[4:24] Okay.
[4:26] Good morning everyone. In the true
[4:28] spirit of reconciliation, we acknowledge
[4:30] all those who call this land home now
[4:32] and for thousands of years in the past.
[4:33] May we respect each other and find
[4:35] understanding together and recognize the
[4:36] benefits this land provides to all of
[4:38] us. We call the meeting to order this
[4:41] morning at 9:03 a.m.
[4:45] Uh we look at our agenda for today. We
[4:49] have two time commitments. We have uh
[4:51] two public hearings scheduled for 10:00
[4:53] a.m. and we have our delegation at 11:30
[4:56] for our 2026 bary award recipients.
[5:01] Uh moving to the uh formal adoption of
[5:03] the agenda. Are there any proposed
[5:05] additions, deletions, any edits to the
[5:08] agenda as presented?
[5:14] » Go, John.
[5:15] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move
[5:17] to adopt the agenda as presented.
[5:20] » Thank you, John. John is moved to adopt
[5:21] the agenda as presented. Is there any
[5:24] discussion? Call question. Those in
[5:25] favor? Opposed? That is carried. Uh
[5:29] moving down you before you you have the
[5:32] county council meeting minutes of July
[5:34] 16th, 2026. Are there any errors
[5:37] submissions? Anything arising from the
[5:39] minutes as presented?
[5:43] » Eric.
[5:44] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to
[5:46] approve the council meeting minutes from
[5:48] July 16, 2026 meeting.
[5:51] » Thank you, Eric. Eric has moved to
[5:52] approve the county council meeting
[5:54] minutes of July 20 July 16th 2026 as
[5:58] presented. Is there any discussion? Call
[6:01] the question. Those in favor opposed.
[6:04] That is carried. Uh we can move down
[6:06] then in our agenda to our subdivision
[6:08] applications. We have five subdivision
[6:11] applications for today. We'll start at
[6:13] number one. D1 subdivision application
[6:16] 2026-0291204158
[6:21] Alberta Limited. Goring Kalin, Goring,
[6:24] Steve.
[6:25] » Good morning, council.
[6:29] So, as mentioned, we have sub uh five
[6:32] subdivision applications before you as
[6:34] the subdivision authority. Um we'll
[6:36] start with subdivision application
[6:38] 2026-029.
[6:42] Um it is a subdivision of 10.09
[6:47] acres um from an 86.7
[6:50] acre title for country residential use.
[6:53] It let me just pull up the map here. Um
[6:56] it is directly west of the town of Noble
[7:00] for boundary and north of Highway 519.
[7:03] And u with that I will pass it on to
[7:06] Steve for recommendations.
[7:10] » Good morning. this uh first application
[7:12] um just on the uh doorstep there to the
[7:15] town of Nobleford on the west side of
[7:17] the the town and the CPR tracks there.
[7:21] Um as you can see there, they're looking
[7:24] to subdivide at the very northern
[7:25] portion of their title that 10.09 acres.
[7:29] Um technically this is treated as a
[7:31] first parcel out subdivision for the
[7:33] applicant. Um the all the remnant of the
[7:37] quarter section on the east side is uh
[7:39] is the municipality for the town of
[7:42] Nobleford as well for the uh some road
[7:46] and the CPR rail line uh which doesn't
[7:49] count towards subdivision um of the
[7:52] landowner applicant. Um, one of the
[7:55] unique things about this parcel as well
[7:57] is there is a small little triangle
[7:59] piece at the very south end um, which is
[8:01] actually in the town of Nobleford. So
[8:04] this parcel, the title itself has a
[8:06] split municipal jurisdiction. So even
[8:08] though the subdivision is occurring on
[8:10] the Lethbridgeidge County side of the
[8:12] border, the town of Nobleford also has
[8:14] to uh um, do an approval uh, in order
[8:18] for it to go through land titles. Um so
[8:21] they'll be doing a concurrent um uh
[8:25] approval on this as well which I believe
[8:27] their meeting is next week uh for the
[8:29] town of Noford on it. Um so with that
[8:32] this is in the IDP area um with the uh
[8:35] town of
[8:37] um the that plan basically does allow um
[8:41] for a single type of subdivision um to
[8:44] come out. um anything additional or
[8:47] further um some of the policies in there
[8:49] then direct that an area structure plan
[8:51] that sort of thing has to be done. Um
[8:53] one of the things with this application
[8:55] there is um a small little piece on the
[8:59] east side running parallel to the tracks
[9:01] Lshaped there. Um as you cross the
[9:04] tracks um there's a easement access
[9:07] rightway that goes up to the north for
[9:08] the north land owner and there's a yard
[9:10] up there as well. there's access right
[9:13] away that goes directly to the west to a
[9:14] yard on the west side there. Um so as
[9:18] you come across the tracks um that
[9:20] little piece will be as Kayn shown there
[9:22] will be dedicated as road um in order to
[9:26] uh capture it now um so it doesn't get
[9:29] lost um if any further subdivision was
[9:32] to occur in this area. Um the IDP uh
[9:35] does talk about a a road concept plan
[9:37] has to be done on this west side uh to
[9:40] provide some continuity to the uh north,
[9:43] south and the west. Um so that piece
[9:45] will be uh that first um piece will be
[9:48] in place to cross the tracks. Um the IDP
[9:51] did identify this um crossing um as an
[9:55] access. Um however, the CPR does uh
[9:59] control the access of the crossing
[10:00] there. Um the applicants did have to
[10:03] obtain a uh CPR crossing agreement uh
[10:06] for the CPR for this subdivision in
[10:09] order to utilize that uh which they do
[10:11] have in writing uh that agreement. Um
[10:14] one of the things in reviewing the
[10:16] application um the town did request that
[10:19] that road just be kind of squared off or
[10:22] the line run all the way parallel on the
[10:23] west side there. um they have a little
[10:25] access that goes into their water
[10:28] reservoir parcel there uh to the south
[10:30] and and just to kind of keep that um
[10:33] squared off and then their area too
[10:34] would be included in that. Um so be
[10:38] reflected one of the conditions of
[10:39] approval.
[10:41] Um so with this um the south end of the
[10:45] parent parcel does touch uh highway 519.
[10:48] Um, so during the circulation, Alberta
[10:51] Transportation, uh, since they're using
[10:54] internal access has no concerns or
[10:55] objections, uh, to the application. Um,
[10:59] and there were no other objections or
[11:01] concerns, uh, received on it.
[11:06] Um, since the package came out, we've
[11:08] heard from the other utility companies.
[11:11] Um, at this time, nobody requires any
[11:12] easements or anything for utilities. Um
[11:15] the parcel itself will require a waiver
[11:17] to be approved because it is a bare land
[11:19] um parcel at the moment at the 10.09
[11:22] exceeds the threeacre parcel size. Um
[11:25] the request for the parcel as is uh is
[11:28] for a couple of reasons. One is that um
[11:30] they do want to develop the main part of
[11:32] the yard more to the west to be away
[11:34] from the CPR tracks. And as well uh the
[11:37] parcel designed the way it is will
[11:39] follow that existing access right away
[11:41] and the driveway that's there for the
[11:42] neighbor to the west and their parcel
[11:44] will physically touch all the way to the
[11:46] east side um to that road dedication to
[11:49] the crossing to go across the tracks
[11:51] there. Um
[11:53] so with that um
[11:57] the recommendation in front of you is to
[11:59] approve the application.
[12:02] Um it does conform to the IED um it is
[12:06] in planning area 1B and it conforms to
[12:08] those policies as well. Um with the
[12:11] waiver granted um to approve the 10
[12:13] acres 10.09 acres rather than the three.
[12:16] um it otherwise complies with the land
[12:17] use bylaw and the subdivision criteria
[12:20] and the approval will be based on those
[12:22] um five conditions there that um taxes
[12:25] paid up to uh paid and up to date a
[12:28] development agreement entered into the
[12:29] county um where the county can outline
[12:32] the terms of that road um that surveyed
[12:35] plan be submitted which includes the
[12:37] road dedication that extends all the way
[12:39] to the south of plan 731HG and parcel B
[12:42] which is the town's water reservoir. Um
[12:45] the soils analysis would uh be done for
[12:48] the private septic system and the town
[12:51] of Noford um has to provide a concurrent
[12:54] endorsement um for land titles and
[12:56] approval as well. Um so with those five
[12:58] conditions the recommendation is to
[13:00] approve on that basis.
[13:02] » Thanks Steve. I'd open up to council
[13:06] on.
[13:07] » Thank you Mr. Chair. When I'm looking at
[13:10] this subdivision um proposal, I just
[13:14] want to make sure that I understand it
[13:16] correctly. The access right away that is
[13:18] going to the parcel on the left to the
[13:20] 0012977
[13:23] that is not that is remaining with the
[13:26] me part of the parcel and I'm assuming
[13:29] that that would be handled by by some
[13:31] sort of a private agreement between the
[13:33] land owners that that's not going to be
[13:35] turned into a roadway or a driveway.
[13:37] » Not at this point. That's correct. will
[13:39] remain in place on and it's on title
[13:40] currently.
[13:41] » Okay. Thank you.
[13:44] » Mr. Chair,
[13:45] » Could you just tell me again which part
[13:47] is the towns? Is it that little square
[13:50] there
[13:52] » Of of the title?
[13:54] » Yeah.
[13:54] » At the very south end
[13:59] » That piece right there.
[14:01] » Oh, so it's actually not part of this
[14:04] subdivision.
[14:05] » I mean, it's technically part of the
[14:07] title, but They're subdivating on the
[14:09] county side of the parrot title and
[14:11] that's part of the remnant just the
[14:13] boundary between the two of you. Um
[14:16] where there was an old road plan there
[14:18] is just on the other side. So it's
[14:21] » So then does Kip Street end at the
[14:24] railroad tracks.
[14:25] » Yes.
[14:25] » And then it becomes a private access or
[14:28] access agreement. Okay. That's correct.
[14:29] » Thank you.
[14:32] » Anything further?
[14:35] » Thank you Mr. Chair. Let me zoom in
[14:37] » With the land owner.
[14:40] » So to clarify for council, uh when this
[14:42] application came forward, it was really
[14:44] to try to figure out how to allow for a
[14:46] country residential subdivision, it
[14:48] being the first title out, but also
[14:50] rectifying some of the road plan issues
[14:52] we have today and trying to make sure
[14:54] that we will have road dedicated for
[14:56] future subdivisions. Um, so we looked
[14:59] back at the IDP and the conceptual road
[15:01] network and determined what what amount
[15:04] of road needed to be dedicated to make
[15:06] sure that other parcels will have access
[15:08] if they want to develop in the future
[15:10] while still allowing this subdivision to
[15:12] go forward. And then Nobleford did
[15:14] identify a really good opportunity to um
[15:16] square off the triangle so that they
[15:18] have a full road plan to access their
[15:20] water treatment plant. Um so there was a
[15:22] lot of opportunities to to fix existing
[15:24] line work.
[15:26] Anything
[15:29] else?
[15:31] Mark.
[15:32] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd move that
[15:33] subdivision application number 2026-
[15:37] » It is exactly 2 miles um east of the
[15:40] city of Lethbridge immediately east of
[15:42] the Highway 4. And this is really a
[15:45] reconfiguration and consolidation of
[15:48] four titles. And so the reconfigured
[15:51] titles will be um 998
[15:56] 178 and 1.7 acres in size. There's a
[15:59] substantial number of diagrams that
[16:00] Steve will walk through with his uh
[16:02] recommendations.
[16:05] And on this application, um I guess it
[16:09] the easiest way to describe it is by
[16:11] looking at at the the images um shown
[16:14] the land before and after the um
[16:17] basically what the proposal is is that
[16:19] it's enabled land swap and title
[16:21] reconfiguration between the adjacent
[16:23] parcels. Um largely as a result of a
[16:26] project driven by the SMR. Um there's a
[16:29] portion of former canal rightway in
[16:31] there that the SMRD no longer needs.
[16:33] They made agreement with the land owners
[16:35] um to dispose some of it and consolidate
[16:37] it into their lands and part of that too
[16:40] is just um realigning the boundaries to
[16:43] some of the existing land uses um on the
[16:46] property as well along with that. So the
[16:48] parcel sizes get adjusted. So um there
[16:52] will be approximately 1.7 acres that
[16:55] parcel remain as irrigation plan at the
[16:58] very west end for the SMID. Um there's a
[17:02] yard in there um that uh currently is
[17:06] that 3.37
[17:08] hectares or 8.25 acres. Um that their
[17:12] yard, it's the same land owner that has
[17:14] the title to the east, the large
[17:15] agriculture parcel. Um and on the air
[17:18] photo, you can see that their yard kind
[17:20] of extends and there's fenced to the
[17:22] back. Um so there's kind of following
[17:24] the angle of their existing yard and
[17:27] such there and the land outside the
[17:28] cultivated land. Um and then there's a
[17:31] slight adjustment between the two egg
[17:33] pieces um based on the canal and that
[17:37] sort of thing. So um it is a a land swap
[17:40] and configuration occurring between all
[17:42] of them. Um just as you can see there
[17:46] where the former and the blue line the
[17:47] canal was just how in the end the new
[17:50] black line showed the parcel lines there
[17:52] just to try to clean that up and
[17:54] straighten it out in the end with that
[17:55] disposal um of the SMD canal them no
[17:58] longer needing it. So um
[18:03] so with this application um there um
[18:07] there was no um provincial interests uh
[18:10] historical resources that type of thing,
[18:12] environmental stuff that are affected by
[18:14] it. Um the application is in close
[18:17] proximity to Highway 4, although um
[18:19] transportation doesn't require anything
[18:20] and there's no concerns with it. Um the
[18:24] uh the parcels themselves um with the
[18:28] realignment is that there will be no
[18:31] additional titles created in the end. Um
[18:35] they start with four titles in the end
[18:37] there's still four. It's just different
[18:38] sizes a little bit between the two with
[18:40] that uh kind of land swap and
[18:42] configuration going on. Uh so this does
[18:45] align with the county subdivision
[18:46] policies for realignment reconfiguration
[18:49] of titles. There's no additional titles
[18:50] created. Um there's no objections or
[18:53] concerns received um since the
[18:56] application came out. Um we've now heard
[18:58] back um from the utility companies
[19:00] additional that didn't respond previous.
