Okay. Good morning everyone. In the true
spirit of reconciliation, we acknowledge all those who call this land home now
and for thousands of years in the past. May we respect each other and find
understanding together and recognize the benefits this land provides to all of
us. We call the meeting to order this morning at 9:03 a.m.
Uh we look at our agenda for today. We have two time commitments. We have uh
two public hearings scheduled for 10:00 a.m. and we have our delegation at 11:30
for our 2026 bary award recipients. Uh moving to the uh formal adoption of
the agenda. Are there any proposed additions, deletions, any edits to the
agenda as presented?
» Go, John. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move
to adopt the agenda as presented. >> Thank you, John. John is moved to adopt
the agenda as presented. Is there any discussion? Call question. Those in
favor? Opposed? That is carried. Uh moving down you before you you have the
county council meeting minutes of July 16th, 2026. Are there any errors
submissions? Anything arising from the minutes as presented?
» Eric. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to
approve the council meeting minutes from July 16, 2026 meeting.
» Thank you, Eric. Eric has moved to approve the county council meeting
minutes of July 20 July 16th 2026 as presented. Is there any discussion? Call
the question. Those in favor opposed. That is carried. Uh we can move down
then in our agenda to our subdivision applications. We have five subdivision
applications for today. We'll start at number one. D1 subdivision application
2026-0291204158
Alberta Limited. Goring Kalin, Goring, Steve.
» Good morning, council.
So, as mentioned, we have sub uh five subdivision applications before you as
the subdivision authority. Um we'll start with subdivision application
2026-029.
Um it is a subdivision of 10.09 acres um from an 86.7
acre title for country residential use. It let me just pull up the map here. Um
it is directly west of the town of Noble for boundary and north of Highway 519.
And u with that I will pass it on to Steve for recommendations.
» Good morning. this uh first application um just on the uh doorstep there to the
town of Nobleford on the west side of the the town and the CPR tracks there.
Um as you can see there, they're looking to subdivide at the very northern
portion of their title that 10.09 acres. Um technically this is treated as a
first parcel out subdivision for the applicant. Um the all the remnant of the
quarter section on the east side is uh is the municipality for the town of
Nobleford as well for the uh some road and the CPR rail line uh which doesn't
count towards subdivision um of the landowner applicant. Um, one of the
unique things about this parcel as well is there is a small little triangle
piece at the very south end um, which is actually in the town of Nobleford. So
this parcel, the title itself has a split municipal jurisdiction. So even
though the subdivision is occurring on the Lethbridgeidge County side of the
border, the town of Nobleford also has to uh um, do an approval uh, in order
for it to go through land titles. Um so they'll be doing a concurrent um uh
approval on this as well which I believe their meeting is next week uh for the
town of Noford on it. Um so with that this is in the IDP area um with the uh
town of um the that plan basically does allow um
for a single type of subdivision um to come out. um anything additional or
further um some of the policies in there then direct that an area structure plan
that sort of thing has to be done. Um one of the things with this application
there is um a small little piece on the east side running parallel to the tracks
Lshaped there. Um as you cross the tracks um there's a easement access
rightway that goes up to the north for the north land owner and there's a yard
up there as well. there's access right away that goes directly to the west to a
yard on the west side there. Um so as you come across the tracks um that
little piece will be as Kayn shown there will be dedicated as road um in order to
uh capture it now um so it doesn't get lost um if any further subdivision was
to occur in this area. Um the IDP uh does talk about a a road concept plan
has to be done on this west side uh to provide some continuity to the uh north,
south and the west. Um so that piece will be uh that first um piece will be
in place to cross the tracks. Um the IDP did identify this um crossing um as an
access. Um however, the CPR does uh control the access of the crossing
there. Um the applicants did have to obtain a uh CPR crossing agreement uh
for the CPR for this subdivision in order to utilize that uh which they do
have in writing uh that agreement. Um one of the things in reviewing the
application um the town did request that that road just be kind of squared off or
the line run all the way parallel on the west side there. um they have a little
access that goes into their water reservoir parcel there uh to the south
and and just to kind of keep that um squared off and then their area too
would be included in that. Um so be reflected one of the conditions of
approval. Um so with this um the south end of the
parent parcel does touch uh highway 519. Um, so during the circulation, Alberta
Transportation, uh, since they're using internal access has no concerns or
objections, uh, to the application. Um, and there were no other objections or
concerns, uh, received on it.
Um, since the package came out, we've heard from the other utility companies.
Um, at this time, nobody requires any easements or anything for utilities. Um
the parcel itself will require a waiver to be approved because it is a bare land
um parcel at the moment at the 10.09 exceeds the threeacre parcel size. Um
the request for the parcel as is uh is for a couple of reasons. One is that um
they do want to develop the main part of the yard more to the west to be away
from the CPR tracks. And as well uh the parcel designed the way it is will
follow that existing access right away and the driveway that's there for the
neighbor to the west and their parcel will physically touch all the way to the
east side um to that road dedication to the crossing to go across the tracks
there. Um so with that um
the recommendation in front of you is to approve the application.
Um it does conform to the IED um it is in planning area 1B and it conforms to
those policies as well. Um with the waiver granted um to approve the 10
acres 10.09 acres rather than the three. um it otherwise complies with the land
use bylaw and the subdivision criteria and the approval will be based on those
um five conditions there that um taxes paid up to uh paid and up to date a
development agreement entered into the county um where the county can outline
the terms of that road um that surveyed plan be submitted which includes the
road dedication that extends all the way to the south of plan 731HG and parcel B
which is the town's water reservoir. Um the soils analysis would uh be done for
the private septic system and the town of Noford um has to provide a concurrent
endorsement um for land titles and approval as well. Um so with those five
conditions the recommendation is to approve on that basis.
» Thanks Steve. I'd open up to council on.
» Thank you Mr. Chair. When I'm looking at this subdivision um proposal, I just
want to make sure that I understand it correctly. The access right away that is
going to the parcel on the left to the 0012977
that is not that is remaining with the me part of the parcel and I'm assuming
that that would be handled by by some sort of a private agreement between the
land owners that that's not going to be turned into a roadway or a driveway.
» Not at this point. That's correct. will remain in place on and it's on title
currently. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Mr. Chair, >> could you just tell me again which part
is the towns? Is it that little square there
» of of the title? >> Yeah.
» At the very south end
» that piece right there. >> Oh, so it's actually not part of this
subdivision. >> I mean, it's technically part of the
title, but They're subdivating on the county side of the parrot title and
that's part of the remnant just the boundary between the two of you. Um
where there was an old road plan there is just on the other side. So it's
» so then does Kip Street end at the railroad tracks.
» Yes. >> And then it becomes a private access or
access agreement. Okay. That's correct. >> Thank you.
» Anything further?
» Thank you Mr. Chair. Let me zoom in >> with the land owner.
» So to clarify for council, uh when this application came forward, it was really
to try to figure out how to allow for a country residential subdivision, it
being the first title out, but also rectifying some of the road plan issues
we have today and trying to make sure that we will have road dedicated for
future subdivisions. Um, so we looked back at the IDP and the conceptual road
network and determined what what amount of road needed to be dedicated to make
sure that other parcels will have access if they want to develop in the future
while still allowing this subdivision to go forward. And then Nobleford did
identify a really good opportunity to um square off the triangle so that they
have a full road plan to access their water treatment plant. Um so there was a
lot of opportunities to to fix existing line work.
Anything
else? Mark.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd move that subdivision application number 2026-
» It is exactly 2 miles um east of the city of Lethbridge immediately east of
the Highway 4. And this is really a reconfiguration and consolidation of
four titles. And so the reconfigured titles will be um 998
178 and 1.7 acres in size. There's a substantial number of diagrams that
Steve will walk through with his uh recommendations.
And on this application, um I guess it the easiest way to describe it is by
looking at at the the images um shown the land before and after the um
basically what the proposal is is that it's enabled land swap and title
reconfiguration between the adjacent parcels. Um largely as a result of a
project driven by the SMR. Um there's a portion of former canal rightway in
there that the SMRD no longer needs. They made agreement with the land owners
um to dispose some of it and consolidate it into their lands and part of that too
is just um realigning the boundaries to some of the existing land uses um on the
property as well along with that. So the parcel sizes get adjusted. So um there
will be approximately 1.7 acres that parcel remain as irrigation plan at the
very west end for the SMID. Um there's a yard in there um that uh currently is
that 3.37 hectares or 8.25 acres. Um that their
yard, it's the same land owner that has the title to the east, the large
agriculture parcel. Um and on the air photo, you can see that their yard kind
of extends and there's fenced to the back. Um so there's kind of following
the angle of their existing yard and such there and the land outside the
cultivated land. Um and then there's a slight adjustment between the two egg
pieces um based on the canal and that sort of thing. So um it is a a land swap
and configuration occurring between all of them. Um just as you can see there
where the former and the blue line the canal was just how in the end the new
black line showed the parcel lines there just to try to clean that up and
straighten it out in the end with that disposal um of the SMD canal them no
longer needing it. So um so with this application um there um
there was no um provincial interests uh historical resources that type of thing,
environmental stuff that are affected by it. Um the application is in close
proximity to Highway 4, although um transportation doesn't require anything
and there's no concerns with it. Um the uh the parcels themselves um with the
realignment is that there will be no additional titles created in the end. Um
they start with four titles in the end there's still four. It's just different
sizes a little bit between the two with that uh kind of land swap and
configuration going on. Uh so this does align with the county subdivision
policies for realignment reconfiguration of titles. There's no additional titles
created. Um there's no objections or concerns received um since the
application came out. Um we've now heard back um from the utility companies
additional that didn't respond previous. Um there was no easements required. Um
so on that basis um there's a recommendation of approval in front of
you and that'd be based on the four conditions of the taxes being paid. If
the county requires a development agreement that they enter into that with
the county. Um the third condition is the survey final survey. It needs to be
done based on the approval on that reconfiguration and the fourth just had
talked about any easements there. Um it doesn't look like any required but um it
does align with your reconfiguration policy. So the recommendation is to
approve it. >> Thank you Steve. I'd open up to council.
