw intends the specialty manufacturing cottage industry is

[1:10:39] small-scale on-site production, fabrication, and processing of goods.

[1:10:43] And it's really capped at a fixed maximum gross area of 10,000 square

[1:10:47] feet. And it doesn't connect to lot size or any proximity contextual aspects of

[1:10:52] the lot. And because this number 10,000 square feet is actually within the

[1:10:57] definition, the development authority has no um authority to wave it or give

[1:11:01] any variance. Um so it's very much a maximum allowed. So we're with working

[1:11:07] with the applicant and recognizing our land use bylaw um review is is

[1:11:12] forthcoming. Um we identified an opportunity to um make a minor amendment

[1:11:17] to our land use bylaw to allow businesses like this to expand and it to

[1:11:21] be more contextually related to the size of their lot. Um so this use only

[1:11:27] actually applies to the rural agricultural zones and rural commercial

[1:11:30] districts. Rural commercial is a district that is used on like three or

[1:11:33] four part parcels in the county. So very very little impact. It's mostly rural

[1:11:37] agriculture. Um and so basically the proposal before you is to amend the

[1:11:43] definition to allow for 2,000 square feet per acre of lot area up to a

[1:11:48] maximum of 20,000 square feet. And the reason 20,000 was selected as the

[1:11:53] maximum is because we are looking at this as a rural agricultural adjacent

[1:11:57] use and um potato storage and similar large agricultural buildings are kind of

[1:12:01] that 20,000 square feet. So it it did seem um similar in nature without

[1:12:06] becoming the category of commercial industrial. Um so that's why the numbers

[1:12:10] were proposed and it's just a a minor amendment. I'll pull up the text. The

[1:12:15] red line is right here for everyone. And really the recommendations um is to

[1:12:22] consider the second and first reading of this and it does align with our

[1:12:26] municipal development plan as we do we do recognize that adjustments need to be

[1:12:32] made to support economic growth and rural diversification through strategic

[1:12:36] and sound planning and we do recognize that there's a wide range of

[1:12:40] agricultural and agricultural related or ancillary land uses that should be

[1:12:44] considered in our um land use bylaw. So with that, if there's any questions.

[1:12:50] » Thank you, Kaylin. This is council's opportunity to receive

[1:12:54] input from the public. Those making presentations are asked to state their

[1:12:56] name or review their points. We ask you refrain from asking questions of

[1:12:59] council. The intention of the public hearing is not to debate or defend the

[1:13:01] contents of the bylaw or the position which individual counselor may have on

[1:13:04] the bylaw. Questions asked of the council by presenter may be ruled out of

[1:13:07] order. Presentations to council will start with the applicant who made a

[1:13:10] submission followed by any other persons wishing to speak.

[1:13:14] After each speaker, members of council will be permitted to ask questions. The

[1:13:17] presenter to for any details each speaker will be allowed up 10 minutes.

[1:13:21] Additional time may be granted at the discretion of council. I would now ask

[1:13:25] if there's anyone wishing to speak to the proposed bylaw.

[1:13:30] I'd ask again if there's anyone wishing to speak to the proposed bylaw.

[1:13:34] And for a third and final time, I would ask there's anyone wishing to speak to

[1:13:37] the proposed bylaw. If there's nothing further, I would

[1:13:41] entertain a motion to close the public hearing. John.

[1:13:45] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we close the public hearing for

[1:13:50] bylaw 26-019.

[1:13:54] Thank you, John. John has moved that to move to close the public hearing for

[1:13:59] bylaw 26-019. Is there any further discussion? Call

[1:14:04] question. Those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. Now resume our public

[1:14:08] meeting. I would open up to council for any questions or discussion.

[1:14:18] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, having had a couple of rateayers that have been

[1:14:23] caught in this particular quandry a few years ago and had to do a significant

[1:14:28] amount of reasoning in order to get the buildings put together what they needed.

[1:14:32] I uh very much welcome this change and I think that it is a very good common

[1:14:37] sense approach with the 2,000 per square feet per acre that uh allows individuals

[1:14:44] to expand as much as they possibly can uh within reason on their parcel size.

[1:14:49] So all that being said I would like to move that bylaw 26-019

[1:14:54] be read a second time. >> Thank you John. John has moved that by

[1:14:59] 26-019 be read for a second time. Is there any discussion? Go ahead.