[19:02] Um there was no easements required. Um
[19:05] so on that basis um there's a
[19:07] recommendation of approval in front of
[19:09] you and that'd be based on the four
[19:11] conditions of the taxes being paid. If
[19:13] the county requires a development
[19:15] agreement that they enter into that with
[19:16] the county. Um the third condition is
[19:20] the survey final survey. It needs to be
[19:23] done based on the approval on that
[19:24] reconfiguration and the fourth just had
[19:27] talked about any easements there. Um it
[19:29] doesn't look like any required but um it
[19:32] does align with your reconfiguration
[19:34] policy. So the recommendation is to
[19:35] approve it.
[19:36] » Thank you Steve. I'd open up to council.
[19:42] » Thank you Mr. Chair. well complicated in
[19:46] the paperwork side of things. It looks
[19:47] like it's been well laid out. And um
[19:51] with that, I would like to move the
[19:52] recommendation that subdivision
[19:54] application 2026-077
[19:58] be approved subject to the conditions as
[20:00] outlined in the draft resolution.
[20:03] Thank you, Eric. Eric's move the
[20:05] recommendation that subdivision
[20:06] application 2026-077
[20:09] be approved subject to the conditions
[20:11] outlined in the draft resolution. Is
[20:13] there any further questions or
[20:14] discussion?
[20:17] Seeing none, I will call the question.
[20:19] Those in favor? Opposed? That is
[20:22] carried.
[20:28] » Uh, third subdivision for today.
[20:29] Subdivision application 2026-085.
[20:34] Kaylin,
[20:35] » Thank you. Um, so subdivision
[20:36] application 2026-085.
[20:40] It's within a portion of northeast
[20:42] quarter 11821 west of the 4th.
[20:48] Here is the map. So it is located um one
[20:53] mile west of Highway 4 and a half a mile
[20:55] east of the city of Lethbridge. Uh the
[20:58] proposal before you is to subdivide a
[21:00] 6.83 83 acre title from the existing 79
[21:04] acres and this falls under the legacy
[21:07] yard country residential use under our
[21:09] land use bylaw. And with that, I'll pass
[21:11] on to Steve for recommendations.
[21:14] » So, this application is I guess your uh
[21:16] second at the county here since the
[21:18] policy went in on the legacy yard site.
[21:21] Um this application was made on that
[21:23] basis. The uh parent title itself has
[21:26] existed since 1952.
[21:29] Um, the property has been in the same
[21:31] family for multiple generations. Um,
[21:33] there's still the older home that was
[21:35] built in 1950s on the property. Um, and
[21:38] then there's a second newer home on the
[21:40] west side of the parcel that was built
[21:42] around 1996.
[21:44] Um, that uh is on the west side. Um, so
[21:48] the application, as you can see there,
[21:50] they're taking the yard out of the
[21:51] northeast corner along the road. Uh,
[21:54] there's a 72.65 acre residual. Um there
[21:57] is an abandoned gas well on this
[21:59] property, but it's located um to the
[22:01] southwest on the agricultural portion
[22:04] and the existing yard and the
[22:07] subdivision coming out um meets the
[22:09] setback distances uh to that abandoned
[22:12] gas well. So there's no uh concerns with
[22:14] that. Um the application is in the IDP
[22:18] area um with the um city of Lethbridge
[22:23] um with the legacy yard site policy
[22:26] being put in and the or the city was
[22:28] circulated at that time. Um this
[22:31] application conforms to the county's
[22:32] bylaw subdivision criteria and on that
[22:35] basis uh the city of Lethbridge uh has
[22:37] no concerns and did not object to the
[22:39] application. Um as well it is within the
[22:42] referral distance of AT and AT also has
[22:44] no concerns uh since uh their
[22:47] infrastructure roads aren't being
[22:49] impacted by it and they take access off
[22:51] that uh local county road.
[22:54] Um so this application um does meet the
[22:58] legacy yard site um criteria it would
[23:01] appear. Um you as council have to be
[23:04] satisfied with that. Um but it does
[23:06] appear the yards has existed for at
[23:07] least 50 years or more and um the um
[23:11] it's been in the same family.
[23:16] So the recommendation in front of you uh
[23:18] is to approve the application. Um on
[23:21] this application there would be the
[23:23] applicability of a municipal reserve
[23:25] payment to the county. Um that market
[23:27] value did come in at 55,116
[23:30] per acre for the municipal reserve
[23:32] payment on that 6.83 83 acre yard
[23:34] portion only. Um it's not applicable on
[23:37] the other agricultural residual piece.
[23:39] Um so with the payment of municipal
[23:41] reserve um the other four conditions
[23:44] there with the taxes development
[23:45] agreement uh the final survey plan um
[23:49] and then the fourth referred to the
[23:51] utility easements um we've since heard
[23:53] back by from ATCO and foris and um they
[23:56] don't require anything at this point.
[24:02] Um, so with that, the recommendation is
[24:05] um to approve
[24:07] um the application as applied for.
[24:11] » Thank you, Steve. I'd open up to
[24:13] council.
[24:14] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, just one
[24:16] quick, how many dollars an acre did you
[24:18] say it was valued at?
[24:19] » It came in at 55,116
[24:23] per acre.
[24:27] » Okay. With that, I would move uh
[24:30] subdivision application 2026-085
[24:34] with the four conditions. Thank you,
[24:37] Lauren. Lauren has move the
[24:38] recommendation that subdivision
[24:39] application 2026-085
[24:42] be approved sub conditions for the
[24:44] reasons outlined in the draft
[24:45] resolution. Is there any further
[24:47] discussion? Go ahead.
[24:50] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. not so much
[24:52] question or whatever, but just a
[24:54] statement on it that I think the the
[24:56] land assessment is plenty high on it uh
[25:00] due to location and existing land around
[25:03] it. Thank you.
[25:06] Anything else?
[25:08] I'll call the question. Those in favor?
[25:10] Opposed? That carries.
[25:13] Our fourth subdivision application 2026-
[25:17] 0-086.
[25:27] Okay. Thank you, council. Um, so
[25:29] subdivision application 2026-0-086.
[25:33] It's a portion of the southeast corner
[25:37] quarter 10 1121 west of the 4th. It is
[25:41] located a mile north of the town of
[25:43] Picturebutes.
[25:45] So, right there. Um, and just west of
[25:48] Highway 25. The proposal before you is
[25:52] to res-split a title, which is 5.38
[25:54] acres into two titles being 2.48 and 2.8
[25:59] respectively for country residential
[26:01] use. And with that, I'll pass it on to
[26:03] Steve for recommendations.
[26:06] So, this application in front of you is
[26:07] a uh res-split of an existing title, 20
[26:10] acres less in size. Um that the county
[26:12] has a subdivision policy um
[26:15] uh to enable such. Um as you can see
[26:19] maybe in the photo there, they have a
[26:20] developed yard in the north side with a
[26:22] uh dwelling on there. They're looking to
[26:25] subdivide the south portion. Um that
[26:28] south portion a little bit larger at 2.8
[26:31] acres. It will include on the west
[26:33] perimeter or sorry the east perimeter I
[26:36] should say um a a panhandle that goes up
[26:40] to the north end where the existing h
[26:42] access is that goes out to highway 25 um
[26:46] to provide direct physical access um to
[26:48] the uh that south parcel. Um so as part
[26:52] of the application there will be a
[26:54] little uh service road dedication at
[26:56] that very northeast corner there a
[26:58] little uh 20x 20 box um at the access
[27:02] point there. Um that is a requirement of
[27:05] Alberta transportation. Um they don't
[27:08] require and won't take service road
[27:10] along the whole um east perimeter there.
[27:13] Uh because as you can see the the parcel
[27:16] pretty much dead ends at the south end.
[27:17] it runs into the LNID
[27:20] um into uh reservoir land um at the
[27:23] south end there. Uh so there's uh no
[27:26] need no opportunity for additional
[27:28] subdivision or access at that south end
[27:30] there. Um that this last parcel here is
[27:33] it would be kind of like uh the uh end
[27:36] of the uh the street there so to speak.
[27:38] Um so with the road dedication being
[27:42] provided, Alberta Transportation has no
[27:44] objections to the application and has
[27:47] authorized that the county could u
[27:49] proceed to approve it. Um as part of the
[27:53] referral out um it is just outside the
[27:55] IDP area with um town of Picture but um
[28:01] or sorry it is just within the boundary
[28:03] but it's at the very uh kind of north
[28:04] perimeter of that IDP. Um this type of
[28:07] subdivision is allowed in the IDP as a
[28:09] respplit under the county's policy uh
[28:12] provided the uh policy is conformed with
[28:15] um in reviewing this application. There
[28:17] are a couple confined feeding operations
[28:19] to the west of this. Um it does meet um
[28:23] all the MDS's to the operations on the
[28:26] west and northwest of it. Um so lying
[28:30] outside the applicable MDS minimum
[28:32] distance separation area. Uh so there's
[28:34] no conflict there.
[28:36] Um
[28:38] as part of this application, Aqu gas uh
[28:40] was the one utility company that does
[28:42] require an easement for a gas line that
[28:44] runs through there. Um so with that um
[28:49] it does conform to your respplit um
[28:51] policy. The access um will be dealt with
[28:54] um through the condition there of
[28:55] providing that service road that shared
[28:57] approach kind of there at the northeast.
[29:00] Um there was no objections or concerns
[29:04] received on it. Um so the recommendation
[29:07] is to approve. Um there is also the
[29:10] applicability of municipal reserve
[29:12] payment on this application on the
[29:15] parent title which would be the 5.3
[29:17] acres. Um that value came in at 66,037
[29:23] per acre. Um the other conditions be uh
[29:27] the six outline there. taxes paid the
[29:29] development agreement entered into uh to
[29:32] address the road and the access um the
[29:34] soils analysis be undertaken for that
[29:37] south 2.8 8 8 acre lot. Um their final
[29:40] plan of survey be submitted. Um that the
[29:43] ACO um and Ford has also requested
[29:46] utility easement be addressed through
[29:48] condition number five and that that road
[29:51] dedication um has to be um signed off
[29:54] and approved by Alberta Transportation
[29:57] um as part of the final endorsement
[29:58] which is addressed through condition
[30:00] number six. Um so with those six
[30:02] conditions and the municipal reserve
[30:04] payment um with those being applied the
[30:07] recommendation is to approve as applied
[30:10] for.
[30:11] » Thank you Steve. Thank you Kayla. I
[30:12] would open it up to council.
[30:14] » Good job.
[30:16] » Thank you Mr. Chair. Seems like a very
[30:18] straightforward um split of a parcel uh
[30:22] in an area that is heavily fragmented.
[30:24] Anyway, so I'd like to move that
[30:26] subdivision application 2026-086
[30:30] be approved subject to the conditions as
[30:32] outlined in the draft resolution. Thank
[30:35] you, John. John has moved the
[30:36] subdivision application 2026-86
[30:40] be approved subject to the conditions as
[30:41] outlined in the draft resolution. Is
[30:43] there any further discussion?
[30:47] Call question. Those in favor?
[30:50] That is carried.
[30:52] And our final subdivision application
[30:53] for today, uh, number five, subdivision
[30:56] application 2026-087.
[31:00] Kaylin,
[31:02] » Thank you, council. So, subdivision
[31:03] application 2026-087.
[31:07] It is within the north half 13821 west
[31:11] of the 4th and southwest quarter 24821
[31:15] west of the 4th.
[31:19] So again, it's backlo
[31:22] immediately east of the city by one mile
[31:24] and it's adjacent to Highway 4. Um the
[31:27] proposal before you today is to
[31:30] subdivide a fragmented quarter and
[31:32] create a 76 acre agricultural title um
[31:36] from the current 110 acre um title. And
[31:40] with that, I will pass it on to Steve
[31:42] for recommendations.
[31:43] this one.