» Thank you Mr. Chair. well complicated in the paperwork side of things. It looks
like it's been well laid out. And um with that, I would like to move the
recommendation that subdivision application 2026-077
be approved subject to the conditions as outlined in the draft resolution.
Thank you, Eric. Eric's move the recommendation that subdivision
application 2026-077 be approved subject to the conditions
outlined in the draft resolution. Is there any further questions or
discussion? Seeing none, I will call the question.
Those in favor? Opposed? That is carried.
» Uh, third subdivision for today. Subdivision application 2026-085.
Kaylin, >> thank you. Um, so subdivision
application 2026-085. It's within a portion of northeast
quarter 11821 west of the 4th. Here is the map. So it is located um one
mile west of Highway 4 and a half a mile east of the city of Lethbridge. Uh the
proposal before you is to subdivide a 6.83 83 acre title from the existing 79
acres and this falls under the legacy yard country residential use under our
land use bylaw. And with that, I'll pass on to Steve for recommendations.
» So, this application is I guess your uh second at the county here since the
policy went in on the legacy yard site. Um this application was made on that
basis. The uh parent title itself has existed since 1952.
Um, the property has been in the same family for multiple generations. Um,
there's still the older home that was built in 1950s on the property. Um, and
then there's a second newer home on the west side of the parcel that was built
around 1996. Um, that uh is on the west side. Um, so
the application, as you can see there, they're taking the yard out of the
northeast corner along the road. Uh, there's a 72.65 acre residual. Um there
is an abandoned gas well on this property, but it's located um to the
southwest on the agricultural portion and the existing yard and the
subdivision coming out um meets the setback distances uh to that abandoned
gas well. So there's no uh concerns with that. Um the application is in the IDP
area um with the um city of Lethbridge um with the legacy yard site policy
being put in and the or the city was circulated at that time. Um this
application conforms to the county's bylaw subdivision criteria and on that
basis uh the city of Lethbridge uh has no concerns and did not object to the
application. Um as well it is within the referral distance of AT and AT also has
no concerns uh since uh their infrastructure roads aren't being
impacted by it and they take access off that uh local county road.
Um so this application um does meet the legacy yard site um criteria it would
appear. Um you as council have to be satisfied with that. Um but it does
appear the yards has existed for at least 50 years or more and um the um
it's been in the same family.
So the recommendation in front of you uh is to approve the application. Um on
this application there would be the applicability of a municipal reserve
payment to the county. Um that market value did come in at 55,116
per acre for the municipal reserve payment on that 6.83 83 acre yard
portion only. Um it's not applicable on the other agricultural residual piece.
Um so with the payment of municipal reserve um the other four conditions
there with the taxes development agreement uh the final survey plan um
and then the fourth referred to the utility easements um we've since heard
back by from ATCO and foris and um they don't require anything at this point.
Um, so with that, the recommendation is um to approve
um the application as applied for. >> Thank you, Steve. I'd open up to
council. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, just one
quick, how many dollars an acre did you say it was valued at?
» It came in at 55,116 per acre.
» Okay. With that, I would move uh subdivision application 2026-085
with the four conditions. Thank you, Lauren. Lauren has move the
recommendation that subdivision application 2026-085
be approved sub conditions for the reasons outlined in the draft
resolution. Is there any further discussion? Go ahead.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. not so much question or whatever, but just a
statement on it that I think the the land assessment is plenty high on it uh
due to location and existing land around it. Thank you.
Anything else? I'll call the question. Those in favor?
Opposed? That carries. Our fourth subdivision application 2026-
0-086.
Okay. Thank you, council. Um, so subdivision application 2026-0-086.
It's a portion of the southeast corner quarter 10 1121 west of the 4th. It is
located a mile north of the town of Picturebutes.
So, right there. Um, and just west of Highway 25. The proposal before you is
to res-split a title, which is 5.38 acres into two titles being 2.48 and 2.8
respectively for country residential use. And with that, I'll pass it on to
Steve for recommendations. So, this application in front of you is
a uh res-split of an existing title, 20 acres less in size. Um that the county
has a subdivision policy um uh to enable such. Um as you can see
maybe in the photo there, they have a developed yard in the north side with a
uh dwelling on there. They're looking to subdivide the south portion. Um that
south portion a little bit larger at 2.8 acres. It will include on the west
perimeter or sorry the east perimeter I should say um a a panhandle that goes up
to the north end where the existing h access is that goes out to highway 25 um
to provide direct physical access um to the uh that south parcel. Um so as part
of the application there will be a little uh service road dedication at
that very northeast corner there a little uh 20x 20 box um at the access
point there. Um that is a requirement of Alberta transportation. Um they don't
require and won't take service road along the whole um east perimeter there.
Uh because as you can see the the parcel pretty much dead ends at the south end.
it runs into the LNID um into uh reservoir land um at the
south end there. Uh so there's uh no need no opportunity for additional
subdivision or access at that south end there. Um that this last parcel here is
it would be kind of like uh the uh end of the uh the street there so to speak.
Um so with the road dedication being provided, Alberta Transportation has no
objections to the application and has authorized that the county could u
proceed to approve it. Um as part of the referral out um it is just outside the
IDP area with um town of Picture but um or sorry it is just within the boundary
but it's at the very uh kind of north perimeter of that IDP. Um this type of
subdivision is allowed in the IDP as a respplit under the county's policy uh
provided the uh policy is conformed with um in reviewing this application. There
are a couple confined feeding operations to the west of this. Um it does meet um
all the MDS's to the operations on the west and northwest of it. Um so lying
outside the applicable MDS minimum distance separation area. Uh so there's
no conflict there. Um
as part of this application, Aqu gas uh was the one utility company that does
require an easement for a gas line that runs through there. Um so with that um
it does conform to your respplit um policy. The access um will be dealt with
um through the condition there of providing that service road that shared
approach kind of there at the northeast. Um there was no objections or concerns
received on it. Um so the recommendation is to approve. Um there is also the
applicability of municipal reserve payment on this application on the
parent title which would be the 5.3 acres. Um that value came in at 66,037
per acre. Um the other conditions be uh the six outline there. taxes paid the
development agreement entered into uh to address the road and the access um the
soils analysis be undertaken for that south 2.8 8 8 acre lot. Um their final
plan of survey be submitted. Um that the ACO um and Ford has also requested
utility easement be addressed through condition number five and that that road
dedication um has to be um signed off and approved by Alberta Transportation
um as part of the final endorsement which is addressed through condition
number six. Um so with those six conditions and the municipal reserve
payment um with those being applied the recommendation is to approve as applied
for. >> Thank you Steve. Thank you Kayla. I
would open it up to council. >> Good job.
» Thank you Mr. Chair. Seems like a very straightforward um split of a parcel uh
in an area that is heavily fragmented. Anyway, so I'd like to move that
subdivision application 2026-086 be approved subject to the conditions as
outlined in the draft resolution. Thank you, John. John has moved the
subdivision application 2026-86 be approved subject to the conditions as
outlined in the draft resolution. Is there any further discussion?
Call question. Those in favor? That is carried.
And our final subdivision application for today, uh, number five, subdivision
application 2026-087.
Kaylin, >> thank you, council. So, subdivision
application 2026-087. It is within the north half 13821 west
of the 4th and southwest quarter 24821 west of the 4th.
So again, it's backlo immediately east of the city by one mile
and it's adjacent to Highway 4. Um the proposal before you today is to
subdivide a fragmented quarter and create a 76 acre agricultural title um
from the current 110 acre um title. And with that, I will pass it on to Steve
for recommendations. this one.