[1:15:05] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, in your commenting, you mentioned that due to a

[1:15:09] hard number in there, there was no ability for waiverss or variances. Um,

[1:15:13] are we going to have that the same here as well that we're going to hit the

[1:15:17] 20,000 no matter what? We'd have to amend it. And is there any appetite to

[1:15:22] have uh a method of flexibility? >> Thank you, Councelor Vaness. So I did

[1:15:28] consider different approaches and how we rectify this issue for rateayers. Um if

[1:15:34] we removed it from the definition, yes, we'd have ability to vary it, but I

[1:15:39] don't think it meets the intent of a land use bylaw because rural agriculture

[1:15:42] still needs to remain low inensity uses and at what size of building are we

[1:15:47] hitting the intensity that it should be considered commercial industrial. Um so

[1:15:51] I think this was an interimm measure to address the immediate need of our our

[1:15:55] residents and businesses. Well, we need to take a look greater look at our land

[1:15:58] use bylaw of what triggers and is warranted commercial industrial, what is

[1:16:03] mixed use, and those are conversations we need to have over a larger land use

[1:16:07] bylaw um overhaul and renewal. Um so that's why the suggested approach was

[1:16:12] just a minor amendment within our definitions because really over 20,000

[1:16:15] square feet we should be looking at a commercial industrial use.

[1:16:19] » You're welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so the

[1:16:24] original uh 10,000 square feet, was that connected to an acre size before two or

[1:16:31] » Thank you, Councelor Ankerman. Um, so no, it was purely this use is limited to

[1:16:36] 10,000 square feet. Um, so you could have a rural egg title that was 4 acres

[1:16:41] and technically be allowed 10,000 square feet. Um it is a discretionary use. So

[1:16:46] of course the development authority would use their their discretion but it

[1:16:49] wasn't not it tied to lot size proximity to roads and highways. Um it was just a

[1:16:54] blanket statement in the definition. >> Yeah.

[1:17:00] » Thank you Mr. Chair. So just a question for cottage industry does and when you

[1:17:04] say processing what exactly do you mean by that? like it when you say processing

[1:17:10] would be a good example like the cheese plant but is that a cottage industry?

[1:17:15] » Thank you councelor Hickeyi. So it is quite a catchall definition. We do use

[1:17:20] it quite often. You'll see in the definition it it includes but not

[1:17:24] limited to so it's everything from bakery bakeries specialty food

[1:17:29] manufacturing distilleries micro breweries wineries um artisan and

[1:17:34] craftsmanship um lutheran um taxiderermis woodworking u furniture

[1:17:40] making cabinetry like it is quite a gamut of things it is often what I see

[1:17:46] in development permits being used for like egg related industries um the

[1:17:51] specific One is like manufacturing, steel manufacturing

[1:17:55] related to agricultural buildings. Um, I've seen it being used for like floral

[1:18:01] ups. Um, I've seen it used for breweries. So, it it's kind of using the

[1:18:07] byproducts of agriculture or contributing to the agricultural

[1:18:11] industry. It kind of goes back. So, it is quite broad.

[1:18:16] » So, you they actually have to process something like they just can't store

[1:18:20] something. You actually have to. Okay. Thank you.

[1:18:22] » Yeah. >> Uh John has moved that bylaw 26-019

[1:18:28] be read for a second time. >> Go ahead.

[1:18:32] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I also understanding it right now that if

[1:18:36] somebody has a 2acre parcel capped at 4,000 square feet this time around?

[1:18:40] » You are correct in that, Councelor Vaness. And the reason we decided that

[1:18:43] cap was reasonable is because a lot of rule egg titles are adjacent to a group

[1:18:47] country residential use and their accessory buildings are maxed at 4,000

[1:18:51] square ft. Um so in the circumstances where they are directly adjacent to GCR

[1:18:56] um that would still seem appropriate.

[1:19:01] » Okay. And there and there's no uh flexibility on that number either then.

[1:19:06] » No, not within the current definition. And if you are a small rule egg title of

[1:19:11] two to four acres, um you're probably within the vicinity of an urban area.

[1:19:17] You're probably within the vicinity of substantial number of acreages. So there

[1:19:20] would be a larger um adjacent property impact um because you're going to have

[1:19:26] more fragmentation and more houses. Um so I wouldn't feel comfortable with the

[1:19:31] recommendation to expand that for those smaller parcels.

[1:19:37] Thank you. >> John has moved that bylaw 26-019 be read

[1:19:42] Perry second time. Is there any further questions? Sorry. Uh is there any

[1:19:47] further uh Yeah, for a third time. Uh is there any further discussion or

[1:19:50] questions? I'll call the question. Those in favor post that carries. Third

[1:19:55] reading. Lauren, >> I would move third reading of bylaw

[1:19:58] 26-019. >> Thank you, Lauren. Horn is moved by

[1:20:02] 26-019 be read for a third time. Is there any further discussion? Call

[1:20:08] question. Those in favor? Those opposed? That is carried.

[1:20:11] » Thank you, Kaylin. >> Thank you.