[31:46] » Yeah, this application uh the final one
[31:48] here is to um basically um divide the
[31:53] what's left of the quarter section on
[31:55] the west side of highway 4 and the CPR
[31:58] rail line um into the two agricultural
[32:02] portions. Um the south is the uh
[32:07] cultivated u vacant agricultural land
[32:10] portion at the 76.57 acres. The north
[32:14] portion will be the remnant of what's
[32:15] left in that title. Um that will be a
[32:19] title in two parts and currently has to
[32:21] remain that way. Um just the way the
[32:24] canal was done with this title and the
[32:28] um CPR rail line in Highway 4. Um and
[32:32] there's a irrigation canal um on the
[32:34] west side as well. That little northern
[32:36] triangle piece is basically a physical
[32:40] island. Um it doesn't touch any road at
[32:42] all. Um so that has to remain with the
[32:46] portion just south of it. Um so it's
[32:48] what we call a title in two parts. So
[32:50] it's a legally it is one parcel. Um they
[32:53] do kind of cross that canal to get in
[32:55] there. Uh the canal on the west side. Um
[32:58] but it there's no uh legal physical
[33:01] point where it it touches any public
[33:03] roadway at all. Um and that's the only
[33:06] way to get in there is by crossing the
[33:08] the canal. Um
[33:11] so this application um it is um an
[33:16] agricultural uh split. the um it is
[33:19] within the IDP area obviously along uh
[33:22] close to the city there. Um it's just uh
[33:26] beside Steuart Siding. Um the city has
[33:29] no objections or concerns to the
[33:31] proposal um as the applicants have
[33:33] applied for and for it being an
[33:36] agricultural subdivision. Um as well
[33:39] Alberta Transportation has uh no
[33:41] concerns um not taking any direct access
[33:44] to Highway 4 there. Um
[33:48] so the with this application um
[33:52] there was uh during the circulation um
[33:55] Aqu gas did request um a utility
[33:59] easement for the south piece there where
[34:01] they have a gas line running through um
[34:04] that's currently unprotected. Um so
[34:06] other than that um it is um does meet
[34:10] the policies as a as a fragmented title
[34:14] um being split into the two agricultural
[34:16] portions. Um and with that I think the
[34:19] conditions there uh the five outlaid in
[34:22] front of you with the taxes a
[34:24] development agreement into it if the
[34:25] county needs it. Um they would uh need a
[34:28] surveyor sketch just to confirm where
[34:30] they want to put that property line
[34:32] which is close to the existing dwelling
[34:33] and yard uh that there's no
[34:35] encroachments and it is able to meet the
[34:38] setbacks to the dwelling and such. Um
[34:41] and that the ACO easement as a fifth
[34:43] condition be applied. Um so with those
[34:46] five conditions um the recommendation is
[34:49] to approve um as applied for.
[34:56] » Thanks Steve.
[34:57] » I would open up to councel.
[35:01] » John.
[35:03] » Thank you Mr. Chair. When I first saw
[35:05] this I was trying to figure out why that
[35:06] that north parcel was
[35:09] sort of to be remained in there and why
[35:11] it wasn't subdivided out. But now I get
[35:14] it. there's absolutely no access to it
[35:16] because of way the way the railroad and
[35:18] and the canals run. So, I appreciate
[35:21] that explanation. And um seeing that,
[35:24] I'd like to move that subdivision
[35:26] application 2026-087
[35:30] be approved subject to the conditions as
[35:32] outlined in the draft resolution.
[35:35] Thank you, John. John has moved that
[35:36] subdivision application 2026-087
[35:40] be approved subject to the conditions
[35:42] outlined in the draft resolution. Is
[35:43] there any further discussion from
[35:47] seeing none question
[35:51] that's carried? Thank you. Thank you.
[35:53] Thank you.
[36:17] Uh why don't we move in our agenda to
[36:20] item F uh department reports F1.2
[36:24] uh development permit application 26
[36:27] uh D0134.
[36:32] » Good morning Jessica. Good morning
[36:33] everyone council. Um so in front of you
[36:37] here today is development permit
[36:39] application 26-d0134
[36:42] for Vanderhoff. I'm just going to pull
[36:45] it up here. So this particular
[36:47] application
[36:49] um in front of you is for an addition to
[36:52] an accessory building uh to operate a
[36:54] powersports business in Iron Springs.
[36:57] Um, you may recognize it from last year
[37:01] as we did have I apologize there's no
[37:04] map. Um, we did have an application come
[37:06] in for this exact use um in early 2025.
[37:11] Um, that application was approved. This
[37:13] is the same applicant. They are just
[37:15] wishing to enlarge the building by an
[37:17] additional about 500 square ft. Um so
[37:22] the proposed use is located on a parcel
[37:24] zoned Hamlet direct control for which
[37:26] council is the development authority. Um
[37:30] so the use of the existing shop as a
[37:32] power sports business as I mentioned was
[37:34] previously approved by county council on
[37:35] the property. The the actual addition
[37:38] footprint beyond what was approved last
[37:41] year is an additional 525 square feet
[37:43] for a total addition uh footprint of
[37:46] 1575 square feet.
[37:51] Um, under the land use bylaw 24-07, the
[37:54] commercial use is considered suitable by
[37:56] council um is a permitted use under the
[37:59] Hamlet Direct Control District. Um, for
[38:03] we we did receive uh comments back from
[38:05] Alberta Transportation since um this
[38:09] report was initially drafted. U they've
[38:11] come back stating that uh they are
[38:13] exempt from a roadside development
[38:15] permit. um that is listed as an
[38:17] informative on the drafted development
[38:18] permit um before you. Um additionally,
[38:22] the development permit draft lists that
[38:24] the previous development permit be
[38:26] rescended and that the applicant is to
[38:30] submit a grading and drainage plan um
[38:33] for approval by the county prior to
[38:35] beginning construction. Um at which time
[38:37] once it's approved, they would have two
[38:39] years uh to to complete that grading.
[38:42] Um, for these reasons, the
[38:44] recommendation here is that development
[38:46] permit 26-d0134
[38:48] be approved as drafted. Um, the
[38:52] alternatives are that county council may
[38:54] refuse the development permit
[38:55] application. This would be at your
[38:57] discretion on the basis that the
[38:59] addition could be seen as an unsuitable
[39:01] use and uh the financial impact is that
[39:04] any future development on the parcel is
[39:05] subject to a commercial industrial tax
[39:07] rate. Thank you.
[39:09] » Thank you, Jess. I'd open it up to
[39:12] council for any questions or discussion.
[39:15] John,
[39:17] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I look at the
[39:19] U proposal on the recommendations, we're
[39:21] saying that um that the proposed
[39:25] addition increases the previously
[39:26] approved additional footprint by 525
[39:28] square ft. But when I go and look down
[39:30] on the proposed plan,
[39:34] » This plan,
[39:35] » It's saying a proposed 45 by35 addition.
[39:39] So that would give us an additional
[39:43] » 1,575
[39:45] square feet,
[39:45] » Right? Yeah. Okay. So that was just a
[39:47] typo then. Um,
[39:48] » No. So what it's saying is that last
[39:50] year we approved an addition for just
[39:52] over 1,000 square f feet. The applicant
[39:54] wishes to expand it further. So instead
[39:56] of the thousand, it will be just over
[39:57] 1500 total.
[39:58] » I'm less confused now. Okay. Thank you.
[40:00] I was trying to figure out where the
[40:01] math was not working in my head. So I
[40:03] appreciate that. Um, thank you. That's
[40:06] all I had.
[40:11] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and uh, I I
[40:15] think it fits within its area and
[40:17] existing business that's uh, doing well
[40:19] and has a place in the community. I'd
[40:21] like to move the recommendation that
[40:24] development permit 26-d0134
[40:27] be approved as drafted.
[40:29] » Thank you, Eric. Eric has moved that
[40:31] development permit 26-D0134
[40:34] be approved as drafted. Is there any
[40:37] further discussion?
[40:38] Call question. Those in favor post. That
[40:41] is carried.
[40:42] » Thank you.
[40:43] » Thank you, Jessica.
[40:46] » Uh why don't we now move up uh one item
[40:49] uh department reports F1 uh development
[40:52] and infrastructure F1.1
[40:54] bylaw number 26-016 Leers County
[40:57] subdivision authority bylaw.
[41:17] Okay. Thanks. So, thank you, council.
[41:20] Bylaw 26-
[41:22] bylaw 26-016.
[41:24] It is the Lethbridge County Subdivision
[41:26] Authority bylaw. Um, we discussed it
[41:29] last meeting and only passed first
[41:31] reading and I'm actually here to follow
[41:33] up on a few questions council did have.
[41:36] Um, so to start with, I will run through
[41:38] the subdivision authority bylaw and
[41:40] what's being proposed. Um, so the
[41:43] municipal government act requires every
[41:44] municipality to have a subdivision
[41:46] authority bylaw. Um, Lethbridge County
[41:48] has relied on bylaw number 1103 since
[41:51] 1995, which is dedicated council as a
[41:54] subdivision authority. Um I think since
[41:56] 1995 the Lethbridge County has faced
[41:58] substantial change in uh planning and
[42:01] development pressures and we do receive
[42:03] quite a few applications every year. Um
[42:05] it is reaching 40 applications um
[42:08] annually that are coming before council.
[42:11] Um so just practicality of what our
[42:14] application volumes are today and
[42:17] differing u planning administration
[42:19] practices and how this authority can be
[42:21] delegated and really placing routine
[42:24] decisions before council is how we are
[42:26] managing it today and um reflecting on
[42:29] modern practices where routine decisions
[42:31] are um delegated to administration.
[42:33] Um so the bylaw proposed before you
[42:36] today if I go to it
[42:39] it's really meant to identify um a
[42:43] two-tier model. Um basically the
[42:45] subdivision authority is delegated to
[42:48] the director of development and
[42:50] infrastructure where applications are
[42:52] considered routine. So examples when
[42:54] we're looking at agricultural um
[42:58] title reconfigurations, the first
[43:00] parcels out um when a area has already
[43:03] been resoneed for group country
[43:04] residential by council um subdividing
[43:07] those out into the two acre appropriate
[43:09] lot size that complies with area
[43:10] structure plan. Like those are the
[43:12] examples of very routine applications
[43:14] that we're seeing that the the director
[43:16] would be the authority. Um this bylaw is
[43:19] indicating that a decision would all
[43:23] would be rendered by council in very c
[43:25] certain circumstances. Um so if the
[43:28] applicant requests that the application
[43:30] go before council. So this probably
[43:32] would be in a circumstance where
[43:33] administration and the applicant don't
[43:35] agree maybe we're in a circumstance of a
[43:37] refusal. They may ask for it to be heard
[43:40] by council before the subdivision
[43:42] authority makes a decision. The second
[43:44] is if there is any referring agency. So,
[43:47] Alberta Transportation, a school board,
[43:49] if any of those referring agencies
[43:51] object the application, it would come
[43:53] before council instead of administration
[43:55] making the decision.
[43:57] Um, if there's any variance or waiver in
[44:00] the application, if a statutory plan is
[44:02] not being applied that council approved,
[44:05] any circumstance where um a
[44:07] consideration outside the land use
[44:09] bylaw, that would have to come before
[44:10] council. So, if you recall, there was
[44:12] one application today um that we heard
[44:14] that required a very slight waiver that
[44:16] would have had to come before council if
[44:18] this is the bylaw we're considering.
[44:21] Um if there's any if the director
[44:23] determines that there's any significant
[44:25] policy, technical, community impacts,
[44:26] they would have the discretion to bring
[44:28] it before council instead of them making
[44:29] a decision. Um and then if council
[44:32] passed any resolution or bylaw that
[44:34] dedicated subdivisional authority for a
[44:36] specific area. So, if we look at some
[44:38] specific subdivisions in the county that
[44:41] in the past we've made decisions about
[44:43] um McDermott SE section 26 where like
[44:45] we've put very prescriptive land use
[44:47] policies in place. Those could be
[44:49] circumstances where council would make
[44:50] the decision at a long-range planning
[44:52] perspective that I want to continue to
[44:54] be hearing the the subdivisions coming
[44:56] before us. So, those are the kind of
[44:58] prescriptive cases where council would
[45:00] hear the application even though you're
[45:01] de delegating it to the director.
[45:04] Um, and so I just want to roll back up.
[45:07] No, in the council report, I did give
[45:10] you an outline of application
[45:12] statistics. I pulled applications since
[45:14] 2020 um to through 2025 and then 2026
[45:18] year to date. So, we've received 187
[45:22] applications over five years. Those have
[45:24] all came before council. It's averaged
[45:27] about 31 applications per year, but in
[45:29] recent years, it's been more like 35 to
[45:31] 40.
[45:32] We have had 16 um year to date. I know
[45:35] there's currently six applications with
[45:37] orus um under review. So there is six
[45:40] more coming. Um during this period there
[45:43] was only three applications refused and
[45:46] subsequently I only found one
[45:48] subdivision authority appealed um which
[45:50] went to Lapert.
[45:52] Uh 21 of the applications were
[45:55] considered for waiverss. 18 of those
[45:56] were approved of the 21.
[45:59] And in terms of processing time, because
[46:01] I think this is the biggest impact that
[46:02] we will see if if authority is
[46:04] delegated. Um so from an application
[46:07] being received to deem complete,
[46:09] currently the county averages about tw
[46:11] 12 days. Um the municipal government act
[46:14] requires that we're doing that within 20
[46:16] days. Um complete to a decision. So once
[46:20] we deem it complete, we do the
[46:21] circulations, draft up the decision,
[46:23] schedule it for council, we're at 56
[46:26] days. Um, so the municipal government
[46:28] act requirement is 60 days. So yes,
[46:30] we're hitting the target, but I want to
[46:33] say one in five applications are taking
[46:35] more than 60 days. So about 20% of
[46:38] applications are exceeding the municipal
[46:40] government act requirements and we're
[46:42] having to ask the applicant for an
[46:43] extension to get it before council.