» Yeah, this application uh the final one here is to um basically um divide the
what's left of the quarter section on the west side of highway 4 and the CPR
rail line um into the two agricultural portions. Um the south is the uh
cultivated u vacant agricultural land portion at the 76.57 acres. The north
portion will be the remnant of what's left in that title. Um that will be a
title in two parts and currently has to remain that way. Um just the way the
canal was done with this title and the um CPR rail line in Highway 4. Um and
there's a irrigation canal um on the west side as well. That little northern
triangle piece is basically a physical island. Um it doesn't touch any road at
all. Um so that has to remain with the portion just south of it. Um so it's
what we call a title in two parts. So it's a legally it is one parcel. Um they
do kind of cross that canal to get in there. Uh the canal on the west side. Um
but it there's no uh legal physical point where it it touches any public
roadway at all. Um and that's the only way to get in there is by crossing the
the canal. Um so this application um it is um an
agricultural uh split. the um it is within the IDP area obviously along uh
close to the city there. Um it's just uh beside Steuart Siding. Um the city has
no objections or concerns to the proposal um as the applicants have
applied for and for it being an agricultural subdivision. Um as well
Alberta Transportation has uh no concerns um not taking any direct access
to Highway 4 there. Um so the with this application um
there was uh during the circulation um Aqu gas did request um a utility
easement for the south piece there where they have a gas line running through um
that's currently unprotected. Um so other than that um it is um does meet
the policies as a as a fragmented title um being split into the two agricultural
portions. Um and with that I think the conditions there uh the five outlaid in
front of you with the taxes a development agreement into it if the
county needs it. Um they would uh need a surveyor sketch just to confirm where
they want to put that property line which is close to the existing dwelling
and yard uh that there's no encroachments and it is able to meet the
setbacks to the dwelling and such. Um and that the ACO easement as a fifth
condition be applied. Um so with those five conditions um the recommendation is
to approve um as applied for.
» Thanks Steve. >> I would open up to councel.
» John. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. When I first saw
this I was trying to figure out why that that north parcel was
sort of to be remained in there and why it wasn't subdivided out. But now I get
it. there's absolutely no access to it because of way the way the railroad and
and the canals run. So, I appreciate that explanation. And um seeing that,
I'd like to move that subdivision application 2026-087
be approved subject to the conditions as outlined in the draft resolution.
Thank you, John. John has moved that subdivision application 2026-087
be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the draft resolution. Is
there any further discussion from seeing none question
that's carried? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Uh why don't we move in our agenda to item F uh department reports F1.2
uh development permit application 26 uh D0134.
» Good morning Jessica. Good morning everyone council. Um so in front of you
here today is development permit application 26-d0134
for Vanderhoff. I'm just going to pull it up here. So this particular
application um in front of you is for an addition to
an accessory building uh to operate a powersports business in Iron Springs.
Um, you may recognize it from last year as we did have I apologize there's no
map. Um, we did have an application come in for this exact use um in early 2025.
Um, that application was approved. This is the same applicant. They are just
wishing to enlarge the building by an additional about 500 square ft. Um so
the proposed use is located on a parcel zoned Hamlet direct control for which
council is the development authority. Um so the use of the existing shop as a
power sports business as I mentioned was previously approved by county council on
the property. The the actual addition footprint beyond what was approved last
year is an additional 525 square feet for a total addition uh footprint of
1575 square feet.
Um, under the land use bylaw 24-07, the commercial use is considered suitable by
council um is a permitted use under the Hamlet Direct Control District. Um, for
we we did receive uh comments back from Alberta Transportation since um this
report was initially drafted. U they've come back stating that uh they are
exempt from a roadside development permit. um that is listed as an
informative on the drafted development permit um before you. Um additionally,
the development permit draft lists that the previous development permit be
rescended and that the applicant is to submit a grading and drainage plan um
for approval by the county prior to beginning construction. Um at which time
once it's approved, they would have two years uh to to complete that grading.
Um, for these reasons, the recommendation here is that development
permit 26-d0134 be approved as drafted. Um, the
alternatives are that county council may refuse the development permit
application. This would be at your discretion on the basis that the
addition could be seen as an unsuitable use and uh the financial impact is that
any future development on the parcel is subject to a commercial industrial tax
rate. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jess. I'd open it up to
council for any questions or discussion. John,
» thank you, Mr. Chair. When I look at the U proposal on the recommendations, we're
saying that um that the proposed addition increases the previously
approved additional footprint by 525 square ft. But when I go and look down
on the proposed plan, >> this plan,
» it's saying a proposed 45 by35 addition. So that would give us an additional
» 1,575 square feet,
» right? Yeah. Okay. So that was just a typo then. Um,
» no. So what it's saying is that last year we approved an addition for just
over 1,000 square f feet. The applicant wishes to expand it further. So instead
of the thousand, it will be just over 1500 total.
» I'm less confused now. Okay. Thank you. I was trying to figure out where the
math was not working in my head. So I appreciate that. Um, thank you. That's
all I had.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and uh, I I think it fits within its area and
existing business that's uh, doing well and has a place in the community. I'd
like to move the recommendation that development permit 26-d0134
be approved as drafted. >> Thank you, Eric. Eric has moved that
development permit 26-D0134 be approved as drafted. Is there any
further discussion? Call question. Those in favor post. That
is carried. >> Thank you.
» Thank you, Jessica. >> Uh why don't we now move up uh one item
uh department reports F1 uh development and infrastructure F1.1
bylaw number 26-016 Leers County subdivision authority bylaw.
Okay. Thanks. So, thank you, council. Bylaw 26-
bylaw 26-016. It is the Lethbridge County Subdivision
Authority bylaw. Um, we discussed it last meeting and only passed first
reading and I'm actually here to follow up on a few questions council did have.
Um, so to start with, I will run through the subdivision authority bylaw and
what's being proposed. Um, so the municipal government act requires every
municipality to have a subdivision authority bylaw. Um, Lethbridge County
has relied on bylaw number 1103 since 1995, which is dedicated council as a
subdivision authority. Um I think since 1995 the Lethbridge County has faced
substantial change in uh planning and development pressures and we do receive
quite a few applications every year. Um it is reaching 40 applications um
annually that are coming before council. Um so just practicality of what our
application volumes are today and differing u planning administration
practices and how this authority can be delegated and really placing routine
decisions before council is how we are managing it today and um reflecting on
modern practices where routine decisions are um delegated to administration.
Um so the bylaw proposed before you today if I go to it
it's really meant to identify um a two-tier model. Um basically the
subdivision authority is delegated to the director of development and
infrastructure where applications are considered routine. So examples when
we're looking at agricultural um title reconfigurations, the first
parcels out um when a area has already been resoneed for group country
residential by council um subdividing those out into the two acre appropriate
lot size that complies with area structure plan. Like those are the
examples of very routine applications that we're seeing that the the director
would be the authority. Um this bylaw is indicating that a decision would all
would be rendered by council in very c certain circumstances. Um so if the
applicant requests that the application go before council. So this probably
would be in a circumstance where administration and the applicant don't
agree maybe we're in a circumstance of a refusal. They may ask for it to be heard
by council before the subdivision authority makes a decision. The second
is if there is any referring agency. So, Alberta Transportation, a school board,
if any of those referring agencies object the application, it would come
before council instead of administration making the decision.
Um, if there's any variance or waiver in the application, if a statutory plan is
not being applied that council approved, any circumstance where um a
consideration outside the land use bylaw, that would have to come before
council. So, if you recall, there was one application today um that we heard
that required a very slight waiver that would have had to come before council if
this is the bylaw we're considering. Um if there's any if the director
determines that there's any significant policy, technical, community impacts,
they would have the discretion to bring it before council instead of them making
a decision. Um and then if council passed any resolution or bylaw that
dedicated subdivisional authority for a specific area. So, if we look at some
specific subdivisions in the county that in the past we've made decisions about
um McDermott SE section 26 where like we've put very prescriptive land use
policies in place. Those could be circumstances where council would make
the decision at a long-range planning perspective that I want to continue to
be hearing the the subdivisions coming before us. So, those are the kind of
prescriptive cases where council would hear the application even though you're
de delegating it to the director. Um, and so I just want to roll back up.
No, in the council report, I did give you an outline of application
statistics. I pulled applications since 2020 um to through 2025 and then 2026
year to date. So, we've received 187 applications over five years. Those have
all came before council. It's averaged about 31 applications per year, but in
recent years, it's been more like 35 to 40.
We have had 16 um year to date. I know there's currently six applications with
orus um under review. So there is six more coming. Um during this period there
was only three applications refused and subsequently I only found one
subdivision authority appealed um which went to Lapert.
Uh 21 of the applications were considered for waiverss. 18 of those
were approved of the 21. And in terms of processing time, because
I think this is the biggest impact that we will see if if authority is
delegated. Um so from an application being received to deem complete,
currently the county averages about tw 12 days. Um the municipal government act
requires that we're doing that within 20 days. Um complete to a decision. So once
we deem it complete, we do the circulations, draft up the decision,
schedule it for council, we're at 56 days. Um, so the municipal government
act requirement is 60 days. So yes, we're hitting the target, but I want to
say one in five applications are taking more than 60 days. So about 20% of
applications are exceeding the municipal government act requirements and we're
having to ask the applicant for an extension to get it before council.