[1:20:13] » That takes us to 10:21. Why don't we take a short recess and return at

[1:37:12] Uh we'll call the meeting back to order at 10:38 a.m. this morning. Uh we can

[1:37:17] move in our agenda to administration F2 F2.1 fire investigation inspection

[1:37:24] administrative policy. Morning Heath. Good morning, council. Um, today I'd

[1:37:30] like to uh talk to you about the uh fire investigation inspection administration

[1:37:34] policy. Uh, Lethbridge Countyy's quality management plan, QM, formerly known as

[1:37:39] the quality management plan, presently relies on a Lethbridge County Fire

[1:37:43] investigation inspection guideline to monitor and govern discretionary fire

[1:37:46] investigation and inspection decisions. Adopting this policy achieves two

[1:37:51] things. It gives fire safety codes officer a document defensible standard

[1:37:55] of care that satisfies the county safety codes act obligations. And it also

[1:38:00] protects rateayers by reserving formal specialist level investigation for fires

[1:38:04] that genuinely require it. Fatalities, injuries, suspected criminal activity or

[1:38:09] complex uh incidents. while routine low complex complex uh uh and vehicle fires

[1:38:17] are handled at no additional cost by the attending fire officer.

[1:38:22] So just to give you some uh a little bit more background,

[1:38:26] West Lebridge County holds accreditation under the safety codes act through a

[1:38:29] quality management system accepted by the safety codes council. The director

[1:38:33] of emergency services acts as the fire QMS manager and is the authority having

[1:38:38] jurisdiction safety codes officer under this accredititation. QMS schedule C

[1:38:43] section 4.12.5 obligates the county to maintain a

[1:38:47] defined process for fire investigations and governs fire inspections. Currently,

[1:38:52] this obligation exists at the QMS level, but has not been operationalized into

[1:38:57] council approved policy and clearly defines authority triggers for

[1:39:01] investigations and limits on contract um fire chief's actions. Without a form of

[1:39:07] policy, contracted fire service providers lack clear, consistent

[1:39:11] direction on when a formal and costly investigation is required versus when a

[1:39:16] routine assessment by an attending fire officer is sufficient.

[1:39:20] There is inconsistent application of investigative resources across the

[1:39:24] county's contracted fire departments, creating both compliance risk and

[1:39:28] unpredictable cost exposure. And the county is exposed to liability and audit

[1:39:33] findings from the safety codes council for failing to formalize an accredited

[1:39:37] process already required under the QM. So

[1:39:44] I I uh as far as the financial impact, adoption of the policy is not expected

[1:39:49] to create new co direct cost to the county. Rather, it formalizes and

[1:39:53] constrains existing practice. It is expected to reduce or avoid costs

[1:39:57] associated with unnecessary engagement of an NFPA 1033 qualified investigator

[1:40:02] or external specialist for low complexity incidents that can be

[1:40:06] documented by an intending fire officer at no additional cost. duplicated fire

[1:40:12] investigation of vehicle fires already covered by insurer retained experts and

[1:40:17] potential liability and remedi remediation costs arising from

[1:40:21] inconistent inconsistent or undocumented investigation decisions. So with that uh

[1:40:28] council I would like to uh give the recommendation that council approve and

[1:40:32] adopt policy number 219 fire investigation inspection policy as an

[1:40:38] integrated component of the county's quality management plan QV1-4

[1:40:43] or point4. Any questions?

[1:40:48] » Heath, I would open it up to council for questions and discussion.

[1:40:54] John, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Heath, as you

[1:40:59] know, with my background, um, I had particular interest in this and reading

[1:41:05] through uh, your proposal, I think it's something that makes sense. you know,

[1:41:09] um, in in my world outside of municipal uh, politics has been many a time where

[1:41:15] I've gone to a a scene where we've had multiple fire

[1:41:19] investigators and it is very an extraordinarily straightforward uh, and

[1:41:24] easy to determ situation. So, you kind of wonder where the resources are spent

[1:41:28] and why they're spent on that. So, I u I I appreciate the common sense uh

[1:41:34] approach to this particular policy. And um all that being said, I would like to

[1:41:40] move that uh council approve and adopt policy number 219, fire investigation

[1:41:46] inspection policy as an integrated component of the county's quality

[1:41:50] management system QM version 1.4. >> Thank you, John. John has moved the

[1:41:56] recommendation that council approve and adopt policy number 219 fire

[1:42:01] investigation inspection policy as an integrated component of the county's

[1:42:06] quality management system QM version 1.4.

[1:42:11] Is there any further questions or discussion? Mark

[1:42:14] » just a quick clarification. So if um we've contracted out this to the other

[1:42:19] departments within the county. So if something if there is an investigation

[1:42:23] held or if it's not done properly, does that the risk falls back on the county?

[1:42:29] » No, it would be under the uh certification of the fire investigator

[1:42:34] or or the fire officer that was in instant command on scene.

[1:42:39] » Okay. Any other questions or discussion?

[1:42:44] Call the question. Those in favor? Opposed? That carries. Thanks, Heath.

[1:42:49] Uh, moving down. F22, request for financial relief.

[1:42:56] Okay.