[46:46] Um, from decision to endorsement, the
[46:49] average is 160 days. This is a really
[46:51] hard one to nail down and it's because
[46:53] it's a a lot under the control of the
[46:55] applicant meeting the conditions that
[46:57] are being set. Um so different personal
[46:59] circumstances happen, there's delays,
[47:01] financial delays, like that is really
[47:04] out of our control, but I just wanted to
[47:06] give you a ballpark of where we're at.
[47:08] Um there is applications taking a number
[47:11] of years to actually get endorsed to
[47:13] land titles because meeting conditions
[47:15] is is challenging.
[47:17] Um, so then I want to talk about the
[47:20] types of applications. I kind of gave
[47:22] you a breakdown the best I could. So
[47:24] about 25% of our applications are
[47:26] agricultural reconfigurations. They're
[47:29] very routine. 55% are rural egg existing
[47:33] um farmards or bareland farm farmsteads.
[47:37] Routine again. 8% are that group country
[47:40] residential where you've already heard a
[47:42] previous decision. So you've heard a
[47:44] resoning or an area structure plan
[47:46] before you and the subdivision is just
[47:48] that subsequent step. And then 12% is
[47:51] commercial industrial. Again, usually
[47:53] there is a council decision related to
[47:54] resoning or area structure plan at some
[47:56] point in time. So it has been before
[47:58] council before.
[48:00] Um so I hope that information clarifies
[48:02] the questions that we had last meeting,
[48:04] but I'm more than happy to answer some
[48:05] more questions.
[48:10] Any questions?
[48:15] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I am opposed
[48:17] to this. I believe the council should
[48:20] remain the subdivision authority and I
[48:22] would agree that there are some
[48:24] exemptions to that. I think we had a
[48:26] perfect example today where you
[48:28] reconfigured the property lines out by
[48:30] Steuart siding. Uh both cases were
[48:34] fairly simple. I think both of those are
[48:36] more than adequately handled by
[48:38] administration. However, I do feel it's
[48:41] part of our duty as a municipally
[48:43] elected counselor to do uh act as a
[48:47] subdivision authority.
[48:49] Ultimately, regardless of whether
[48:52] administration is the authority or we
[48:53] are, council is still responsible to the
[48:56] rateayers. So, we will hear about it one
[48:58] way or another.
[49:00] I think the current process is working
[49:03] and it's fitting in the MGA timelines
[49:06] and uh according to all we've heard
[49:09] before once you take over from Old Man
[49:12] River uh you will be able to speed up
[49:14] the process and should narrow down the
[49:16] times.
[49:18] So I think uh that it should speed up
[49:20] and be more than a more than adequate
[49:23] time. Thank you.
[49:26] Thank you, Lauren. John,
[49:30] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I would e echo
[49:32] the statements that councelor Hickeyi
[49:34] has said. I believe that it is uh
[49:38] it is our responsibility as a public
[49:40] facing figures to deal with public
[49:42] facing decisions like this. Um and you
[49:46] know looking at the the load in terms of
[49:50] the applications that have have been put
[49:52] in over the years um you know I I don't
[49:56] see this as being an extremely
[49:59] burdensome process as it is. We're
[50:01] meeting the do the timelines within the
[50:03] MGA and appreciate that you know at 20%
[50:06] of the time there may have to be an
[50:08] extension for one reason or another. Um,
[50:12] in in terms of, you know, if we're
[50:14] looking at the decision to force at 160
[50:16] days, well, that really doesn't factor
[50:18] into this decision- making process
[50:19] whatsoever in my mind because that is
[50:22] something that is uh related to
[50:25] information or or you know, how fast the
[50:29] applicant actually gets his stuff
[50:31] together and gets put into place. Um, I
[50:34] I do agree that things like a simple
[50:37] property realignment would be something
[50:39] that we wouldn't necessarily need to
[50:42] see. Um, but anything more complicated
[50:45] than that, I would still like to be to
[50:48] see come in front of council and council
[50:50] be the ultimate decision.
[50:53] Thank you, John.
[50:55] just maybe for the benefit of of Lauren
[50:58] and John that weren't here at the last
[50:59] meeting. Um I think we anticipated some
[51:02] of the comments that you would make
[51:03] today and I think that was um part of
[51:06] the reason why council at the time
[51:08] decided to push this to today. So I
[51:10] would look around at your fellow
[51:11] counselors and just acknowledge the fact
[51:13] that I think we did see this being
[51:15] something that we felt was something
[51:17] that should come to council and for
[51:19] further discussion with a full albeit
[51:21] Kevin not being here today. um group of
[51:24] council here. Um I think the
[51:27] conversation that we had at the time was
[51:29] perhaps different. Um and I guess maybe
[51:32] I'll just speak from my perspective. I I
[51:34] I guess I see our role differently than
[51:36] maybe John and Lauren do in the sense
[51:38] that um I don't feel that it's council's
[51:41] role to necessarily face public facing
[51:44] issues. I think it's our job as council
[51:46] to put in good policy, solid policy,
[51:50] good bylaws, and then react to those
[51:53] living documents in a way that I think
[51:56] stewards a better future for the
[51:57] community. I don't think it's
[51:58] necessarily our job to be in the mud on
[52:01] every single decision.
[52:03] I know I I will give this credit, this
[52:06] council credit. I think we do a good job
[52:08] of of staying the course, but I have
[52:09] seen in the past when you have
[52:10] counselors talking about doing it for
[52:13] their guy or their people, and I think
[52:15] that's a slippery slope. I think at the
[52:17] end of the day, we're elected to
[52:19] represent all of the municipality,
[52:21] whether they live in our division or
[52:23] not. So, I do think there's a bit of a a
[52:25] balancing act there. And and I and I do
[52:27] think it's opened up interpretation how
[52:29] you see your role. I don't think there's
[52:31] a right way or a wrong way. I just think
[52:32] that maybe we see it differently. Um,
[52:35] Kayn, I thought with some of the
[52:37] comments we had last time, I appreciate
[52:40] some of the information you brought back
[52:41] and and I would again counter both
[52:44] Lauren and John and that I think what
[52:46] you're saying and what you where you
[52:48] have concern I think has been addressed
[52:50] within the draft and that, you know,
[52:53] there there's the opportunity for every
[52:54] applicant to come before council. Um, I
[52:57] think it takes away some of those maybe
[52:59] rubber stamp ones, which I would
[53:00] suggest, um, by and large every
[53:03] subdivision application we had today.
[53:05] Um, and I think as Kayn outlined, one
[53:08] perhaps. Um, but I still feel that was I
[53:11] would have felt comfortable with uh with
[53:13] staff making that call. Um, yeah, I I
[53:17] guess it just comes down to what you as
[53:18] council want. Um, how you see us moving
[53:21] forward and evolving and I just think
[53:23] this is a further step in that
[53:25] evolution. Um yeah, those are just my
[53:28] thoughts. Eric,
[53:31] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um
[53:35] yeah, read it the first time, read it
[53:37] the second time. Still, uh don't have
[53:39] any
[53:41] solid um
[53:43] uh yay or nay on it. There's there's
[53:45] definitely uh apprehensions on to not
[53:49] current, but future that at some point
[53:51] down the road. Um the whatifs are
[53:54] definitely
[53:55] dark and lurking on um on things going
[53:59] not in a positive direction. Uh I I
[54:03] think I can comfortably draw consensus
[54:06] that um there's room for improvement and
[54:09] as council we can we can be part of that
[54:14] uh to to help some of this out. So, what
[54:17] I'd like to propose today is that we
[54:20] proceed with a second reading and um and
[54:24] then once again uh those that are
[54:27] opposed um state the
[54:32] state the the direct concerns and
[54:37] see that they're they're not being
[54:38] addressed. I a bunch of them are being
[54:42] addressed I think by by reading it
[54:44] comprehensively and then there's a few
[54:46] that I think could also be looked at a
[54:49] little bit further. So that's my
[54:51] proposal that I'd like to move the
[54:55] bylaw. Let me pull this up.
[54:58] that bylaw 26-016
[55:02] being the subdivision authority bylaw be
[55:04] read for a second time
[55:08] with the idea that we table the third
[55:12] and make sure that we have it fully
[55:14] fleshed out. Thank you.
[55:17] » Thank you, Eric. So, Eric has moved that
[55:20] by 26-016 being the subdivision
[55:23] authority bylaw be read a second time.
[55:26] I'd open it again up for any discussion
[55:28] or comments. Go Mark.
[55:30] » Sorry, just one comment. I don't see
[55:32] this as a as a threat to the authority
[55:34] or the control of council. I see this as
[55:37] a compromise. It gives council still we
[55:39] have, you know, we still have the final
[55:41] discretion. If there's an issue,
[55:43] residents can bring it forward to us and
[55:45] council can oversee that and and address
[55:47] that and adjudicate it. I think it's
[55:51] moving forward as we've progressed and
[55:52] as things are changing. Um I this is
[55:55] just another piece of of of of the um
[55:58] county moving forward and being more
[56:00] proactive and progressive. Um so I
[56:03] understand Lauren and John's concern and
[56:06] uh you know given the history and we've
[56:07] always done it that way. Um but I think
[56:10] moving forward
[56:12] um you know there's room for for change
[56:14] and improvement and I don't see anything
[56:16] threatening in here. Um so I I would you
[56:19] know I'm support I would support it. Um,
[56:22] so we can move on to the motion.
[56:28] » Yeah, go ahead. Cool.
[56:30] » I'm not going to speak for or against
[56:32] it. Just a couple points of clarity. Um,
[56:35] one thing that we tried to balance in in
[56:39] this is a change like this provides I
[56:43] mean like was already mentioned the
[56:44] applicant the right to bring it before
[56:45] council anyways. It would also allow for
[56:48] council to be the appeal.
[56:50] um board for subdivisions which provides
[56:55] a different oversight and one that
[56:57] provides more contextual awareness of
[56:59] the county and some of the land use
[57:01] conflicts and the actual bylaws and
[57:03] policies that are in place. And so we're
[57:06] trying to walk that balancing act of
[57:09] council maintains oversight. The flip
[57:11] side of that concern for me is I've been
[57:15] here three years. I can think of one
[57:16] subdivision that council amended and
[57:19] maybe there's more, but I can only
[57:20] recall one subdivision recommendation
[57:22] that was even amended from what was
[57:25] proposed in three years.
[57:27] Now,
[57:29] at the same time, we get a lot more
[57:30] feedback on development permit
[57:32] applications and other things that
[57:33] council doesn't have the full context
[57:34] on, and it's an information gap because
[57:37] you're not in the weeds on those. So,
[57:38] it's like, well, what about this and
[57:40] what about this? But I have yet to see
[57:42] something that has been a a gross change
[57:45] in direction from what's been
[57:47] recommended. And so I think for us the
[57:48] line that
[57:50] the challenge I have I think this
[57:52] provides a better customer service and
[57:54] maintains council oversight. The
[57:56] challenge I have on the other side is
[57:57] you're going to have less context on all
[57:59] of those things until they come or if
[58:01] they come before council. So it is a bit
[58:03] of a like trust that we can hand that
[58:06] off. And so I know Kaylin tried to walk
[58:08] this with this bylaw, but if there's
[58:10] things you guys want to see differently,
[58:11] we I'm it cuts both ways. I just wanted
[58:14] to put it out there that we're not
[58:16] pushing one one way or the other. We're
[58:17] trying to set the stage for the
[58:19] strategic plan and some of the other
[58:20] things we've heard from council. So
[58:25] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I I appreciate
[58:28] uh Reef Campbell's comments about, you
[58:31] know, the fact that that this particular
[58:33] council has been very good about making
[58:36] sure that it, you know, we're the
[58:38] perspective that we give isn't about
[58:40] helping out one of our friends or our
[58:43] rate payers. Um, but I also think that,
[58:45] you know, we have to take the and that's
[58:47] taking the people out of the the
[58:49] situation in the sense that it can be a
[58:51] slippery slope and there are there may
[58:53] have been times in the past and there
[58:54] may be times in the future where where
[58:57] that may be an issue, but that also goes
[59:01] with the the people in the
[59:03] administration that we have right now. I
[59:04] have the utmost confidence in in um you
[59:08] know our administration and how they
[59:10] handle things but that may not
[59:13] necessarily be the case down the road as
[59:15] well. So you know I think that that that
[59:17] comment can be sort of can work on both
[59:20] sides of it. you know, when we're we're
[59:23] talking about if there's a change in the
[59:25] individuals, I I still, you know, my
[59:29] opinion on this is that uh that, you
[59:32] know, we're involved in this and we see
[59:35] this and even though there isn't
[59:37] necessarily a lot of uh denials or or
[59:41] massive changes, we're actually involved
[59:43] and we know what's happening with it.
[59:45] And to um to CEO Beck's comment about,
[59:50] you know, we see more problems with the
[59:52] development side. Why I think that is an
[59:56] a natural progression of the fact that
[59:58] that has been delegated away from
[1:00:00] council meaning council isn't aware of
[1:00:02] what's happening and when those
[1:00:04] complaints come in we're not aware of
[1:00:06] it. Um and and you know moving this uh
[1:00:11] subdivision authority into
[1:00:13] administration's hands will start to
[1:00:16] garner the same problems that we're
[1:00:17] having with the development permits in
[1:00:19] the sense that there's a lack of context
[1:00:22] around what's happening with it. So I um
[1:00:25] I still can't support this. Thank you.