Um, from decision to endorsement, the average is 160 days. This is a really
hard one to nail down and it's because it's a a lot under the control of the
applicant meeting the conditions that are being set. Um so different personal
circumstances happen, there's delays, financial delays, like that is really
out of our control, but I just wanted to give you a ballpark of where we're at.
Um there is applications taking a number of years to actually get endorsed to
land titles because meeting conditions is is challenging.
Um, so then I want to talk about the types of applications. I kind of gave
you a breakdown the best I could. So about 25% of our applications are
agricultural reconfigurations. They're very routine. 55% are rural egg existing
um farmards or bareland farm farmsteads. Routine again. 8% are that group country
residential where you've already heard a previous decision. So you've heard a
resoning or an area structure plan before you and the subdivision is just
that subsequent step. And then 12% is commercial industrial. Again, usually
there is a council decision related to resoning or area structure plan at some
point in time. So it has been before council before.
Um so I hope that information clarifies the questions that we had last meeting,
but I'm more than happy to answer some more questions.
Any questions?
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I am opposed to this. I believe the council should
remain the subdivision authority and I would agree that there are some
exemptions to that. I think we had a perfect example today where you
reconfigured the property lines out by Steuart siding. Uh both cases were
fairly simple. I think both of those are more than adequately handled by
administration. However, I do feel it's part of our duty as a municipally
elected counselor to do uh act as a subdivision authority.
Ultimately, regardless of whether administration is the authority or we
are, council is still responsible to the rateayers. So, we will hear about it one
way or another. I think the current process is working
and it's fitting in the MGA timelines and uh according to all we've heard
before once you take over from Old Man River uh you will be able to speed up
the process and should narrow down the times.
So I think uh that it should speed up and be more than a more than adequate
time. Thank you. Thank you, Lauren. John,
» thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I would e echo the statements that councelor Hickeyi
has said. I believe that it is uh it is our responsibility as a public
facing figures to deal with public facing decisions like this. Um and you
know looking at the the load in terms of the applications that have have been put
in over the years um you know I I don't see this as being an extremely
burdensome process as it is. We're meeting the do the timelines within the
MGA and appreciate that you know at 20% of the time there may have to be an
extension for one reason or another. Um, in in terms of, you know, if we're
looking at the decision to force at 160 days, well, that really doesn't factor
into this decision- making process whatsoever in my mind because that is
something that is uh related to information or or you know, how fast the
applicant actually gets his stuff together and gets put into place. Um, I
I do agree that things like a simple property realignment would be something
that we wouldn't necessarily need to see. Um, but anything more complicated
than that, I would still like to be to see come in front of council and council
be the ultimate decision. Thank you, John.
just maybe for the benefit of of Lauren and John that weren't here at the last
meeting. Um I think we anticipated some of the comments that you would make
today and I think that was um part of the reason why council at the time
decided to push this to today. So I would look around at your fellow
counselors and just acknowledge the fact that I think we did see this being
something that we felt was something that should come to council and for
further discussion with a full albeit Kevin not being here today. um group of
council here. Um I think the conversation that we had at the time was
perhaps different. Um and I guess maybe I'll just speak from my perspective. I I
I guess I see our role differently than maybe John and Lauren do in the sense
that um I don't feel that it's council's role to necessarily face public facing
issues. I think it's our job as council to put in good policy, solid policy,
good bylaws, and then react to those living documents in a way that I think
stewards a better future for the community. I don't think it's
necessarily our job to be in the mud on every single decision.
I know I I will give this credit, this council credit. I think we do a good job
of of staying the course, but I have seen in the past when you have
counselors talking about doing it for their guy or their people, and I think
that's a slippery slope. I think at the end of the day, we're elected to
represent all of the municipality, whether they live in our division or
not. So, I do think there's a bit of a a balancing act there. And and I and I do
think it's opened up interpretation how you see your role. I don't think there's
a right way or a wrong way. I just think that maybe we see it differently. Um,
Kayn, I thought with some of the comments we had last time, I appreciate
some of the information you brought back and and I would again counter both
Lauren and John and that I think what you're saying and what you where you
have concern I think has been addressed within the draft and that, you know,
there there's the opportunity for every applicant to come before council. Um, I
think it takes away some of those maybe rubber stamp ones, which I would
suggest, um, by and large every subdivision application we had today.
Um, and I think as Kayn outlined, one perhaps. Um, but I still feel that was I
would have felt comfortable with uh with staff making that call. Um, yeah, I I
guess it just comes down to what you as council want. Um, how you see us moving
forward and evolving and I just think this is a further step in that
evolution. Um yeah, those are just my thoughts. Eric,
» thank you, Mr. Chair. Um yeah, read it the first time, read it
the second time. Still, uh don't have any
solid um uh yay or nay on it. There's there's
definitely uh apprehensions on to not current, but future that at some point
down the road. Um the whatifs are definitely
dark and lurking on um on things going not in a positive direction. Uh I I
think I can comfortably draw consensus that um there's room for improvement and
as council we can we can be part of that uh to to help some of this out. So, what
I'd like to propose today is that we proceed with a second reading and um and
then once again uh those that are opposed um state the
state the the direct concerns and see that they're they're not being
addressed. I a bunch of them are being addressed I think by by reading it
comprehensively and then there's a few that I think could also be looked at a
little bit further. So that's my proposal that I'd like to move the
bylaw. Let me pull this up. that bylaw 26-016
being the subdivision authority bylaw be read for a second time
with the idea that we table the third and make sure that we have it fully
fleshed out. Thank you. >> Thank you, Eric. So, Eric has moved that
by 26-016 being the subdivision authority bylaw be read a second time.
I'd open it again up for any discussion or comments. Go Mark.
» Sorry, just one comment. I don't see this as a as a threat to the authority
or the control of council. I see this as a compromise. It gives council still we
have, you know, we still have the final discretion. If there's an issue,
residents can bring it forward to us and council can oversee that and and address
that and adjudicate it. I think it's moving forward as we've progressed and
as things are changing. Um I this is just another piece of of of of the um
county moving forward and being more proactive and progressive. Um so I
understand Lauren and John's concern and uh you know given the history and we've
always done it that way. Um but I think moving forward
um you know there's room for for change and improvement and I don't see anything
threatening in here. Um so I I would you know I'm support I would support it. Um,
so we can move on to the motion.
» Yeah, go ahead. Cool. >> I'm not going to speak for or against
it. Just a couple points of clarity. Um, one thing that we tried to balance in in
this is a change like this provides I mean like was already mentioned the
applicant the right to bring it before council anyways. It would also allow for
council to be the appeal. um board for subdivisions which provides
a different oversight and one that provides more contextual awareness of
the county and some of the land use conflicts and the actual bylaws and
policies that are in place. And so we're trying to walk that balancing act of
council maintains oversight. The flip side of that concern for me is I've been
here three years. I can think of one subdivision that council amended and
maybe there's more, but I can only recall one subdivision recommendation
that was even amended from what was proposed in three years.
Now, at the same time, we get a lot more
feedback on development permit applications and other things that
council doesn't have the full context on, and it's an information gap because
you're not in the weeds on those. So, it's like, well, what about this and
what about this? But I have yet to see something that has been a a gross change
in direction from what's been recommended. And so I think for us the
line that the challenge I have I think this
provides a better customer service and maintains council oversight. The
challenge I have on the other side is you're going to have less context on all
of those things until they come or if they come before council. So it is a bit
of a like trust that we can hand that off. And so I know Kaylin tried to walk
this with this bylaw, but if there's things you guys want to see differently,
we I'm it cuts both ways. I just wanted to put it out there that we're not
pushing one one way or the other. We're trying to set the stage for the
strategic plan and some of the other things we've heard from council. So
» thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I I appreciate uh Reef Campbell's comments about, you
know, the fact that that this particular council has been very good about making
sure that it, you know, we're the perspective that we give isn't about
helping out one of our friends or our rate payers. Um, but I also think that,
you know, we have to take the and that's taking the people out of the the
situation in the sense that it can be a slippery slope and there are there may
have been times in the past and there may be times in the future where where
that may be an issue, but that also goes with the the people in the
administration that we have right now. I have the utmost confidence in in um you
know our administration and how they handle things but that may not
necessarily be the case down the road as well. So you know I think that that that
comment can be sort of can work on both sides of it. you know, when we're we're
talking about if there's a change in the individuals, I I still, you know, my
opinion on this is that uh that, you know, we're involved in this and we see
this and even though there isn't necessarily a lot of uh denials or or
massive changes, we're actually involved and we know what's happening with it.
And to um to CEO Beck's comment about, you know, we see more problems with the
development side. Why I think that is an a natural progression of the fact that
that has been delegated away from council meaning council isn't aware of
what's happening and when those complaints come in we're not aware of
it. Um and and you know moving this uh subdivision authority into
administration's hands will start to garner the same problems that we're
having with the development permits in the sense that there's a lack of context
around what's happening with it. So I um I still can't support this. Thank you.