[1:43:05] All right. Um, just to give you a summary, on June 15th, 2024, Lethbridge

[1:43:11] County Contracted Fire Services responded to a rescue incident at Kho

[1:43:14] Lake. Miss Hillary Lee, uh, the individual rescued, has since received

[1:43:20] invoicing for the associated mercy response cost and has formally requested

[1:43:25] that council consider financial relief with respect to these charges. Miss

[1:43:29] Lee's request indicates that the incident was unplanned and unexpected

[1:43:34] with no insurance coverage for this type of rescue. Miss Lee is not disputing the

[1:43:39] costs are that are owed, but is requesting council's consideration of

[1:43:44] relief given the financial hardship and full cost invoice would represent and

[1:43:48] has offered to enter into a reasonable monthly payment arrangement for any uh

[1:43:54] amount ultimately determined to be payable.

[1:43:58] Um, just to uh give you some further

[1:44:02] background, Miss Hillary Lee required emergency

[1:44:06] rescue assistance at Keyhole Lake. Um, Lethbridge Countyy's contract of

[1:44:11] emergency response resources attended and carried out the rescue and sub and

[1:44:15] subsequent transport. Uh, following the response, Miss Lee was invoiced for

[1:44:20] associated emergency response costs under the county standard cost recovery

[1:44:24] practice. Miss Lee has submitted uh written court correspondence requesting

[1:44:30] council's consideration of financial relief. She states that the need for

[1:44:34] rescue was entirely unexpected and unplanned. She was not advised during

[1:44:38] the response, rescue or transport that significant personal uh personal charges

[1:44:43] uh could result. The resulting invoice came as a surprise and represents a

[1:44:48] significant financial hardship. No insurance coverage is available to her

[1:44:52] for this type of rescue and she will be uh willing to establish a reasonable

[1:44:57] monthly payment arrangement for any amount council determines ultimately

[1:45:01] payable. Miss Lee has expressed appreciation for the professionalism and

[1:45:04] the responders and is not disputing that emergency services involve real costs.

[1:45:10] Her request is limited to council's consideration of relief from a full

[1:45:14] invoice amount given the specific circumstances.

[1:45:19] Um, as far as financial impact, the

[1:45:23] financial impact to the county depends on the option selected by councelor

[1:45:27] ranging from a full recovery to the invoice in emergency costs, option A or

[1:45:32] to fully write off the invoice amount to option C. Uh

[1:45:37] what I would like to uh look at as far as a recommendation

[1:45:43] council receives this report uh this report from information and provide

[1:45:46] direction to administration regarding Miss Lee's request for financial relief

[1:45:50] including whether to direct administration to bring forward an

[1:45:54] amendment to fire bylaw number 22-002 establishing a cost recovery cap

[1:46:00] applicable to rare and unusual emergency events of this nature or otherwise. has

[1:46:06] resolved this matter as follows. uphold the invoice as issued with

[1:46:11] administration to offer a monthly payment arrangement or approve a partial

[1:46:14] reduction of the invoiced amount and the balance uh payable via monthly payment

[1:46:19] arrangement or wave the charges in full in light of a unique circumstance

[1:46:24] presented or direct administration to prepare an amendment to fire bylaw

[1:46:29] number 22-002 establishing a cap cost recovery of

[1:46:33] $1,500 for unusual emergency events. example, unplanned water ice rescues

[1:46:38] where advanced warning of charges was not practical. Um, and apply this cap to

[1:46:44] this invoice. So, with that, uh, any questions?

[1:46:51] » Keith, I'll open I'll go to Cole first. Go ahead.

[1:46:55] » Thank you, council. I just wanted to add when we reviewed this because I think

[1:47:00] the letter speaks to a lot of things or rationale that would apply to any fire

[1:47:06] response unplanned unexpected where administration believes it

[1:47:13] diverges is I think there's a reasonable expectation that um people carry

[1:47:18] property insurance like fire risk mitigation um response. I think this

[1:47:24] falls outside of that. And so we struggled with this. We somewhat pulled

[1:47:29] the $1,500 out of the air where it's, hey, there's

[1:47:32] some accountability and there's a discretionary component to that, but

[1:47:37] this is one of those ones that not only is it the potentially the worst day of

[1:47:40] somebody's life. It is also not a reasonable expectation that they would

[1:47:44] have insurance for this type of a response. We don't do an excessive

[1:47:48] amount of them and we struggled to come up with what that exact structure should

[1:47:53] be. There's been some very very tragic responses in the province recently.

[1:47:59] Um, and on the worst day of somebody's life, I'm the last thing I want to do is

[1:48:05] deliver an invoice to them for something like that that there could have been no

[1:48:10] reasonable expectation that they could have mitigated the financial

[1:48:13] implications. So, um, I don't think there's a perfect solution. we've put

[1:48:17] what we've come up with in front of council, but I wanted to be very

[1:48:21] transparent in how we work through this and

[1:48:24] trying to deduce um a reasonable recommendation.

[1:48:30] » Thank you.

[1:48:34] » Um something that's missing on this is how

[1:48:38] much was the bill we sent? >> Total bill, I don't have the exact

[1:48:42] number, but it's around uh I believe $11,000.