[1:00:33] » Thank you Mr. Chair. So just the one
[1:00:35] thing that you had mentioned, Cole, I I
[1:00:37] would be adamantly opposed no matter how
[1:00:39] this turns out to be council being the
[1:00:41] subdivision appeal authority or board
[1:00:44] because it should be an independent
[1:00:46] body. I mean once it gets mixed up, it
[1:00:49] gets back to that old thing, oh it's my
[1:00:51] neighbor, so I better support it. I
[1:00:53] think it's completely uh an independent
[1:00:56] process and it needs to remain that.
[1:01:00] » Go ahead.
[1:01:01] » Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, for myself,
[1:01:04] I just find, um, you know, you get the
[1:01:06] the counselors, we're the the eyes and
[1:01:08] ears out in the community. You you're
[1:01:11] out there talking to people, you're
[1:01:12] hearing the concerns, you're um, yeah,
[1:01:15] you bring that stuff forward when you
[1:01:17] come into uh, you know, dealing with the
[1:01:19] subdivisions and um, it's just not
[1:01:23] necessarily will everybody always
[1:01:25] contact the office for
[1:01:28] information or guidance or whatever. So,
[1:01:30] um I still think that it should be held
[1:01:34] with the um us the counselors and um
[1:01:38] just because we are kind of out in the
[1:01:41] in the public there.
[1:01:44] Thank you, Tony. Uh so, Eric has moved
[1:01:47] uh second reading of bylaw 26-016
[1:01:56] being the subdivision authority bylaw.
[1:01:58] Uh second reading. If there is no
[1:02:01] further discussion, I'll call the
[1:02:03] question. Those in favor?
[1:02:05] Those opposed? That is lost. Thank you,
[1:02:09] Kaylin.
[1:02:11] » So, I just want to inform council I do
[1:02:13] have like we do need to amend the
[1:02:15] subdivision authority bylaw um just with
[1:02:17] us leaving Man River Regional Service
[1:02:19] Commission. So, I do have an amended
[1:02:21] version um and that simply remains
[1:02:25] subdivision authority with council and
[1:02:27] the only thing that is delegated is the
[1:02:29] subdivision extensions which are already
[1:02:31] delegated to Old Man River regional
[1:02:33] service commission. So, it's rather
[1:02:35] allowing subdivision extensions to only
[1:02:37] be dealt with administration which is
[1:02:39] the status quo. So, I do have that
[1:02:40] bylaw. I can um it can be discussed
[1:02:44] today or I can bring it forward at the
[1:02:45] next meeting. Yeah, perhaps just given
[1:02:47] the time um if we could bring that
[1:02:49] forward that'd be wonderful.
[1:02:50] » Thank you.
[1:02:51] » Thank you.
[1:02:55] » Thank you.
[1:02:57] Uh it is past 10:00.
[1:03:00] So why don't we move in our agenda to
[1:03:03] item E, our public hearings. If we could
[1:03:06] recess the public portion of our meeting
[1:03:09] and move towards our public hearing
[1:03:11] number one, uh 2610. Uh we are here
[1:03:15] today to hold the public hearing for
[1:03:16] bylaw 26-010 amendment to the land use
[1:03:19] bylaw to redesate a portion of plan
[1:03:22] 0815575
[1:03:24] block 1 lot 212026
[1:03:27] range road 223 within the southwest
[1:03:30] 151123 west the 4th from rural
[1:03:33] agriculture to business light
[1:03:34] industrial. I would entertain a motion
[1:03:36] to open the public hearing. John.
[1:03:40] » Thank you Mr. Chair. I move to open the
[1:03:42] public hearing on bylaw 26-010.
[1:03:48] Thank you, John. John has moved to open
[1:03:50] the public hearing for bylaw 26-010.
[1:03:53] Is there any discussion? Call the
[1:03:55] question. Those in favor?
[1:03:57] That is carried. Uh public hearing is
[1:04:00] being held pursuant to the municipal
[1:04:01] government act as amended. The public
[1:04:03] hearing is being live streamed via the
[1:04:04] county's YouTube page. Public hearing
[1:04:06] for viol 26-010 is now officially open.
[1:04:09] I'll now ask for a review of the nature
[1:04:10] of hearing and an overview of what is
[1:04:13] being proposed.
[1:04:24] » Thank you, council. So, bylaw 26-010 is
[1:04:27] an amendment to our land use bylaw. It
[1:04:29] is to reddesate a portion of plan
[1:04:32] 0815575,
[1:04:34] block 1, lot 2. It is 1126 Range Road
[1:04:38] 223.
[1:04:40] Um, it is red designated from rule A to
[1:04:42] Business Light Industrial.
[1:04:45] Let's pull up the Oh, I'm on the wrong
[1:04:48] application.
[1:04:49] There it is. Okay. Um, so the proposal
[1:04:53] is um related to a transportation depot
[1:04:57] that is currently operating on the site
[1:04:59] in non-compliance. It was identified
[1:05:01] back in 2025 when the landowner wanted
[1:05:03] to expand their existing property and
[1:05:06] business. Um, we identified that we
[1:05:08] actually needed to work with the town of
[1:05:10] Nobleford on an intermissible
[1:05:11] development plan amendment which was
[1:05:13] passed before council back in 2025.
[1:05:16] Um, and one of the next steps was
[1:05:20] requiring the landowner to do a wetland
[1:05:22] assessment prior to applying to a
[1:05:24] resoning. Um so now they've completed
[1:05:26] the wetland assessment which you'll see
[1:05:27] on the resoning map is specifically that
[1:05:30] eastern boundary which is defining the
[1:05:32] resoning area.
[1:05:34] Um so the redesation area landed at 43
[1:05:40] acres and it is explicitly excluding
[1:05:43] that wetland and the redesation to the
[1:05:46] business light industrial will allow the
[1:05:48] existing business to be brought into
[1:05:49] compliance as well as accommodate their
[1:05:51] proposed building expansion.
[1:05:54] Um so before you today is um
[1:05:57] recommendation to read this bylaw for
[1:06:00] the second and third time and this is on
[1:06:02] the basis that it does align with our
[1:06:03] municipal development plan to support
[1:06:05] industrial and commercial expansion in
[1:06:07] areas that are supported through the IDP
[1:06:10] and it does accommodate the growth of an
[1:06:12] existing operation. And with that any
[1:06:15] questions?
[1:06:16] » Thank you Kayn.
[1:06:18] Any questions from council?
[1:06:21] This is council soul's opportunity to
[1:06:22] receive input from the public. Those
[1:06:24] making presentations are asked to state
[1:06:25] their name and review their points. We
[1:06:26] ask that you refrain from asking
[1:06:27] questions to council. The intention of
[1:06:29] the public hearing is not to debate or
[1:06:30] defend the contents of the bylaw or the
[1:06:31] position which individual counselors may
[1:06:33] have on the bylaw. Questions asked of
[1:06:35] the council by presenter may be ruled
[1:06:36] out of order.
[1:06:38] Presentation to council will start with
[1:06:39] the applicant who has made a submission
[1:06:41] followed by any other persons wishing to
[1:06:42] comment on the proposal. Please keep
[1:06:44] your comments to the point. After each
[1:06:46] speaker, members of council will be
[1:06:47] permitted to ask questions for the
[1:06:48] presenter to clarify any details. No
[1:06:50] debating or questions from the floor
[1:06:51] will be allowed. Each speaker will be
[1:06:53] allotted up to 10 minutes. Additional
[1:06:55] time may be granted at the discretion of
[1:06:57] councel.
[1:06:58] With that, I would ask if the applicant
[1:07:00] wishes to speak.
[1:07:04] I would then ask if there's anyone else
[1:07:06] wishing to speak to the proposed bylaw.
[1:07:09] And for a third and final time, I would
[1:07:10] ask if there's anyone wishing to speak
[1:07:12] to the proposed bylaw.
[1:07:15] If there's nothing further, I would
[1:07:16] entertain a motion to close the public
[1:07:18] hearing. Eric,
[1:07:20] » Mr. Chair, I move to close the public
[1:07:22] hearing.
[1:07:23] » Eric has moved to close the public
[1:07:24] hearing for bylaw 26-010.
[1:07:27] Is there any further discussion? I'll
[1:07:28] call question. Those in favor? Opposed?
[1:07:31] That is carry. Can now resume our public
[1:07:33] meeting. Kaylin, do you have anything
[1:07:35] further?
[1:07:35] » No, I don't. Thank you.
[1:07:36] » Okay. I would then uh open up to
[1:07:39] council. Mark and then John.
[1:07:43] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like to move by
[1:07:45] 26-0
[1:07:46] be read a second time.
[1:07:49] » Thank you, Mark. Mark has moved that
[1:07:50] bylaw 26-010
[1:07:52] be read for a second time. Is there any
[1:07:54] discussion? Call question. Those in
[1:07:56] favor opposed that carries.
[1:08:03] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move
[1:08:04] that bylaw 26-0 be read a third time.
[1:08:09] Thank you, John. John has moved that by
[1:08:11] 26-0
[1:08:12] be read for a third time. Is there any
[1:08:15] discussion? Call the question. Those in
[1:08:17] favor? opposed. That is carried. I think
[1:08:20] Kaylin,
[1:08:22] » Sorry.
[1:08:25] » Thanks, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I should
[1:08:28] have mentioned this before third
[1:08:30] reading, but um I
[1:08:33] wanted to kind of express my
[1:08:34] appreciation for our administration and
[1:08:36] the the landowner to actually uh you
[1:08:40] know, get this into compliance and get
[1:08:43] things moving in a direction where it's
[1:08:46] uh you know, he's he's acting well
[1:08:49] within our bylaws
[1:08:51] and becoming a a uh you know, more in
[1:08:55] line with uh with our policies. and
[1:08:57] procedures rather than just sort of
[1:08:59] operating rogue. So, thank you very much
[1:09:01] for all the effort put in on both house
[1:09:03] on administration and on on the part of
[1:09:06] our uh rateayer.
[1:09:09] » Thank you, John. Uh moving down our
[1:09:12] second bylaw, bylaw 26-019.
[1:09:15] Uh we are here today for the public
[1:09:17] hearing for bylaw 26-019 amendment to
[1:09:19] the land use bylaw to revise the
[1:09:21] definition of specialty
[1:09:22] manufacturing/cottage
[1:09:24] industry in part 9 definitions. I would
[1:09:27] al ask for a
[1:09:29] motion to open the public hearing for
[1:09:32] bylaw 26-019.
[1:09:35] Mark
[1:09:36] » Thank you mr chair I move to open the
[1:09:38] public hearing.
[1:09:40] » Mark move to open the public hearing for
[1:09:41] bylaw 26-019.
[1:09:43] Any further discussion? Call a question.
[1:09:45] Those in favor? Opposed? That is
[1:09:48] carried. Uh, this public hearing is
[1:09:50] being held pursuant to municipal
[1:09:51] government act as amended. The public
[1:09:53] hearings being live streamed via the
[1:09:54] county's YouTube page. Public hearing
[1:09:56] for bylaw 26-019 is now officially open.
[1:10:00] Excuse me. I'll now ask for a review of
[1:10:01] the nature of the hearing and an
[1:10:02] overview of what is being proposed.
[1:10:04] Kaylin,
[1:10:05] » Thank you. So, bylaw 26-019
[1:10:07] is an amendment to the land use bylaw to
[1:10:09] revise the definition of specialty
[1:10:11] manufacturing the cottage industry. So,
[1:10:14] it's part nine of our bylaw. And this
[1:10:16] application became about from a
[1:10:19] Lethbridge County business who who is a
[1:10:21] specialty manufacturing cottage use on
[1:10:23] their parcel. Um, they're currently
[1:10:25] operating on 11.4 acre title and they
[1:10:28] have an existing shop and they're
[1:10:29] actually unable to expand due to the
[1:10:31] restrictions of the definition in our
[1:10:33] land use bylaw. Um, so our land use
[1:10:35] bylaw intends the specialty
[1:10:37] manufacturing cottage industry is
[1:10:39] small-scale on-site production,
[1:10:41] fabrication, and processing of goods.