» Thank you Mr. Chair. So just the one thing that you had mentioned, Cole, I I
would be adamantly opposed no matter how this turns out to be council being the
subdivision appeal authority or board because it should be an independent
body. I mean once it gets mixed up, it gets back to that old thing, oh it's my
neighbor, so I better support it. I think it's completely uh an independent
process and it needs to remain that. >> Go ahead.
» Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, for myself, I just find, um, you know, you get the
the counselors, we're the the eyes and ears out in the community. You you're
out there talking to people, you're hearing the concerns, you're um, yeah,
you bring that stuff forward when you come into uh, you know, dealing with the
subdivisions and um, it's just not necessarily will everybody always
contact the office for information or guidance or whatever. So,
um I still think that it should be held with the um us the counselors and um
just because we are kind of out in the in the public there.
Thank you, Tony. Uh so, Eric has moved uh second reading of bylaw 26-016
being the subdivision authority bylaw. Uh second reading. If there is no
further discussion, I'll call the question. Those in favor?
Those opposed? That is lost. Thank you, Kaylin.
» So, I just want to inform council I do have like we do need to amend the
subdivision authority bylaw um just with us leaving Man River Regional Service
Commission. So, I do have an amended version um and that simply remains
subdivision authority with council and the only thing that is delegated is the
subdivision extensions which are already delegated to Old Man River regional
service commission. So, it's rather allowing subdivision extensions to only
be dealt with administration which is the status quo. So, I do have that
bylaw. I can um it can be discussed today or I can bring it forward at the
next meeting. Yeah, perhaps just given the time um if we could bring that
forward that'd be wonderful. >> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Uh it is past 10:00.
So why don't we move in our agenda to item E, our public hearings. If we could
recess the public portion of our meeting and move towards our public hearing
number one, uh 2610. Uh we are here today to hold the public hearing for
bylaw 26-010 amendment to the land use bylaw to redesate a portion of plan
0815575 block 1 lot 212026
range road 223 within the southwest 151123 west the 4th from rural
agriculture to business light industrial. I would entertain a motion
to open the public hearing. John. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I move to open the
public hearing on bylaw 26-010.
Thank you, John. John has moved to open the public hearing for bylaw 26-010.
Is there any discussion? Call the question. Those in favor?
That is carried. Uh public hearing is being held pursuant to the municipal
government act as amended. The public hearing is being live streamed via the
county's YouTube page. Public hearing for viol 26-010 is now officially open.
I'll now ask for a review of the nature of hearing and an overview of what is
being proposed.
» Thank you, council. So, bylaw 26-010 is an amendment to our land use bylaw. It
is to reddesate a portion of plan 0815575,
block 1, lot 2. It is 1126 Range Road 223.
Um, it is red designated from rule A to Business Light Industrial.
Let's pull up the Oh, I'm on the wrong application.
There it is. Okay. Um, so the proposal is um related to a transportation depot
that is currently operating on the site in non-compliance. It was identified
back in 2025 when the landowner wanted to expand their existing property and
business. Um, we identified that we actually needed to work with the town of
Nobleford on an intermissible development plan amendment which was
passed before council back in 2025. Um, and one of the next steps was
requiring the landowner to do a wetland assessment prior to applying to a
resoning. Um so now they've completed the wetland assessment which you'll see
on the resoning map is specifically that eastern boundary which is defining the
resoning area. Um so the redesation area landed at 43
acres and it is explicitly excluding that wetland and the redesation to the
business light industrial will allow the existing business to be brought into
compliance as well as accommodate their proposed building expansion.
Um so before you today is um recommendation to read this bylaw for
the second and third time and this is on the basis that it does align with our
municipal development plan to support industrial and commercial expansion in
areas that are supported through the IDP and it does accommodate the growth of an
existing operation. And with that any questions?
» Thank you Kayn. Any questions from council?
This is council soul's opportunity to receive input from the public. Those
making presentations are asked to state their name and review their points. We
ask that you refrain from asking questions to council. The intention of
the public hearing is not to debate or defend the contents of the bylaw or the
position which individual counselors may have on the bylaw. Questions asked of
the council by presenter may be ruled out of order.
Presentation to council will start with the applicant who has made a submission
followed by any other persons wishing to comment on the proposal. Please keep
your comments to the point. After each speaker, members of council will be
permitted to ask questions for the presenter to clarify any details. No
debating or questions from the floor will be allowed. Each speaker will be
allotted up to 10 minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of
councel. With that, I would ask if the applicant
wishes to speak. I would then ask if there's anyone else
wishing to speak to the proposed bylaw. And for a third and final time, I would
ask if there's anyone wishing to speak to the proposed bylaw.
If there's nothing further, I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing. Eric, >> Mr. Chair, I move to close the public
hearing. >> Eric has moved to close the public
hearing for bylaw 26-010. Is there any further discussion? I'll
call question. Those in favor? Opposed? That is carry. Can now resume our public
meeting. Kaylin, do you have anything further?
» No, I don't. Thank you. >> Okay. I would then uh open up to
council. Mark and then John. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like to move by
26-0 be read a second time.
» Thank you, Mark. Mark has moved that bylaw 26-010
be read for a second time. Is there any discussion? Call question. Those in
favor opposed that carries.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move that bylaw 26-0 be read a third time.
Thank you, John. John has moved that by 26-0
be read for a third time. Is there any discussion? Call the question. Those in
favor? opposed. That is carried. I think Kaylin,
» sorry.
» Thanks, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I should have mentioned this before third
reading, but um I wanted to kind of express my
appreciation for our administration and the the landowner to actually uh you
know, get this into compliance and get things moving in a direction where it's
uh you know, he's he's acting well within our bylaws
and becoming a a uh you know, more in line with uh with our policies. and
procedures rather than just sort of operating rogue. So, thank you very much
for all the effort put in on both house on administration and on on the part of
our uh rateayer.
» Thank you, John. Uh moving down our second bylaw, bylaw 26-019.
Uh we are here today for the public hearing for bylaw 26-019 amendment to
the land use bylaw to revise the definition of specialty
manufacturing/cottage industry in part 9 definitions. I would
al ask for a motion to open the public hearing for
bylaw 26-019. Mark
» thank you mr chair I move to open the public hearing.
» Mark move to open the public hearing for bylaw 26-019.
Any further discussion? Call a question. Those in favor? Opposed? That is
carried. Uh, this public hearing is being held pursuant to municipal
government act as amended. The public hearings being live streamed via the
county's YouTube page. Public hearing for bylaw 26-019 is now officially open.
Excuse me. I'll now ask for a review of the nature of the hearing and an
overview of what is being proposed. Kaylin,
» thank you. So, bylaw 26-019 is an amendment to the land use bylaw to
revise the definition of specialty manufacturing the cottage industry. So,
it's part nine of our bylaw. And this application became about from a
Lethbridge County business who who is a specialty manufacturing cottage use on
their parcel. Um, they're currently operating on 11.4 acre title and they
have an existing shop and they're actually unable to expand due to the
restrictions of the definition in our land use bylaw. Um, so our land use
bylaw intends the specialty manufacturing cottage industry is
small-scale on-site production, fabrication, and processing of goods.
And it's really capped at a fixed maximum gross area of 10,000 square
feet. And it doesn't connect to lot size or any proximity contextual aspects of
the lot. And because this number 10,000 square feet is actually within the
definition, the development authority has no um authority to wave it or give
any variance. Um so it's very much a maximum allowed. So we're with working
with the applicant and recognizing our land use bylaw um review is is
forthcoming. Um we identified an opportunity to um make a minor amendment
to our land use bylaw to allow businesses like this to expand and it to
be more contextually related to the size of their lot. Um so this use only
actually applies to the rural agricultural zones and rural commercial
districts. Rural commercial is a district that is used on like three or
four part parcels in the county. So very very little impact. It's mostly rural
agriculture. Um and so basically the proposal before you is to amend the
definition to allow for 2,000 square feet per acre of lot area up to a
maximum of 20,000 square feet. And the reason 20,000 was selected as the
maximum is because we are looking at this as a rural agricultural adjacent
use and um potato storage and similar large agricultural buildings are kind of
that 20,000 square feet. So it it did seem um similar in nature without
becoming the category of commercial industrial. Um so that's why the numbers
were proposed and it's just a a minor amendment. I'll pull up the text. The
red line is right here for everyone. And really the recommendations um is to
consider the second and first reading of this and it does align with our
municipal development plan as we do we do recognize that adjustments need to be
made to support economic growth and rural diversification through strategic
and sound planning and we do recognize that there's a wide range of
agricultural and agricultural related or ancillary land uses that should be
considered in our um land use bylaw. So with that, if there's any questions.
» Thank you, Kaylin. This is council's opportunity to receive
input from the public. Those making presentations are asked to state their
name or review their points. We ask you refrain from asking questions of
council. The intention of the public hearing is not to debate or defend the
contents of the bylaw or the position which individual counselor may have on
the bylaw. Questions asked of the council by presenter may be ruled out of
order. Presentations to council will start with the applicant who made a
submission followed by any other persons wishing to speak.
After each speaker, members of council will be permitted to ask questions. The
presenter to for any details each speaker will be allowed up 10 minutes.