[1:48:49] follow up on that. >> Sorry. Um,

[1:48:53] you know, when we first put in the u the bylaw for for emergency services and my

[1:49:00] thought process in my head was around uh you know, fire and emergency responses

[1:49:05] associated with that. uh because that is something that as a homeowner or vehicle

[1:49:12] owner there you have the ability to actually purchase insurance. And so the

[1:49:18] the whole premise behind um that was there was an insurable avenue and or an

[1:49:26] area where there's another avenue for payment. So

[1:49:30] I felt at the time that it was unfair for the municipality to take the fire

[1:49:35] services charges of an individual when there is an avenue where where a

[1:49:41] reasonably prudent individual could purchase insurance to indemnify

[1:49:45] themselves for that. So that's it's it's not fair to put that burden on on all of

[1:49:50] the rateayers specifically. in circumstances like this there there just

[1:49:56] truly is no insurance that anybody could buy for this. So

[1:50:02] um this circumstances like this would fall outside of u

[1:50:09] my mindset in intention when we were having the initial discussion I think

[1:50:14] now five years ago about deferring uh costs on to individuals because uh as I

[1:50:22] said there's just no possible way that anybody could or should be expected to

[1:50:27] purchase insurance for this. So, um, you know, as in terms of of options, uh, A,

[1:50:35] B, C, or D, I'm not sure where I would fall on that. Um,

[1:50:42] you know, in this particular circumstance like amending the bylaw, I

[1:50:46] think that's a separate issue from this particular conversation. Um, I think the

[1:50:51] the bigger conversation has to be around what do we do in the future on this, but

[1:50:57] but the conversation in front of us right now is what do we do in this

[1:51:01] particular circumstance? And I'm not 100% certain where I want to land on

[1:51:06] that.

[1:51:09] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, this was another one that, uh, you know, I read

[1:51:14] through several times and, um, you know, I sympathize. I feel bad for the young

[1:51:18] lady. She's, you know, she made a mistake. I think she owns it. Um

[1:51:22] throwing $11,000 bill at her. I don't think it's the right thing. Um I think

[1:51:26] that um there should be something. So the 15 the the option D that you've

[1:51:31] given there is to put a $1,500 cap. That's something that's affordable, be a

[1:51:35] life lesson for that, but it's still there's something. It's not that we're

[1:51:38] we set a precedent by waving the entire fee. So um I think move you know based

[1:51:44] on your recommendation your report here I I would you know I could certainly

[1:51:48] support that recommendation D is an option just moving forward. So

[1:51:55] » thank you Mr. Chair. Um, was there a part of this that uh uh a

[1:52:02] significant bill came from uh the water rescue portion and was there a portion

[1:52:06] that potentially Lethbridge County didn't

[1:52:10] have um contracts in place or or things in place that uh we could have had in

[1:52:16] place or maybe even should have had in place.

[1:52:18] » Right. Councelor Venison, thank you for the question. Uh yes, there was water

[1:52:23] rescue efforts and there was costs associated with it. I have been in

[1:52:27] consultation with the city of Lethbridge, Lethbridge Fire and

[1:52:30] Emergency Services as far as um would they be willing to work with this uh the

[1:52:36] the billing process and and uh they are willing and I have a verbal agreement at

[1:52:42] this point with uh Deputy Chief Chris Maris and uh we are going to move

[1:52:46] forward with that and he has promised me that he will they will look at some type

[1:52:51] of relief if not all of it. >> Thank you, Mr. chairman through the

[1:52:56] chair to councelor Van Essen. I would just add that even with our agreements,

[1:53:00] we are we are liable to pay the the response rates either negotiated rates

[1:53:05] and they vary. City of Lethbridge has their own schedule of fee bylaw and then

[1:53:09] north of the river we pay at or we pay the Albert transportation rates and we

[1:53:14] have a different agreement with Coldale. So there would be a cost impact to our

[1:53:20] um to our rateayers by changing this. Um, I know Haley is just pulling the

[1:53:26] actual cost of this response and then maybe if I could ask Keith to speak to

[1:53:31] the number of these types of calls we see on average a year. I know we had

[1:53:34] discussed that and it was fairly small but there is a financial implication to

[1:53:38] making this change.

[1:53:41] » Go ahead. >> Uh, based on the details that I just see

[1:53:44] on the invoice, um, the total bill was $9,182.50

[1:53:48] 50 cents that was build between various stations and various municipalities um

[1:53:55] including the city of Lethbridge. Uh the bill is now $12,855.50

[1:54:02] because we she continues to incur uh finance charges because she has not made

[1:54:08] any payments to the outstanding invoice. Um so that just gives you a little bit

[1:54:14] more context

[1:54:17] » and to answer the question as far as occurrence it's very rare um that these

[1:54:23] you know they do come up in sometimes you'll get one or two a year but then

[1:54:28] you might not get one for five years. So, these are unique circumstances and

[1:54:33] being a a first responder myself in my past, I I can definitely say that these

[1:54:40] are rare occurrences and they don't happen that much, but when they do,

[1:54:43] they're life impacting and and now this is financially impacting for her as

[1:54:48] well. >> Any other comments or questions?