[1:10:43] And it's really capped at a fixed
[1:10:45] maximum gross area of 10,000 square
[1:10:47] feet. And it doesn't connect to lot size
[1:10:49] or any proximity contextual aspects of
[1:10:52] the lot. And because this number 10,000
[1:10:55] square feet is actually within the
[1:10:57] definition, the development authority
[1:10:59] has no um authority to wave it or give
[1:11:01] any variance. Um so it's very much a
[1:11:04] maximum allowed. So we're with working
[1:11:07] with the applicant and recognizing our
[1:11:09] land use bylaw um review is is
[1:11:12] forthcoming. Um we identified an
[1:11:14] opportunity to um make a minor amendment
[1:11:17] to our land use bylaw to allow
[1:11:18] businesses like this to expand and it to
[1:11:21] be more contextually related to the size
[1:11:23] of their lot. Um so this use only
[1:11:27] actually applies to the rural
[1:11:28] agricultural zones and rural commercial
[1:11:30] districts. Rural commercial is a
[1:11:32] district that is used on like three or
[1:11:33] four part parcels in the county. So very
[1:11:36] very little impact. It's mostly rural
[1:11:37] agriculture. Um and so basically the
[1:11:41] proposal before you is to amend the
[1:11:43] definition to allow for 2,000 square
[1:11:46] feet per acre of lot area up to a
[1:11:48] maximum of 20,000 square feet. And the
[1:11:51] reason 20,000 was selected as the
[1:11:53] maximum is because we are looking at
[1:11:54] this as a rural agricultural adjacent
[1:11:57] use and um potato storage and similar
[1:11:59] large agricultural buildings are kind of
[1:12:01] that 20,000 square feet. So it it did
[1:12:04] seem um similar in nature without
[1:12:06] becoming the category of commercial
[1:12:08] industrial. Um so that's why the numbers
[1:12:10] were proposed and it's just a a minor
[1:12:13] amendment. I'll pull up the text. The
[1:12:15] red line is right here for everyone. And
[1:12:18] really the recommendations um is to
[1:12:22] consider the second and first reading of
[1:12:24] this and it does align with our
[1:12:26] municipal development plan as we do we
[1:12:30] do recognize that adjustments need to be
[1:12:32] made to support economic growth and
[1:12:34] rural diversification through strategic
[1:12:36] and sound planning and we do recognize
[1:12:39] that there's a wide range of
[1:12:40] agricultural and agricultural related or
[1:12:42] ancillary land uses that should be
[1:12:44] considered in our um land use bylaw. So
[1:12:47] with that, if there's any questions.
[1:12:50] » Thank you, Kaylin.
[1:12:52] This is council's opportunity to receive
[1:12:54] input from the public. Those making
[1:12:55] presentations are asked to state their
[1:12:56] name or review their points. We ask you
[1:12:58] refrain from asking questions of
[1:12:59] council. The intention of the public
[1:13:00] hearing is not to debate or defend the
[1:13:01] contents of the bylaw or the position
[1:13:03] which individual counselor may have on
[1:13:04] the bylaw. Questions asked of the
[1:13:05] council by presenter may be ruled out of
[1:13:07] order. Presentations to council will
[1:13:09] start with the applicant who made a
[1:13:10] submission followed by any other persons
[1:13:12] wishing to speak.
[1:13:14] After each speaker, members of council
[1:13:16] will be permitted to ask questions. The
[1:13:17] presenter to for any details each
[1:13:19] speaker will be allowed up 10 minutes.
[1:13:21] Additional time may be granted at the
[1:13:22] discretion of council. I would now ask
[1:13:25] if there's anyone wishing to speak to
[1:13:27] the proposed bylaw.
[1:13:30] I'd ask again if there's anyone wishing
[1:13:32] to speak to the proposed bylaw.
[1:13:34] And for a third and final time, I would
[1:13:36] ask there's anyone wishing to speak to
[1:13:37] the proposed bylaw.
[1:13:40] If there's nothing further, I would
[1:13:41] entertain a motion to close the public
[1:13:43] hearing. John.
[1:13:45] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we
[1:13:47] close the public hearing for
[1:13:50] bylaw 26-019.
[1:13:54] Thank you, John. John has moved that to
[1:13:57] move to close the public hearing for
[1:13:59] bylaw 26-019.
[1:14:02] Is there any further discussion? Call
[1:14:04] question. Those in favor? Opposed? That
[1:14:06] is carried. Now resume our public
[1:14:08] meeting. I would open up to council for
[1:14:10] any questions or discussion.
[1:14:18] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, having had a
[1:14:21] couple of rateayers that have been
[1:14:23] caught in this particular quandry a few
[1:14:25] years ago and had to do a significant
[1:14:28] amount of reasoning in order to get the
[1:14:30] buildings put together what they needed.
[1:14:32] I uh very much welcome this change and I
[1:14:35] think that it is a very good common
[1:14:37] sense approach with the 2,000 per square
[1:14:40] feet per acre that uh allows individuals
[1:14:44] to expand as much as they possibly can
[1:14:47] uh within reason on their parcel size.
[1:14:49] So all that being said I would like to
[1:14:51] move that bylaw 26-019
[1:14:54] be read a second time.
[1:14:57] » Thank you John. John has moved that by
[1:14:59] 26-019 be read for a second time. Is
[1:15:02] there any discussion? Go ahead.
[1:15:05] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, in your
[1:15:07] commenting, you mentioned that due to a
[1:15:09] hard number in there, there was no
[1:15:11] ability for waiverss or variances. Um,
[1:15:13] are we going to have that the same here
[1:15:15] as well that we're going to hit the
[1:15:17] 20,000 no matter what? We'd have to
[1:15:19] amend it. And is there any appetite to
[1:15:22] have uh a method of flexibility?
[1:15:26] » Thank you, Councelor Vaness. So I did
[1:15:28] consider different approaches and how we
[1:15:30] rectify this issue for rateayers. Um if
[1:15:34] we removed it from the definition, yes,
[1:15:36] we'd have ability to vary it, but I
[1:15:39] don't think it meets the intent of a
[1:15:40] land use bylaw because rural agriculture
[1:15:42] still needs to remain low inensity uses
[1:15:45] and at what size of building are we
[1:15:47] hitting the intensity that it should be
[1:15:48] considered commercial industrial. Um so
[1:15:51] I think this was an interimm measure to
[1:15:53] address the immediate need of our our
[1:15:55] residents and businesses. Well, we need
[1:15:57] to take a look greater look at our land
[1:15:58] use bylaw of what triggers and is
[1:16:01] warranted commercial industrial, what is
[1:16:03] mixed use, and those are conversations
[1:16:05] we need to have over a larger land use
[1:16:07] bylaw um overhaul and renewal. Um so
[1:16:10] that's why the suggested approach was
[1:16:12] just a minor amendment within our
[1:16:13] definitions because really over 20,000
[1:16:15] square feet we should be looking at a
[1:16:16] commercial industrial use.
[1:16:19] » You're welcome.
[1:16:22] » Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so the
[1:16:24] original uh 10,000 square feet, was that
[1:16:27] connected to an acre size before two or
[1:16:31] » Thank you, Councelor Ankerman. Um, so
[1:16:33] no, it was purely this use is limited to
[1:16:36] 10,000 square feet. Um, so you could
[1:16:39] have a rural egg title that was 4 acres
[1:16:41] and technically be allowed 10,000 square
[1:16:43] feet. Um it is a discretionary use. So
[1:16:46] of course the development authority
[1:16:47] would use their their discretion but it
[1:16:49] wasn't not it tied to lot size proximity
[1:16:52] to roads and highways. Um it was just a
[1:16:54] blanket statement in the definition.
[1:16:57] » Yeah.
[1:17:00] » Thank you Mr. Chair. So just a question
[1:17:02] for cottage industry does and when you
[1:17:04] say processing what exactly do you mean
[1:17:07] by that? like it when you say processing
[1:17:10] would be a good example like the cheese
[1:17:13] plant but is that a cottage industry?
[1:17:15] » Thank you councelor Hickeyi. So it is
[1:17:17] quite a catchall definition. We do use
[1:17:20] it quite often. You'll see in the
[1:17:22] definition it it includes but not
[1:17:24] limited to so it's everything from
[1:17:27] bakery bakeries specialty food
[1:17:29] manufacturing distilleries micro
[1:17:31] breweries wineries um artisan and
[1:17:34] craftsmanship um lutheran um
[1:17:37] taxiderermis woodworking u furniture
[1:17:40] making cabinetry like it is quite a
[1:17:42] gamut of things it is often what I see
[1:17:46] in development permits being used for
[1:17:48] like egg related industries um the
[1:17:51] specific One is like
[1:17:54] manufacturing, steel manufacturing
[1:17:55] related to agricultural buildings. Um,
[1:17:58] I've seen it being used for like floral
[1:18:01] ups. Um, I've seen it used for
[1:18:04] breweries. So, it it's kind of using the
[1:18:07] byproducts of agriculture or
[1:18:10] contributing to the agricultural
[1:18:11] industry. It kind of goes back. So, it
[1:18:14] is quite broad.
[1:18:16] » So, you they actually have to process
[1:18:18] something like they just can't store
[1:18:20] something. You actually have to. Okay.
[1:18:22] Thank you.
[1:18:22] » Yeah.
[1:18:24] » Uh John has moved that bylaw 26-019
[1:18:28] be read for a second time.
[1:18:31] » Go ahead.
[1:18:32] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I also
[1:18:34] understanding it right now that if
[1:18:36] somebody has a 2acre parcel capped at
[1:18:38] 4,000 square feet this time around?
[1:18:40] » You are correct in that, Councelor
[1:18:41] Vaness. And the reason we decided that
[1:18:43] cap was reasonable is because a lot of
[1:18:45] rule egg titles are adjacent to a group
[1:18:47] country residential use and their
[1:18:49] accessory buildings are maxed at 4,000
[1:18:51] square ft. Um so in the circumstances
[1:18:54] where they are directly adjacent to GCR
[1:18:56] um that would still seem appropriate.
[1:19:01] » Okay. And there and there's no uh
[1:19:03] flexibility on that number either then.
[1:19:06] » No, not within the current definition.
[1:19:08] And if you are a small rule egg title of
[1:19:11] two to four acres, um you're probably
[1:19:14] within the vicinity of an urban area.
[1:19:17] You're probably within the vicinity of
[1:19:18] substantial number of acreages. So there
[1:19:20] would be a larger um adjacent property
[1:19:23] impact um because you're going to have
[1:19:26] more fragmentation and more houses. Um
[1:19:28] so I wouldn't feel comfortable with the
[1:19:31] recommendation to expand that for those
[1:19:33] smaller parcels.
[1:19:37] Thank you.
[1:19:40] » John has moved that bylaw 26-019 be read
[1:19:42] Perry second time. Is there any further
[1:19:44] questions? Sorry. Uh is there any
[1:19:47] further uh Yeah, for a third time. Uh is
[1:19:49] there any further discussion or
[1:19:50] questions? I'll call the question. Those
[1:19:52] in favor post that carries. Third
[1:19:55] reading. Lauren,
[1:19:57] » I would move third reading of bylaw
[1:19:58] 26-019.
[1:20:01] » Thank you, Lauren. Horn is moved by
[1:20:02] 26-019 be read for a third time. Is
[1:20:06] there any further discussion? Call
[1:20:08] question. Those in favor? Those opposed?
[1:20:10] That is carried.
[1:20:11] » Thank you, Kaylin.
[1:20:12] » Thank you.
[1:20:13] » That takes us to 10:21. Why don't we
[1:20:16] take a short recess and return at
[1:37:12] Uh we'll call the meeting back to order
[1:37:14] at 10:38 a.m. this morning. Uh we can
[1:37:17] move in our agenda to administration F2
[1:37:21] F2.1 fire investigation inspection
[1:37:24] administrative policy. Morning Heath.
[1:37:27] Good morning, council. Um, today I'd
[1:37:30] like to uh talk to you about the uh fire
[1:37:32] investigation inspection administration
[1:37:34] policy. Uh, Lethbridge Countyy's quality
[1:37:36] management plan, QM, formerly known as
[1:37:39] the quality management plan, presently
[1:37:41] relies on a Lethbridge County Fire
[1:37:43] investigation inspection guideline to
[1:37:44] monitor and govern discretionary fire
[1:37:46] investigation and inspection decisions.
[1:37:49] Adopting this policy achieves two
[1:37:51] things. It gives fire safety codes
[1:37:53] officer a document defensible standard
[1:37:55] of care that satisfies the county safety
[1:37:57] codes act obligations. And it also
[1:38:00] protects rateayers by reserving formal
[1:38:02] specialist level investigation for fires
[1:38:04] that genuinely require it. Fatalities,
[1:38:07] injuries, suspected criminal activity or
[1:38:09] complex uh incidents. while routine low
[1:38:13] complex complex uh uh and vehicle fires
[1:38:17] are handled at no additional cost by the
[1:38:20] attending fire officer.
[1:38:22] So just to give you some uh a little bit
[1:38:24] more background,
[1:38:26] West Lebridge County holds accreditation
[1:38:28] under the safety codes act through a
[1:38:29] quality management system accepted by
[1:38:31] the safety codes council. The director
[1:38:33] of emergency services acts as the fire
[1:38:35] QMS manager and is the authority having
[1:38:38] jurisdiction safety codes officer under
[1:38:40] this accredititation. QMS schedule C
[1:38:43] section 4.12.5
[1:38:45] obligates the county to maintain a
[1:38:47] defined process for fire investigations
[1:38:49] and governs fire inspections. Currently,
[1:38:52] this obligation exists at the QMS level,
[1:38:55] but has not been operationalized into
[1:38:57] council approved policy and clearly
[1:38:59] defines authority triggers for
[1:39:01] investigations and limits on contract um
[1:39:04] fire chief's actions. Without a form of
[1:39:07] policy, contracted fire service
[1:39:09] providers lack clear, consistent
[1:39:11] direction on when a formal and costly
[1:39:14] investigation is required versus when a
[1:39:16] routine assessment by an attending fire
[1:39:18] officer is sufficient.