Additional time may be granted at the discretion of council. I would now ask
if there's anyone wishing to speak to the proposed bylaw.
I'd ask again if there's anyone wishing to speak to the proposed bylaw.
And for a third and final time, I would ask there's anyone wishing to speak to
the proposed bylaw. If there's nothing further, I would
entertain a motion to close the public hearing. John.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we close the public hearing for
bylaw 26-019.
Thank you, John. John has moved that to move to close the public hearing for
bylaw 26-019. Is there any further discussion? Call
question. Those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. Now resume our public
meeting. I would open up to council for any questions or discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, having had a couple of rateayers that have been
caught in this particular quandry a few years ago and had to do a significant
amount of reasoning in order to get the buildings put together what they needed.
I uh very much welcome this change and I think that it is a very good common
sense approach with the 2,000 per square feet per acre that uh allows individuals
to expand as much as they possibly can uh within reason on their parcel size.
So all that being said I would like to move that bylaw 26-019
be read a second time. >> Thank you John. John has moved that by
26-019 be read for a second time. Is there any discussion? Go ahead.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, in your commenting, you mentioned that due to a
hard number in there, there was no ability for waiverss or variances. Um,
are we going to have that the same here as well that we're going to hit the
20,000 no matter what? We'd have to amend it. And is there any appetite to
have uh a method of flexibility? >> Thank you, Councelor Vaness. So I did
consider different approaches and how we rectify this issue for rateayers. Um if
we removed it from the definition, yes, we'd have ability to vary it, but I
don't think it meets the intent of a land use bylaw because rural agriculture
still needs to remain low inensity uses and at what size of building are we
hitting the intensity that it should be considered commercial industrial. Um so
I think this was an interimm measure to address the immediate need of our our
residents and businesses. Well, we need to take a look greater look at our land
use bylaw of what triggers and is warranted commercial industrial, what is
mixed use, and those are conversations we need to have over a larger land use
bylaw um overhaul and renewal. Um so that's why the suggested approach was
just a minor amendment within our definitions because really over 20,000
square feet we should be looking at a commercial industrial use.
» You're welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so the
original uh 10,000 square feet, was that connected to an acre size before two or
» Thank you, Councelor Ankerman. Um, so no, it was purely this use is limited to
10,000 square feet. Um, so you could have a rural egg title that was 4 acres
and technically be allowed 10,000 square feet. Um it is a discretionary use. So
of course the development authority would use their their discretion but it
wasn't not it tied to lot size proximity to roads and highways. Um it was just a
blanket statement in the definition. >> Yeah.
» Thank you Mr. Chair. So just a question for cottage industry does and when you
say processing what exactly do you mean by that? like it when you say processing
would be a good example like the cheese plant but is that a cottage industry?
» Thank you councelor Hickeyi. So it is quite a catchall definition. We do use
it quite often. You'll see in the definition it it includes but not
limited to so it's everything from bakery bakeries specialty food
manufacturing distilleries micro breweries wineries um artisan and
craftsmanship um lutheran um taxiderermis woodworking u furniture
making cabinetry like it is quite a gamut of things it is often what I see
in development permits being used for like egg related industries um the
specific One is like manufacturing, steel manufacturing
related to agricultural buildings. Um, I've seen it being used for like floral
ups. Um, I've seen it used for breweries. So, it it's kind of using the
byproducts of agriculture or contributing to the agricultural
industry. It kind of goes back. So, it is quite broad.
» So, you they actually have to process something like they just can't store
something. You actually have to. Okay. Thank you.
» Yeah. >> Uh John has moved that bylaw 26-019
be read for a second time. >> Go ahead.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I also understanding it right now that if
somebody has a 2acre parcel capped at 4,000 square feet this time around?
» You are correct in that, Councelor Vaness. And the reason we decided that
cap was reasonable is because a lot of rule egg titles are adjacent to a group
country residential use and their accessory buildings are maxed at 4,000
square ft. Um so in the circumstances where they are directly adjacent to GCR
um that would still seem appropriate.
» Okay. And there and there's no uh flexibility on that number either then.
» No, not within the current definition. And if you are a small rule egg title of
two to four acres, um you're probably within the vicinity of an urban area.
You're probably within the vicinity of substantial number of acreages. So there
would be a larger um adjacent property impact um because you're going to have
more fragmentation and more houses. Um so I wouldn't feel comfortable with the
recommendation to expand that for those smaller parcels.
Thank you. >> John has moved that bylaw 26-019 be read
Perry second time. Is there any further questions? Sorry. Uh is there any
further uh Yeah, for a third time. Uh is there any further discussion or
questions? I'll call the question. Those in favor post that carries. Third
reading. Lauren, >> I would move third reading of bylaw
26-019. >> Thank you, Lauren. Horn is moved by
26-019 be read for a third time. Is there any further discussion? Call
question. Those in favor? Those opposed? That is carried.
» Thank you, Kaylin. >> Thank you.
» That takes us to 10:21. Why don't we take a short recess and return at
Uh we'll call the meeting back to order at 10:38 a.m. this morning. Uh we can
move in our agenda to administration F2 F2.1 fire investigation inspection
administrative policy. Morning Heath. Good morning, council. Um, today I'd
like to uh talk to you about the uh fire investigation inspection administration
policy. Uh, Lethbridge Countyy's quality management plan, QM, formerly known as
the quality management plan, presently relies on a Lethbridge County Fire
investigation inspection guideline to monitor and govern discretionary fire
investigation and inspection decisions. Adopting this policy achieves two
things. It gives fire safety codes officer a document defensible standard
of care that satisfies the county safety codes act obligations. And it also
protects rateayers by reserving formal specialist level investigation for fires
that genuinely require it. Fatalities, injuries, suspected criminal activity or
complex uh incidents. while routine low complex complex uh uh and vehicle fires
are handled at no additional cost by the attending fire officer.
So just to give you some uh a little bit more background,
West Lebridge County holds accreditation under the safety codes act through a
quality management system accepted by the safety codes council. The director
of emergency services acts as the fire QMS manager and is the authority having
jurisdiction safety codes officer under this accredititation. QMS schedule C
section 4.12.5 obligates the county to maintain a
defined process for fire investigations and governs fire inspections. Currently,
this obligation exists at the QMS level, but has not been operationalized into
council approved policy and clearly defines authority triggers for
investigations and limits on contract um fire chief's actions. Without a form of
policy, contracted fire service providers lack clear, consistent
direction on when a formal and costly investigation is required versus when a
routine assessment by an attending fire officer is sufficient.
There is inconsistent application of investigative resources across the
county's contracted fire departments, creating both compliance risk and
unpredictable cost exposure. And the county is exposed to liability and audit
findings from the safety codes council for failing to formalize an accredited
process already required under the QM. So
I I uh as far as the financial impact, adoption of the policy is not expected
to create new co direct cost to the county. Rather, it formalizes and
constrains existing practice. It is expected to reduce or avoid costs
associated with unnecessary engagement of an NFPA 1033 qualified investigator
or external specialist for low complexity incidents that can be
documented by an intending fire officer at no additional cost. duplicated fire
investigation of vehicle fires already covered by insurer retained experts and
potential liability and remedi remediation costs arising from
inconistent inconsistent or undocumented investigation decisions. So with that uh
council I would like to uh give the recommendation that council approve and
adopt policy number 219 fire investigation inspection policy as an
integrated component of the county's quality management plan QV1-4
or point4. Any questions?
» Heath, I would open it up to council for questions and discussion.
John, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Heath, as you
know, with my background, um, I had particular interest in this and reading
through uh, your proposal, I think it's something that makes sense. you know,
um, in in my world outside of municipal uh, politics has been many a time where
I've gone to a a scene where we've had multiple fire
investigators and it is very an extraordinarily straightforward uh, and
easy to determ situation. So, you kind of wonder where the resources are spent
and why they're spent on that. So, I u I I appreciate the common sense uh
approach to this particular policy. And um all that being said, I would like to
move that uh council approve and adopt policy number 219, fire investigation
inspection policy as an integrated component of the county's quality
management system QM version 1.4. >> Thank you, John. John has moved the
recommendation that council approve and adopt policy number 219 fire
investigation inspection policy as an integrated component of the county's
quality management system QM version 1.4.
Is there any further questions or discussion? Mark
» just a quick clarification. So if um we've contracted out this to the other
departments within the county. So if something if there is an investigation
held or if it's not done properly, does that the risk falls back on the county?
» No, it would be under the uh certification of the fire investigator
or or the fire officer that was in instant command on scene.
» Okay. Any other questions or discussion?
Call the question. Those in favor? Opposed? That carries. Thanks, Heath.
Uh, moving down. F22, request for financial relief.
Okay.