[1:54:55] » Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I guess we I

[1:55:00] feel we should put a a proposal out there one way or other. Um, we've often

[1:55:05] discussed at length, you know, reductions and the things against it

[1:55:09] that's been talked about at length. So, I'm just going to put a proposal out

[1:55:12] there. Um, half of original bill on terms is my proposal.

[1:55:24] So, as I'm sitting here contemplating this whole circumstance, I come back to,

[1:55:30] you know, the original intent of us passing the bylaw about putting

[1:55:36] emergency services on to onto uh individuals.

[1:55:41] was the and the intent behind that was to mitigate costs for the for the county

[1:55:49] and for our rate payers for circumstances where there was the

[1:55:54] potential for the responsible parties to carry insurance to cover off their

[1:56:00] potential liability on this. Um, and looking at at that and looking at the

[1:56:08] intent of what we originally tried to do and realizing that, you know, a a rescue

[1:56:16] of this nature and a water rescue or anything where there is actually human

[1:56:20] life in peril, um, I I'd be more apt to just,

[1:56:27] you know, either wave the charges or put it down to a very nominal fee. Um, I I

[1:56:34] just I really struggle with with us putting a financial burden on somebody

[1:56:40] for a rescue. Um, and and part of the reason I struggle with this is that if

[1:56:46] you know, we do this and we set a precedent on it and we say, "Okay, well,

[1:56:50] you know, we'll give you payments on that." But then, you know, what happens

[1:56:54] the next time that somebody's trapped out on Keyhill Lake and they hear about

[1:56:58] this and they start thinking, "Oh, gee, I can't afford it, so I'm not going to

[1:57:01] call a rescue." and then we end up with a body recovery situation. I I really I

[1:57:07] I don't think that that passing this bill on to this individual meets the

[1:57:12] intent of what we originally were trying to do. And um and I don't think that

[1:57:18] it's something that us as a municipality should be looking at at doing just from

[1:57:25] moral grounds. To be perfectly honest, I think the right thing to do in this

[1:57:28] circumstance is is understand that this is not an insurable situation. They they

[1:57:34] have no potential of of passing this on to recovery. Even if they wanted to buy

[1:57:39] insurance for this, it's just not something that is available. So, I I

[1:57:43] think I would be more in favor of just either full-on waving this or just

[1:57:47] having a very nominal charge. >> Maybe a question to council. Is there is

[1:57:53] there an appetite from council to as uh option D suggests is there an appetite

[1:58:00] to u enact an amendment to establish a cap moving forward? I know I I maybe

[1:58:07] just to separate the two from this incident to to moving forward. I think

[1:58:11] we could pro we could potentially um take a two-pronged approach if that was

[1:58:15] council's appetite. Is there an appetite from council to look at amending that

[1:58:19] and and uh instituting a cap?

[1:58:27] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I I can appreciate the attempt on that and I

[1:58:32] think that there there will be an avenue, but I there are two unintended

[1:58:37] consequences. Next thing you know, we are we are on for something significant.

[1:58:42] and using John's logic of well they could have got insurance or they

[1:58:45] couldn't got a couldn't have uh could set us up for uh some significant

[1:58:52] liability in in these situations. Uh so I don't think that is a discerning mark.

[1:58:59] Um we all have our our bills uh and responsibilities on that. So,

[1:59:07] um, yes to recovery, but or to a cap, but,

[1:59:13] uh, going to be pretty tight guidelines if if I were to support it.

[1:59:20] Thoughts?

[1:59:23] I I would concur with councelor Vanessin that if we were going to put a cap on

[1:59:27] that, it would have to be very specifically set up for

[1:59:33] unique set of circumstances and not just an unusual circumstance because, you

[1:59:38] know, if if there's a potential loophole for somebody to come in and say, well,

[1:59:44] you know, I couldn't get insurance because

[1:59:47] um that that would uh degrade the nature of the bylaw. So, you know, I would be

[1:59:54] I'd be willing to certainly look at an amendment to the bylaw, but I think it,

[1:59:57] you know, to councelor Vaness's point, it would have to be very very specific

[2:00:02] about what those circumstances would be.

[2:00:07] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I would agree with that. I think that getting into the

[2:00:11] specific details is going to be a a bit of a challenge, but uh I I would

[2:00:17] certainly look at that. >> Thank you.

[2:00:23] Just again, Terrina, what I said before, I would support just prov giving this

[2:00:29] young lady an invoice for the $1,500. I think 4,500 is too steep. And I think it

[2:00:33] was just young girl stupid, you know, bad choices and uh I just I think it's

[2:00:40] it's the right thing to do. And again, tied to the insurance pieces, everybody

[2:00:43] said they're sitting here today. So, but I think that's that's my would be my

[2:00:46] recommendation is that we just give her an invoice for $1,500.