[1:39:20] There is inconsistent application of
[1:39:22] investigative resources across the
[1:39:24] county's contracted fire departments,
[1:39:26] creating both compliance risk and
[1:39:28] unpredictable cost exposure. And the
[1:39:31] county is exposed to liability and audit
[1:39:33] findings from the safety codes council
[1:39:35] for failing to formalize an accredited
[1:39:37] process already required under the QM.
[1:39:42] So
[1:39:44] I I uh as far as the financial impact,
[1:39:47] adoption of the policy is not expected
[1:39:49] to create new co direct cost to the
[1:39:51] county. Rather, it formalizes and
[1:39:53] constrains existing practice. It is
[1:39:55] expected to reduce or avoid costs
[1:39:57] associated with unnecessary engagement
[1:39:59] of an NFPA 1033 qualified investigator
[1:40:02] or external specialist for low
[1:40:04] complexity incidents that can be
[1:40:06] documented by an intending fire officer
[1:40:09] at no additional cost. duplicated fire
[1:40:12] investigation of vehicle fires already
[1:40:14] covered by insurer retained experts and
[1:40:17] potential liability and remedi
[1:40:19] remediation costs arising from
[1:40:21] inconistent inconsistent or undocumented
[1:40:24] investigation decisions. So with that uh
[1:40:28] council I would like to uh give the
[1:40:30] recommendation that council approve and
[1:40:32] adopt policy number 219 fire
[1:40:35] investigation inspection policy as an
[1:40:38] integrated component of the county's
[1:40:40] quality management plan QV1-4
[1:40:43] or point4.
[1:40:46] Any questions?
[1:40:48] » Heath, I would open it up to council for
[1:40:50] questions and discussion.
[1:40:54] John,
[1:40:56] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Heath, as you
[1:40:59] know, with my background, um, I had
[1:41:03] particular interest in this and reading
[1:41:05] through uh, your proposal, I think it's
[1:41:07] something that makes sense. you know,
[1:41:09] um, in in my world outside of municipal
[1:41:13] uh, politics has been many a time where
[1:41:15] I've gone to a a
[1:41:17] scene where we've had multiple fire
[1:41:19] investigators and it is very an
[1:41:21] extraordinarily straightforward uh, and
[1:41:24] easy to determ situation. So, you kind
[1:41:27] of wonder where the resources are spent
[1:41:28] and why they're spent on that. So, I u I
[1:41:32] I appreciate the common sense uh
[1:41:34] approach to this particular policy. And
[1:41:37] um all that being said, I would like to
[1:41:40] move that uh council approve and adopt
[1:41:43] policy number 219, fire investigation
[1:41:46] inspection policy as an integrated
[1:41:48] component of the county's quality
[1:41:50] management system QM version 1.4.
[1:41:55] » Thank you, John. John has moved the
[1:41:56] recommendation that council approve and
[1:41:59] adopt policy number 219 fire
[1:42:01] investigation inspection policy as an
[1:42:04] integrated component of the county's
[1:42:06] quality management system QM version
[1:42:09] 1.4.
[1:42:11] Is there any further questions or
[1:42:12] discussion? Mark
[1:42:14] » Just a quick clarification. So if um
[1:42:17] we've contracted out this to the other
[1:42:19] departments within the county. So if
[1:42:21] something if there is an investigation
[1:42:23] held or if it's not done properly, does
[1:42:25] that the risk falls back on the county?
[1:42:29] » No, it would be under the uh
[1:42:32] certification of the fire investigator
[1:42:34] or or the fire officer that was in
[1:42:37] instant command on scene.
[1:42:39] » Okay.
[1:42:41] Any other questions or discussion?
[1:42:44] Call the question. Those in favor?
[1:42:46] Opposed? That carries. Thanks, Heath.
[1:42:49] Uh, moving down. F22, request for
[1:42:52] financial relief.
[1:42:56] Okay.
[1:43:05] All right. Um, just to give you a
[1:43:07] summary, on June 15th, 2024, Lethbridge
[1:43:11] County Contracted Fire Services
[1:43:12] responded to a rescue incident at Kho
[1:43:14] Lake. Miss Hillary Lee, uh, the
[1:43:18] individual rescued, has since received
[1:43:20] invoicing for the associated mercy
[1:43:22] response cost and has formally requested
[1:43:25] that council consider financial relief
[1:43:27] with respect to these charges. Miss
[1:43:29] Lee's request indicates that the
[1:43:32] incident was unplanned and unexpected
[1:43:34] with no insurance coverage for this type
[1:43:36] of rescue. Miss Lee is not disputing the
[1:43:39] costs are that are owed, but is
[1:43:41] requesting council's consideration of
[1:43:44] relief given the financial hardship and
[1:43:46] full cost invoice would represent and
[1:43:48] has offered to enter into a reasonable
[1:43:51] monthly payment arrangement for any uh
[1:43:54] amount ultimately determined to be
[1:43:56] payable.
[1:43:58] Um,
[1:44:00] just to uh give you some further
[1:44:02] background,
[1:44:04] Miss Hillary Lee required emergency
[1:44:06] rescue assistance at Keyhole Lake. Um,
[1:44:10] Lethbridge Countyy's contract of
[1:44:11] emergency response resources attended
[1:44:12] and carried out the rescue and sub and
[1:44:15] subsequent transport. Uh, following the
[1:44:18] response, Miss Lee was invoiced for
[1:44:20] associated emergency response costs
[1:44:22] under the county standard cost recovery
[1:44:24] practice. Miss Lee has submitted uh
[1:44:28] written court correspondence requesting
[1:44:30] council's consideration of financial
[1:44:31] relief. She states that the need for
[1:44:34] rescue was entirely unexpected and
[1:44:35] unplanned. She was not advised during
[1:44:38] the response, rescue or transport that
[1:44:40] significant personal uh personal charges
[1:44:43] uh could result. The resulting invoice
[1:44:45] came as a surprise and represents a
[1:44:48] significant financial hardship. No
[1:44:50] insurance coverage is available to her
[1:44:52] for this type of rescue and she will be
[1:44:55] uh willing to establish a reasonable
[1:44:57] monthly payment arrangement for any
[1:44:58] amount council determines ultimately
[1:45:01] payable. Miss Lee has expressed
[1:45:02] appreciation for the professionalism and
[1:45:04] the responders and is not disputing that
[1:45:08] emergency services involve real costs.
[1:45:10] Her request is limited to council's
[1:45:12] consideration of relief from a full
[1:45:14] invoice amount given the specific
[1:45:16] circumstances.
[1:45:19] Um,
[1:45:21] as far as financial impact, the
[1:45:23] financial impact to the county depends
[1:45:24] on the option selected by councelor
[1:45:27] ranging from a full recovery to the
[1:45:28] invoice in emergency costs, option A or
[1:45:32] to fully write off the invoice amount to
[1:45:34] option C. Uh
[1:45:37] what I would like to uh look at as far
[1:45:40] as a recommendation
[1:45:43] council receives this report uh this
[1:45:45] report from information and provide
[1:45:46] direction to administration regarding
[1:45:48] Miss Lee's request for financial relief
[1:45:50] including whether to direct
[1:45:52] administration to bring forward an
[1:45:54] amendment to fire bylaw number 22-002
[1:45:58] establishing a cost recovery cap
[1:46:00] applicable to rare and unusual emergency
[1:46:03] events of this nature or otherwise. has
[1:46:06] resolved this matter as follows. uphold
[1:46:08] the invoice as issued with
[1:46:11] administration to offer a monthly
[1:46:12] payment arrangement or approve a partial
[1:46:14] reduction of the invoiced amount and the
[1:46:17] balance uh payable via monthly payment
[1:46:19] arrangement or wave the charges in full
[1:46:22] in light of a unique circumstance
[1:46:24] presented or direct administration to
[1:46:26] prepare an amendment to fire bylaw
[1:46:29] number 22-002
[1:46:31] establishing a cap cost recovery of
[1:46:33] $1,500 for unusual emergency events.
[1:46:35] example, unplanned water ice rescues
[1:46:38] where advanced warning of charges was
[1:46:40] not practical. Um, and apply this cap to
[1:46:44] this invoice.
[1:46:47] So, with that, uh, any questions?
[1:46:51] » Keith, I'll open I'll go to Cole first.
[1:46:54] Go ahead.
[1:46:55] » Thank you, council. I just wanted to add
[1:46:58] when we reviewed this because I think
[1:47:00] the letter speaks to a lot of things or
[1:47:03] rationale that would apply to any fire
[1:47:06] response unplanned unexpected
[1:47:10] where administration believes it
[1:47:13] diverges is I think there's a reasonable
[1:47:15] expectation that um people carry
[1:47:18] property insurance like fire risk
[1:47:21] mitigation um response. I think this
[1:47:24] falls outside of that. And so we
[1:47:26] struggled with this. We somewhat pulled
[1:47:29] the $1,500
[1:47:30] out of the air where it's, hey, there's
[1:47:32] some accountability and there's a
[1:47:33] discretionary component to that, but
[1:47:37] this is one of those ones that not only
[1:47:38] is it the potentially the worst day of
[1:47:40] somebody's life. It is also not a
[1:47:43] reasonable expectation that they would
[1:47:44] have insurance for this type of a
[1:47:46] response. We don't do an excessive
[1:47:48] amount of them and we struggled to come
[1:47:50] up with what that exact structure should
[1:47:53] be. There's been some very very tragic
[1:47:56] responses in the province recently.
[1:47:59] Um, and on the worst day of somebody's
[1:48:02] life, I'm the last thing I want to do is
[1:48:05] deliver an invoice to them for something
[1:48:07] like that that there could have been no
[1:48:10] reasonable expectation that they could
[1:48:12] have mitigated the financial
[1:48:13] implications. So, um, I don't think
[1:48:16] there's a perfect solution. we've put
[1:48:17] what we've come up with in front of
[1:48:19] council, but I wanted to be very
[1:48:21] transparent in how we work through this
[1:48:22] and
[1:48:24] trying to deduce um a reasonable
[1:48:26] recommendation.
[1:48:30] » Thank you.
[1:48:34] » Um
[1:48:36] something that's missing on this is how
[1:48:38] much was the bill we sent?
[1:48:40] » Total bill, I don't have the exact
[1:48:42] number, but it's around uh I believe
[1:48:45] $11,000.
[1:48:49] follow up on that.
[1:48:50] » Sorry. Um,
[1:48:53] you know, when we first put in the u the
[1:48:56] bylaw for for emergency services and my
[1:49:00] thought process in my head was around uh
[1:49:03] you know, fire and emergency responses
[1:49:05] associated with that. uh because that is
[1:49:08] something that as a homeowner or vehicle
[1:49:12] owner there you have the ability to
[1:49:15] actually purchase insurance. And so the
[1:49:18] the whole premise behind um that was
[1:49:22] there was an insurable avenue and or an
[1:49:26] area where there's another avenue for
[1:49:28] payment. So
[1:49:30] I felt at the time that it was unfair
[1:49:33] for the municipality to take the fire
[1:49:35] services charges of an individual when
[1:49:38] there is an avenue where where a
[1:49:41] reasonably prudent individual could
[1:49:43] purchase insurance to indemnify
[1:49:45] themselves for that. So that's it's it's
[1:49:48] not fair to put that burden on on all of
[1:49:50] the rateayers specifically. in
[1:49:53] circumstances like this there there just
[1:49:56] truly is no insurance that anybody could
[1:49:59] buy for this. So
[1:50:02] um this circumstances like this would
[1:50:05] fall outside of u
[1:50:09] my mindset in intention when we were
[1:50:12] having the initial discussion I think
[1:50:14] now five years ago about deferring uh
[1:50:17] costs on to individuals because uh as I
[1:50:22] said there's just no possible way that
[1:50:24] anybody could or should be expected to
[1:50:27] purchase insurance for this. So, um, you
[1:50:31] know, as in terms of of options, uh, A,
[1:50:35] B, C, or D, I'm not sure where I would
[1:50:39] fall on that. Um,
[1:50:42] you know, in this particular
[1:50:44] circumstance like amending the bylaw, I
[1:50:46] think that's a separate issue from this
[1:50:48] particular conversation. Um, I think the
[1:50:51] the bigger conversation has to be around
[1:50:54] what do we do in the future on this, but
[1:50:57] but the conversation in front of us
[1:50:59] right now is what do we do in this
[1:51:01] particular circumstance? And I'm not
[1:51:04] 100% certain where I want to land on
[1:51:06] that.
[1:51:09] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, this was
[1:51:12] another one that, uh, you know, I read
[1:51:14] through several times and, um, you know,
[1:51:16] I sympathize. I feel bad for the young
[1:51:18] lady. She's, you know, she made a
[1:51:20] mistake. I think she owns it. Um
[1:51:22] throwing $11,000 bill at her. I don't
[1:51:24] think it's the right thing. Um I think
[1:51:26] that um there should be something. So
[1:51:29] the 15 the the option D that you've
[1:51:31] given there is to put a $1,500 cap.
[1:51:34] That's something that's affordable, be a
[1:51:35] life lesson for that, but it's still
[1:51:37] there's something. It's not that we're
[1:51:38] we set a precedent by waving the entire
[1:51:40] fee. So um I think move you know based
[1:51:44] on your recommendation your report here
[1:51:46] I I would you know I could certainly
[1:51:48] support that recommendation D is an
[1:51:49] option just moving forward. So
[1:51:55] » Thank you Mr. Chair. Um,
[1:51:58] was there a part of this that uh uh a
[1:52:02] significant bill came from uh the water
[1:52:04] rescue portion and was there a portion
[1:52:06] that
[1:52:08] potentially Lethbridge County didn't
[1:52:10] have um contracts in place or or things
[1:52:14] in place that uh we could have had in
[1:52:16] place or maybe even should have had in
[1:52:18] place.