All right. Um, just to give you a summary, on June 15th, 2024, Lethbridge
County Contracted Fire Services responded to a rescue incident at Kho
Lake. Miss Hillary Lee, uh, the individual rescued, has since received
invoicing for the associated mercy response cost and has formally requested
that council consider financial relief with respect to these charges. Miss
Lee's request indicates that the incident was unplanned and unexpected
with no insurance coverage for this type of rescue. Miss Lee is not disputing the
costs are that are owed, but is requesting council's consideration of
relief given the financial hardship and full cost invoice would represent and
has offered to enter into a reasonable monthly payment arrangement for any uh
amount ultimately determined to be payable.
Um, just to uh give you some further
background, Miss Hillary Lee required emergency
rescue assistance at Keyhole Lake. Um, Lethbridge Countyy's contract of
emergency response resources attended and carried out the rescue and sub and
subsequent transport. Uh, following the response, Miss Lee was invoiced for
associated emergency response costs under the county standard cost recovery
practice. Miss Lee has submitted uh written court correspondence requesting
council's consideration of financial relief. She states that the need for
rescue was entirely unexpected and unplanned. She was not advised during
the response, rescue or transport that significant personal uh personal charges
uh could result. The resulting invoice came as a surprise and represents a
significant financial hardship. No insurance coverage is available to her
for this type of rescue and she will be uh willing to establish a reasonable
monthly payment arrangement for any amount council determines ultimately
payable. Miss Lee has expressed appreciation for the professionalism and
the responders and is not disputing that emergency services involve real costs.
Her request is limited to council's consideration of relief from a full
invoice amount given the specific circumstances.
Um, as far as financial impact, the
financial impact to the county depends on the option selected by councelor
ranging from a full recovery to the invoice in emergency costs, option A or
to fully write off the invoice amount to option C. Uh
what I would like to uh look at as far as a recommendation
council receives this report uh this report from information and provide
direction to administration regarding Miss Lee's request for financial relief
including whether to direct administration to bring forward an
amendment to fire bylaw number 22-002 establishing a cost recovery cap
applicable to rare and unusual emergency events of this nature or otherwise. has
resolved this matter as follows. uphold the invoice as issued with
administration to offer a monthly payment arrangement or approve a partial
reduction of the invoiced amount and the balance uh payable via monthly payment
arrangement or wave the charges in full in light of a unique circumstance
presented or direct administration to prepare an amendment to fire bylaw
number 22-002 establishing a cap cost recovery of
$1,500 for unusual emergency events. example, unplanned water ice rescues
where advanced warning of charges was not practical. Um, and apply this cap to
this invoice. So, with that, uh, any questions?
» Keith, I'll open I'll go to Cole first. Go ahead.
» Thank you, council. I just wanted to add when we reviewed this because I think
the letter speaks to a lot of things or rationale that would apply to any fire
response unplanned unexpected where administration believes it
diverges is I think there's a reasonable expectation that um people carry
property insurance like fire risk mitigation um response. I think this
falls outside of that. And so we struggled with this. We somewhat pulled
the $1,500 out of the air where it's, hey, there's
some accountability and there's a discretionary component to that, but
this is one of those ones that not only is it the potentially the worst day of
somebody's life. It is also not a reasonable expectation that they would
have insurance for this type of a response. We don't do an excessive
amount of them and we struggled to come up with what that exact structure should
be. There's been some very very tragic responses in the province recently.
Um, and on the worst day of somebody's life, I'm the last thing I want to do is
deliver an invoice to them for something like that that there could have been no
reasonable expectation that they could have mitigated the financial
implications. So, um, I don't think there's a perfect solution. we've put
what we've come up with in front of council, but I wanted to be very
transparent in how we work through this and
trying to deduce um a reasonable recommendation.
» Thank you.
» Um something that's missing on this is how
much was the bill we sent? >> Total bill, I don't have the exact
number, but it's around uh I believe $11,000.
follow up on that. >> Sorry. Um,
you know, when we first put in the u the bylaw for for emergency services and my
thought process in my head was around uh you know, fire and emergency responses
associated with that. uh because that is something that as a homeowner or vehicle
owner there you have the ability to actually purchase insurance. And so the
the whole premise behind um that was there was an insurable avenue and or an
area where there's another avenue for payment. So
I felt at the time that it was unfair for the municipality to take the fire
services charges of an individual when there is an avenue where where a
reasonably prudent individual could purchase insurance to indemnify
themselves for that. So that's it's it's not fair to put that burden on on all of
the rateayers specifically. in circumstances like this there there just
truly is no insurance that anybody could buy for this. So
um this circumstances like this would fall outside of u
my mindset in intention when we were having the initial discussion I think
now five years ago about deferring uh costs on to individuals because uh as I
said there's just no possible way that anybody could or should be expected to
purchase insurance for this. So, um, you know, as in terms of of options, uh, A,
B, C, or D, I'm not sure where I would fall on that. Um,
you know, in this particular circumstance like amending the bylaw, I
think that's a separate issue from this particular conversation. Um, I think the
the bigger conversation has to be around what do we do in the future on this, but
but the conversation in front of us right now is what do we do in this
particular circumstance? And I'm not 100% certain where I want to land on
that.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, this was another one that, uh, you know, I read
through several times and, um, you know, I sympathize. I feel bad for the young
lady. She's, you know, she made a mistake. I think she owns it. Um
throwing $11,000 bill at her. I don't think it's the right thing. Um I think
that um there should be something. So the 15 the the option D that you've
given there is to put a $1,500 cap. That's something that's affordable, be a
life lesson for that, but it's still there's something. It's not that we're
we set a precedent by waving the entire fee. So um I think move you know based
on your recommendation your report here I I would you know I could certainly
support that recommendation D is an option just moving forward. So
» thank you Mr. Chair. Um, was there a part of this that uh uh a
significant bill came from uh the water rescue portion and was there a portion
that potentially Lethbridge County didn't
have um contracts in place or or things in place that uh we could have had in
place or maybe even should have had in place.
» Right. Councelor Venison, thank you for the question. Uh yes, there was water
rescue efforts and there was costs associated with it. I have been in
consultation with the city of Lethbridge, Lethbridge Fire and
Emergency Services as far as um would they be willing to work with this uh the
the billing process and and uh they are willing and I have a verbal agreement at
this point with uh Deputy Chief Chris Maris and uh we are going to move
forward with that and he has promised me that he will they will look at some type
of relief if not all of it. >> Thank you, Mr. chairman through the
chair to councelor Van Essen. I would just add that even with our agreements,
we are we are liable to pay the the response rates either negotiated rates
and they vary. City of Lethbridge has their own schedule of fee bylaw and then
north of the river we pay at or we pay the Albert transportation rates and we
have a different agreement with Coldale. So there would be a cost impact to our
um to our rateayers by changing this. Um, I know Haley is just pulling the
actual cost of this response and then maybe if I could ask Keith to speak to
the number of these types of calls we see on average a year. I know we had
discussed that and it was fairly small but there is a financial implication to
making this change.
» Go ahead. >> Uh, based on the details that I just see
on the invoice, um, the total bill was $9,182.50
50 cents that was build between various stations and various municipalities um
including the city of Lethbridge. Uh the bill is now $12,855.50
because we she continues to incur uh finance charges because she has not made
any payments to the outstanding invoice. Um so that just gives you a little bit
more context
» and to answer the question as far as occurrence it's very rare um that these
you know they do come up in sometimes you'll get one or two a year but then
you might not get one for five years. So, these are unique circumstances and
being a a first responder myself in my past, I I can definitely say that these
are rare occurrences and they don't happen that much, but when they do,
they're life impacting and and now this is financially impacting for her as
well. >> Any other comments or questions?
» Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I guess we I
feel we should put a a proposal out there one way or other. Um, we've often
discussed at length, you know, reductions and the things against it
that's been talked about at length. So, I'm just going to put a proposal out
there. Um, half of original bill on terms is my proposal.
So, as I'm sitting here contemplating this whole circumstance, I come back to,
you know, the original intent of us passing the bylaw about putting
emergency services on to onto uh individuals.
was the and the intent behind that was to mitigate costs for the for the county
and for our rate payers for circumstances where there was the
potential for the responsible parties to carry insurance to cover off their
potential liability on this. Um, and looking at at that and looking at the
intent of what we originally tried to do and realizing that, you know, a a rescue
of this nature and a water rescue or anything where there is actually human
life in peril, um, I I'd be more apt to just,
you know, either wave the charges or put it down to a very nominal fee. Um, I I
just I really struggle with with us putting a financial burden on somebody
for a rescue. Um, and and part of the reason I struggle with this is that if
you know, we do this and we set a precedent on it and we say, "Okay, well,
you know, we'll give you payments on that." But then, you know, what happens
the next time that somebody's trapped out on Keyhill Lake and they hear about
this and they start thinking, "Oh, gee, I can't afford it, so I'm not going to
call a rescue." and then we end up with a body recovery situation. I I really I
I don't think that that passing this bill on to this individual meets the
intent of what we originally were trying to do. And um and I don't think that
it's something that us as a municipality should be looking at at doing just from
moral grounds. To be perfectly honest, I think the right thing to do in this
circumstance is is understand that this is not an insurable situation. They they
have no potential of of passing this on to recovery. Even if they wanted to buy
insurance for this, it's just not something that is available. So, I I
think I would be more in favor of just either full-on waving this or just
having a very nominal charge. >> Maybe a question to council. Is there is
there an appetite from council to as uh option D suggests is there an appetite
to u enact an amendment to establish a cap moving forward? I know I I maybe
just to separate the two from this incident to to moving forward. I think
we could pro we could potentially um take a two-pronged approach if that was
council's appetite. Is there an appetite from council to look at amending that
and and uh instituting a cap?