[2:00:50] » You make that motion. >> I I can if you want to do that or this

[2:00:56] is you just this this report is just being received for information. So, this

[2:01:00] is moving forward. You're not >> Well, there's there is two elements to

[2:01:03] Okay. >> I'd make it a motion that we if you'd

[2:01:07] like that. That's >> And then just uh uh

[2:01:12] if uh How would I read that >> and then review the bylaw with and

[2:01:17] clarify? >> Would you be comfortable with uh with

[2:01:22] item D then Mark? >> Yeah.

[2:01:24] » Making that as a motion. >> Yeah. With the amendment that Eric had

[2:01:27] talked about around tightening up that definition of the emergency what's an

[2:01:30] unusual emergency to make clarify that further.

[2:01:33] » So that would come back to council for approval then.

[2:01:35] » Absolutely. >> Okay.

[2:01:40] » Well, I think these are two steps. One would be amending the bylaw, which is

[2:01:44] something that would have to happen at a different meeting. But the the other

[2:01:47] issue is what do we do with this young lady at this particular point in time,

[2:01:51] » right? >> Yep.

[2:01:54] » Yeah. But if we did one, a motion covering just

[2:01:58] what we would like to do with this lady would probably clean things up for

[2:02:02] administration, right?

[2:02:06] » I'm I'm I'm just directing traffic. However

[2:02:10] you'd like to uh however you'd like to proceed. If Mark, if you if you want to

[2:02:13] make that a single motion uh to adjust the invoice uh to $1,500. I think that

[2:02:18] that would I think that would satisfy this for the time being. And then

[2:02:22] perhaps we could get a second motion to direct administration to bring back uh

[2:02:26] fire bylaw uh 22-002. Would that be uh agreeable to staff?

[2:02:32] Okay. So then Mark is Mark, I'll let you use your words. You you go ahead. How

[2:02:36] you like if it Sorry. Go ahead. So,

[2:02:41] I would move that we invoice the $1,500 for this event.

[2:02:48] » Okay. Is there any questions or discussion on that motion?

[2:02:52] » Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, definitely

[2:02:57] disagree with the $1,500. We the basis of the 1500 is being prepared on the the

[2:03:05] who and not the what and we're trying to uh look at it as a young unfortunate

[2:03:10] person who made a bad decision and we are trying to set not only policy but

[2:03:16] also everything has an expense and expenses are large. So, um, although it

[2:03:22] may be unpopular, I'd like to make an amendment to your motion to the $4,500.

[2:03:28] And if that gets defeated, that's that's okay. But I think that it needs to be it

[2:03:33] needs to be more and that there um uh yeah, you book an ambulance, you get a

[2:03:39] bill, you book anything. And to say that, well, I'm I'm not going to go to

[2:03:44] the hospital. Uh, I just spent time where a 15-minute hospital visit was

[2:03:50] a,000 bucks. Um, it's a fact of health services. And so, anyway, my motion is

[2:03:58] an amendment to yours for $4,500. Okay. Thank you, Eric. I'm going to

[2:04:02] assume that you don't deem that as a friendly amendment, Mark. Okay. Uh, so

[2:04:07] then we'll deal with the amendment. Eric has amended to change the $1,500 and

[2:04:12] amend that to $4,500. So if there is there any further

[2:04:16] discussion on that? Okay, I will call the question on the proposed amendment

[2:04:20] changing the invoice amount from $1,500 to $4,500.

[2:04:25] Uh any further discussion? I will call the question. Those in favor, those

[2:04:30] opposed. So that is defeated. We will now go back

[2:04:33] to Mark's initial motion to invoice uh for this incident in the amount of

[2:04:39] $1,500. Is there any further discussion? I'll

[2:04:43] call the question. Those in favor? Those opposed? That then carries. Uh I

[2:04:49] would now entertain a motion to direct administration to bring back fire bylaw

[2:04:53] number 220002.

[2:04:57] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would uh like to move to direct administration to bring

[2:05:03] back an amendment to fire bylaw number 22-002

[2:05:08] to cap recovery costs at uh a specified amount

[2:05:14] for unusual emergency events um and the events to be very very

[2:05:20] specific.

[2:05:23] Okay. Is there any discussion on that motion to direct administration to bring

[2:05:28] back uh an amendment to fire bylaw 202022-002

[2:05:34] uh to establish a cap and type parameters on the specifics of the

[2:05:39] incidents?

[2:05:43] » Just kind of thinking out loud. Thank you. Uh how would you define those

[2:05:48] special >> Yeah, I think maybe just bringing it

[2:05:50] back would probably >> I don't Yeah, fair enough. We don't want

[2:05:54] we don't need to word smith that. Yeah, >> I understand what you guys are

[2:05:58] » referring to. >> You you're comfortable with that. Just

[2:06:00] to bring that back. >> Okay.

[2:06:01] » So, uh John is direct administration to uh prepare an amendment to f fire bylaw

[2:06:06] number 22-00002. Any further discussion? I'll call the

[2:06:11] question. Those in favor? Those opposed? That carries. Thank you.

[2:06:16] » Thank you. >> Uh thanks, Eve.

[2:06:18] » Thank you. Uh we have two pieces of correspondence

[2:06:22] before us today. Uh item one from the National Police Federation.

[2:06:27] Uh you can read that at your leisure.

[2:06:33] Uh at the bottom you'll see there's a couple bullet points regarding Alberta

[2:06:37] Sheriff's uh cease further investment in an advancement to the Alberta Sheriff's

[2:06:42] Police Service as a replacement RCMP. uh release comprehensive and independent

[2:06:47] and public available feasibility studies and a number of other bullet points

[2:06:52] there. Uh like I said, read that at your leisure. And our second item uh

[2:06:57] correspondence is from the Southern Alberta Chinese Association, the 2026

[2:07:01] barbecue, uh August 30th, and it's at the Rotary Picnic Shelter,

[2:07:07] entertainment, food service. Uh and the cost is $25 for adults and $15 for

[2:07:13] children. letter for are free. If you'd like to attend that, I'm sure we can

[2:07:18] arrange. Talk to Candace and we'll make that

[2:07:21] happen. Widler. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Weren't they

[2:07:24] also requesting uh a sponsorship instead of the city of

[2:07:29] Lethbridge? They wanted us to be the sponsor for their page. Or did I misread

[2:07:35] her email when I got it?

[2:07:46] No. Yeah. In that in that and there is there is a second um link there. Candace

[2:07:51] the letter. >> City of Lethridge sponsored our event

[2:07:55] last year. We are hoping Lethbridge County might consider supporting us this

[2:07:58] year as well if possible. Uh we would include the lo countyy's logo on our

[2:08:03] poster.

[2:08:08] I would I would open up to council for if you would like to

[2:08:12] if someone's interested in pursuing that

[2:08:18] » just did it have a figure in it. >> There is no financial number. No.

[2:08:26] » What is our usual donation policy like?

[2:08:38] couple hundred usually or what would they what would I don't know what the

[2:08:41] policy would cover.

[2:08:46] » I would move that we make a donation of $200 towards their request for the

[2:08:51] poster. >> Okay. Uh so Lauren has moved to donate

[2:08:55] $200. I'm assuming from the counselor discretionary

[2:08:59] or from where would you like that to come from?

[2:09:04] Council donation. >> Okay. From the council donation fund.

[2:09:09] » That's okay. >> Yep. Okay. Uh so Lauren has made that

[2:09:13] motion. Is there any discussion? >> Okay. I'll call the question. Those in

[2:09:18] favor? Opposed? That carries. Okay. Thanks, Lauren.

[2:09:23] Uh okay. I think that takes us to the end of our public meeting for now. We do

[2:09:29] have our 11:30 delegations. Uh we do have a few uh larger items to try and

[2:09:34] move through and close. So why don't we move into a closed session? I would

[2:09:38] entertain a motion to enter a closed session. Mark Mark has moved to go into

[2:09:42] a close session at 11:11 this morning. Any discussion

[2:09:46] called question? Those in favor

[3:28:59] Sound

[3:29:12] good? Okay. Whenever you're ready. Okay. We'll call the meeting back to order at

[3:29:17] 12:30 this afternoon. Uh we have two items remaining for discussion in close

[3:29:21] session. Item three, uh intermunicipal matters, ATIa section 26, disclosure

[3:29:26] harmful to intergovernmental relations. And item four, uh, CA report ATIA

[3:29:31] sections 19, 20, 28, and 29. So with that, I'd entertain a motion to enter a

[3:29:37] close session again. John John is moved to go to close session at 12:31 this

[3:29:41] afternoon. Any discussion? I'll call the question. in favor.

[4:26:57] out a close session. Uh, we have one item.

[4:27:01] Uh, John, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move

[4:27:06] that Lethbridge County support the proposed Green Acres Foundation to

[4:27:10] borrow $10 million for the $26 million capital project of the affordable

[4:27:15] seniors apartment building at 105 Kathina Boulevard West Lethbridge

[4:27:23] and that Lethbridge County understands that the request for $10 million in

[4:27:28] external financing requires ministerial approval and the Lebridge County

[4:27:32] acknowledges that under the Alberta Housing Act

[4:27:36] Uh member municipalities continue to be requisition to fund operating costs of

[4:27:41] seniors lodging facilities. John has made that motion. Is there any

[4:27:47] discussion? I'll call the question. Those in favor?

[4:27:52] Opposed? That carries. Anything else with our public meeting today?

[4:27:58] » Eric is adjourned at 128.

Council Meeting - 06 Aug 2026

Transcript