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I I can appreciate the attempt on that and I
think that there there will be an avenue, but I there are two unintended
consequences. Next thing you know, we are we are on for something significant.
and using John's logic of well they could have got insurance or they
couldn't got a couldn't have uh could set us up for uh some significant
liability in in these situations. Uh so I don't think that is a discerning mark.
Um we all have our our bills uh and responsibilities on that. So,
um, yes to recovery, but or to a cap, but,
uh, going to be pretty tight guidelines if if I were to support it.
Thoughts?
I I would concur with councelor Vanessin that if we were going to put a cap on
that, it would have to be very specifically set up for
unique set of circumstances and not just an unusual circumstance because, you
know, if if there's a potential loophole for somebody to come in and say, well,
you know, I couldn't get insurance because
um that that would uh degrade the nature of the bylaw. So, you know, I would be
I'd be willing to certainly look at an amendment to the bylaw, but I think it,
you know, to councelor Vaness's point, it would have to be very very specific
about what those circumstances would be.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I would agree with that. I think that getting into the
specific details is going to be a a bit of a challenge, but uh I I would
certainly look at that. >> Thank you.
Just again, Terrina, what I said before, I would support just prov giving this
young lady an invoice for the $1,500. I think 4,500 is too steep. And I think it
was just young girl stupid, you know, bad choices and uh I just I think it's
it's the right thing to do. And again, tied to the insurance pieces, everybody
said they're sitting here today. So, but I think that's that's my would be my
recommendation is that we just give her an invoice for $1,500.
» You make that motion. >> I I can if you want to do that or this
is you just this this report is just being received for information. So, this
is moving forward. You're not >> Well, there's there is two elements to
Okay. >> I'd make it a motion that we if you'd
like that. That's >> And then just uh uh
if uh How would I read that >> and then review the bylaw with and
clarify? >> Would you be comfortable with uh with
item D then Mark? >> Yeah.
» Making that as a motion. >> Yeah. With the amendment that Eric had
talked about around tightening up that definition of the emergency what's an
unusual emergency to make clarify that further.
» So that would come back to council for approval then.
» Absolutely. >> Okay.
» Well, I think these are two steps. One would be amending the bylaw, which is
something that would have to happen at a different meeting. But the the other
issue is what do we do with this young lady at this particular point in time,
» right? >> Yep.
» Yeah. But if we did one, a motion covering just
what we would like to do with this lady would probably clean things up for
administration, right?
» I'm I'm I'm just directing traffic. However
you'd like to uh however you'd like to proceed. If Mark, if you if you want to
make that a single motion uh to adjust the invoice uh to $1,500. I think that
that would I think that would satisfy this for the time being. And then
perhaps we could get a second motion to direct administration to bring back uh
fire bylaw uh 22-002. Would that be uh agreeable to staff?
Okay. So then Mark is Mark, I'll let you use your words. You you go ahead. How
you like if it Sorry. Go ahead. So,
I would move that we invoice the $1,500 for this event.
» Okay. Is there any questions or discussion on that motion?
» Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, definitely
disagree with the $1,500. We the basis of the 1500 is being prepared on the the
who and not the what and we're trying to uh look at it as a young unfortunate
person who made a bad decision and we are trying to set not only policy but
also everything has an expense and expenses are large. So, um, although it
may be unpopular, I'd like to make an amendment to your motion to the $4,500.
And if that gets defeated, that's that's okay. But I think that it needs to be it
needs to be more and that there um uh yeah, you book an ambulance, you get a
bill, you book anything. And to say that, well, I'm I'm not going to go to
the hospital. Uh, I just spent time where a 15-minute hospital visit was
a,000 bucks. Um, it's a fact of health services. And so, anyway, my motion is
an amendment to yours for $4,500. Okay. Thank you, Eric. I'm going to
assume that you don't deem that as a friendly amendment, Mark. Okay. Uh, so
then we'll deal with the amendment. Eric has amended to change the $1,500 and
amend that to $4,500. So if there is there any further
discussion on that? Okay, I will call the question on the proposed amendment
changing the invoice amount from $1,500 to $4,500.
Uh any further discussion? I will call the question. Those in favor, those
opposed. So that is defeated. We will now go back
to Mark's initial motion to invoice uh for this incident in the amount of
$1,500. Is there any further discussion? I'll
call the question. Those in favor? Those opposed? That then carries. Uh I
would now entertain a motion to direct administration to bring back fire bylaw
number 220002.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would uh like to move to direct administration to bring
back an amendment to fire bylaw number 22-002
to cap recovery costs at uh a specified amount
for unusual emergency events um and the events to be very very
specific.
Okay. Is there any discussion on that motion to direct administration to bring
back uh an amendment to fire bylaw 202022-002
uh to establish a cap and type parameters on the specifics of the
incidents?
» Just kind of thinking out loud. Thank you. Uh how would you define those
special >> Yeah, I think maybe just bringing it
back would probably >> I don't Yeah, fair enough. We don't want
we don't need to word smith that. Yeah, >> I understand what you guys are
» referring to. >> You you're comfortable with that. Just
to bring that back. >> Okay.
» So, uh John is direct administration to uh prepare an amendment to f fire bylaw
number 22-00002. Any further discussion? I'll call the
question. Those in favor? Those opposed? That carries. Thank you.
» Thank you. >> Uh thanks, Eve.
» Thank you. Uh we have two pieces of correspondence
before us today. Uh item one from the National Police Federation.
Uh you can read that at your leisure.
Uh at the bottom you'll see there's a couple bullet points regarding Alberta
Sheriff's uh cease further investment in an advancement to the Alberta Sheriff's
Police Service as a replacement RCMP. uh release comprehensive and independent
and public available feasibility studies and a number of other bullet points
there. Uh like I said, read that at your leisure. And our second item uh
correspondence is from the Southern Alberta Chinese Association, the 2026
barbecue, uh August 30th, and it's at the Rotary Picnic Shelter,
entertainment, food service. Uh and the cost is $25 for adults and $15 for
children. letter for are free. If you'd like to attend that, I'm sure we can
arrange. Talk to Candace and we'll make that
happen. Widler. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Weren't they
also requesting uh a sponsorship instead of the city of
Lethbridge? They wanted us to be the sponsor for their page. Or did I misread
her email when I got it?
No. Yeah. In that in that and there is there is a second um link there. Candace
the letter. >> City of Lethridge sponsored our event
last year. We are hoping Lethbridge County might consider supporting us this
year as well if possible. Uh we would include the lo countyy's logo on our
poster.
I would I would open up to council for if you would like to
if someone's interested in pursuing that
» just did it have a figure in it. >> There is no financial number. No.
» What is our usual donation policy like?
couple hundred usually or what would they what would I don't know what the
policy would cover.
» I would move that we make a donation of $200 towards their request for the
poster. >> Okay. Uh so Lauren has moved to donate
$200. I'm assuming from the counselor discretionary
or from where would you like that to come from?
Council donation. >> Okay. From the council donation fund.
» That's okay. >> Yep. Okay. Uh so Lauren has made that
motion. Is there any discussion? >> Okay. I'll call the question. Those in
favor? Opposed? That carries. Okay. Thanks, Lauren.
Uh okay. I think that takes us to the end of our public meeting for now. We do
have our 11:30 delegations. Uh we do have a few uh larger items to try and
move through and close. So why don't we move into a closed session? I would
entertain a motion to enter a closed session. Mark Mark has moved to go into
a close session at 11:11 this morning. Any discussion
called question? Those in favor
Sound
good? Okay. Whenever you're ready. Okay. We'll call the meeting back to order at
12:30 this afternoon. Uh we have two items remaining for discussion in close
session. Item three, uh intermunicipal matters, ATIa section 26, disclosure
harmful to intergovernmental relations. And item four, uh, CA report ATIA
sections 19, 20, 28, and 29. So with that, I'd entertain a motion to enter a
close session again. John John is moved to go to close session at 12:31 this
afternoon. Any discussion? I'll call the question. in favor.
out a close session. Uh, we have one item.
Uh, John, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move
that Lethbridge County support the proposed Green Acres Foundation to
borrow $10 million for the $26 million capital project of the affordable
seniors apartment building at 105 Kathina Boulevard West Lethbridge
and that Lethbridge County understands that the request for $10 million in
external financing requires ministerial approval and the Lebridge County
acknowledges that under the Alberta Housing Act
Uh member municipalities continue to be requisition to fund operating costs of
seniors lodging facilities. John has made that motion. Is there any
discussion? I'll call the question. Those in favor?
Opposed? That carries. Anything else with our public meeting today?
» Eric is adjourned at 128.