[1:52:18] » Right. Councelor Venison, thank you for
[1:52:21] the question. Uh yes, there was water
[1:52:23] rescue efforts and there was costs
[1:52:25] associated with it. I have been in
[1:52:27] consultation with the city of
[1:52:29] Lethbridge, Lethbridge Fire and
[1:52:30] Emergency Services as far as um would
[1:52:33] they be willing to work with this uh the
[1:52:36] the billing process and and uh they are
[1:52:39] willing and I have a verbal agreement at
[1:52:42] this point with uh Deputy Chief Chris
[1:52:44] Maris and uh we are going to move
[1:52:46] forward with that and he has promised me
[1:52:48] that he will they will look at some type
[1:52:51] of relief if not all of it.
[1:52:55] » Thank you, Mr. chairman through the
[1:52:56] chair to councelor Van Essen. I would
[1:52:58] just add that even with our agreements,
[1:53:00] we are we are liable to pay the the
[1:53:02] response rates either negotiated rates
[1:53:05] and they vary. City of Lethbridge has
[1:53:07] their own schedule of fee bylaw and then
[1:53:09] north of the river we pay at or we pay
[1:53:11] the Albert transportation rates and we
[1:53:14] have a different agreement with Coldale.
[1:53:16] So there would be a cost impact to our
[1:53:20] um to our rateayers by changing this.
[1:53:24] Um, I know Haley is just pulling the
[1:53:26] actual cost of this response and then
[1:53:29] maybe if I could ask Keith to speak to
[1:53:31] the number of these types of calls we
[1:53:32] see on average a year. I know we had
[1:53:34] discussed that and it was fairly small
[1:53:36] but there is a financial implication to
[1:53:38] making this change.
[1:53:41] » Go ahead.
[1:53:42] » Uh, based on the details that I just see
[1:53:44] on the invoice, um, the total bill was
[1:53:46] $9,182.50
[1:53:48] 50 cents that was build between various
[1:53:52] stations and various municipalities um
[1:53:55] including the city of Lethbridge. Uh the
[1:53:57] bill is now $12,855.50
[1:54:02] because we she continues to incur uh
[1:54:05] finance charges because she has not made
[1:54:08] any payments to the outstanding invoice.
[1:54:11] Um so that just gives you a little bit
[1:54:14] more context
[1:54:17] » And to answer the question as far as
[1:54:19] occurrence it's very rare um that these
[1:54:23] you know they do come up in sometimes
[1:54:26] you'll get one or two a year but then
[1:54:28] you might not get one for five years.
[1:54:30] So, these are unique circumstances and
[1:54:33] being a a first responder myself in my
[1:54:36] past, I I can definitely say that these
[1:54:40] are rare occurrences and they don't
[1:54:41] happen that much, but when they do,
[1:54:43] they're life impacting and and now this
[1:54:46] is financially impacting for her as
[1:54:48] well.
[1:54:50] » Any other comments or questions?
[1:54:55] » Go ahead.
[1:54:56] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I guess we I
[1:55:00] feel we should put a a proposal out
[1:55:02] there one way or other. Um, we've often
[1:55:05] discussed at length, you know,
[1:55:07] reductions and the things against it
[1:55:09] that's been talked about at length. So,
[1:55:11] I'm just going to put a proposal out
[1:55:12] there. Um, half of original bill on
[1:55:15] terms is my proposal.
[1:55:24] So, as I'm sitting here contemplating
[1:55:26] this whole circumstance, I come back to,
[1:55:30] you know, the original intent of us
[1:55:33] passing the bylaw about putting
[1:55:36] emergency services on to onto uh
[1:55:40] individuals.
[1:55:41] was the and the intent behind that was
[1:55:45] to mitigate costs for the for the county
[1:55:49] and for our rate payers for
[1:55:52] circumstances where there was the
[1:55:54] potential for the responsible parties to
[1:55:58] carry insurance to cover off their
[1:56:00] potential liability on this. Um, and
[1:56:04] looking at at that and looking at the
[1:56:08] intent of what we originally tried to do
[1:56:12] and realizing that, you know, a a rescue
[1:56:16] of this nature and a water rescue or
[1:56:18] anything where there is actually human
[1:56:20] life in peril, um, I I'd be more apt to
[1:56:25] just,
[1:56:27] you know, either wave the charges or put
[1:56:29] it down to a very nominal fee. Um, I I
[1:56:34] just I really struggle with with us
[1:56:37] putting a financial burden on somebody
[1:56:40] for a rescue. Um, and and part of the
[1:56:44] reason I struggle with this is that if
[1:56:46] you know, we do this and we set a
[1:56:49] precedent on it and we say, "Okay, well,
[1:56:50] you know, we'll give you payments on
[1:56:51] that." But then, you know, what happens
[1:56:54] the next time that somebody's trapped
[1:56:56] out on Keyhill Lake and they hear about
[1:56:58] this and they start thinking, "Oh, gee,
[1:57:00] I can't afford it, so I'm not going to
[1:57:01] call a rescue." and then we end up with
[1:57:03] a body recovery situation. I I really I
[1:57:07] I don't think that that passing this
[1:57:10] bill on to this individual meets the
[1:57:12] intent of what we originally were trying
[1:57:14] to do. And um and I don't think that
[1:57:18] it's something that us as a municipality
[1:57:21] should be looking at at doing just from
[1:57:25] moral grounds. To be perfectly honest, I
[1:57:27] think the right thing to do in this
[1:57:28] circumstance is is understand that this
[1:57:31] is not an insurable situation. They they
[1:57:34] have no potential of of passing this on
[1:57:37] to recovery. Even if they wanted to buy
[1:57:39] insurance for this, it's just not
[1:57:41] something that is available. So, I I
[1:57:43] think I would be more in favor of just
[1:57:45] either full-on waving this or just
[1:57:47] having a very nominal charge.
[1:57:51] » Maybe a question to council. Is there is
[1:57:53] there an appetite from council to as uh
[1:57:57] option D suggests is there an appetite
[1:58:00] to u enact an amendment to establish a
[1:58:05] cap moving forward? I know I I maybe
[1:58:07] just to separate the two from this
[1:58:09] incident to to moving forward. I think
[1:58:11] we could pro we could potentially um
[1:58:14] take a two-pronged approach if that was
[1:58:15] council's appetite. Is there an appetite
[1:58:17] from council to look at amending that
[1:58:19] and and uh instituting a cap?
[1:58:27] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I I can
[1:58:30] appreciate the attempt on that and I
[1:58:32] think that there there will be an
[1:58:33] avenue, but I there are two unintended
[1:58:37] consequences. Next thing you know, we
[1:58:38] are we are on for something significant.
[1:58:42] and using John's logic of well they
[1:58:44] could have got insurance or they
[1:58:45] couldn't got a couldn't have uh could
[1:58:48] set us up for uh some significant
[1:58:52] liability in in these situations. Uh so
[1:58:57] I don't think that is a discerning mark.
[1:58:59] Um we all have our our bills uh and
[1:59:04] responsibilities on that. So,
[1:59:07] um,
[1:59:09] yes to recovery, but or to a cap, but,
[1:59:13] uh, going to be pretty tight guidelines
[1:59:15] if if I were to support it.
[1:59:20] Thoughts?
[1:59:23] I I would concur with councelor Vanessin
[1:59:26] that if we were going to put a cap on
[1:59:27] that, it would have to be very
[1:59:29] specifically set up for
[1:59:33] unique set of circumstances and not just
[1:59:35] an unusual circumstance because, you
[1:59:38] know, if if there's a potential loophole
[1:59:41] for somebody to come in and say, well,
[1:59:44] you know, I couldn't get insurance
[1:59:45] because
[1:59:47] um that that would uh degrade the nature
[1:59:50] of the bylaw. So, you know, I would be
[1:59:54] I'd be willing to certainly look at an
[1:59:55] amendment to the bylaw, but I think it,
[1:59:57] you know, to councelor Vaness's point,
[2:00:00] it would have to be very very specific
[2:00:02] about what those circumstances would be.
[2:00:07] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I would agree
[2:00:08] with that. I think that getting into the
[2:00:11] specific details is going to be a a bit
[2:00:13] of a challenge, but uh I I would
[2:00:17] certainly look at that.
[2:00:20] » Thank you.
[2:00:23] Just again, Terrina, what I said before,
[2:00:26] I would support just prov giving this
[2:00:29] young lady an invoice for the $1,500. I
[2:00:31] think 4,500 is too steep. And I think it
[2:00:33] was just young girl stupid, you know,
[2:00:36] bad choices and uh I just I think it's
[2:00:40] it's the right thing to do. And again,
[2:00:41] tied to the insurance pieces, everybody
[2:00:43] said they're sitting here today. So, but
[2:00:45] I think that's that's my would be my
[2:00:46] recommendation is that we just give her
[2:00:48] an invoice for $1,500.
[2:00:50] » You make that motion.
[2:00:54] » I I can if you want to do that or this
[2:00:56] is you just this this report is just
[2:00:58] being received for information. So, this
[2:01:00] is moving forward. You're not
[2:01:01] » Well, there's there is two elements to
[2:01:03] Okay.
[2:01:04] » I'd make it a motion that we if you'd
[2:01:07] like that. That's
[2:01:09] » And then just uh uh
[2:01:12] if uh How would I read that
[2:01:15] » And then review the bylaw with and
[2:01:17] clarify?
[2:01:20] » Would you be comfortable with uh with
[2:01:22] item D then Mark?
[2:01:23] » Yeah.
[2:01:24] » Making that as a motion.
[2:01:25] » Yeah. With the amendment that Eric had
[2:01:27] talked about around tightening up that
[2:01:28] definition of the emergency what's an
[2:01:30] unusual emergency to make clarify that
[2:01:33] further.
[2:01:33] » So that would come back to council for
[2:01:34] approval then.
[2:01:35] » Absolutely.
[2:01:36] » Okay.
[2:01:40] » Well, I think these are two steps. One
[2:01:42] would be amending the bylaw, which is
[2:01:44] something that would have to happen at a
[2:01:46] different meeting. But the the other
[2:01:47] issue is what do we do with this young
[2:01:49] lady at this particular point in time,
[2:01:51] » Right?
[2:01:53] » Yep.
[2:01:54] » Yeah. But if we did one, a motion
[2:01:56] covering just
[2:01:58] what we would like to do with this lady
[2:02:00] would probably clean things up for
[2:02:02] administration, right?
[2:02:06] » I'm I'm
[2:02:08] I'm just directing traffic. However
[2:02:10] you'd like to uh however you'd like to
[2:02:12] proceed. If Mark, if you if you want to
[2:02:13] make that a single motion uh to adjust
[2:02:15] the invoice uh to $1,500. I think that
[2:02:18] that would I think that would satisfy
[2:02:20] this for the time being. And then
[2:02:22] perhaps we could get a second motion to
[2:02:23] direct administration to bring back uh
[2:02:26] fire bylaw uh 22-002.
[2:02:29] Would that be uh agreeable to staff?
[2:02:32] Okay. So then Mark is Mark, I'll let you
[2:02:35] use your words. You you go ahead. How
[2:02:36] you like if it Sorry. Go ahead.
[2:02:39] So,
[2:02:41] I would move that we invoice
[2:02:44] the $1,500 for this event.
[2:02:48] » Okay. Is there any questions or
[2:02:50] discussion on that motion?
[2:02:52] » Go ahead.
[2:02:54] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, definitely
[2:02:57] disagree with the $1,500. We the basis
[2:03:01] of the 1500 is being prepared on the the
[2:03:05] who and not the what and we're trying to
[2:03:07] uh look at it as a young unfortunate
[2:03:10] person who made a bad decision and we
[2:03:13] are trying to set not only policy but
[2:03:16] also everything has an expense and
[2:03:18] expenses are large. So, um, although it
[2:03:22] may be unpopular, I'd like to make an
[2:03:25] amendment to your motion to the $4,500.
[2:03:28] And if that gets defeated, that's that's
[2:03:31] okay. But I think that it needs to be it
[2:03:33] needs to be more and that there um uh
[2:03:37] yeah, you book an ambulance, you get a
[2:03:39] bill, you book anything. And to say
[2:03:42] that, well, I'm I'm not going to go to
[2:03:44] the hospital. Uh, I just spent time
[2:03:46] where a 15-minute hospital visit was
[2:03:50] a,000 bucks. Um, it's a fact of health
[2:03:54] services. And so, anyway, my motion is
[2:03:58] an amendment to yours for $4,500.
[2:04:01] Okay. Thank you, Eric. I'm going to
[2:04:02] assume that you don't deem that as a
[2:04:04] friendly amendment, Mark. Okay. Uh, so
[2:04:07] then we'll deal with the amendment. Eric
[2:04:09] has amended to change the $1,500 and
[2:04:12] amend that to $4,500.
[2:04:14] So if there is there any further
[2:04:16] discussion on that? Okay, I will call
[2:04:18] the question on the proposed amendment
[2:04:20] changing the invoice amount from $1,500
[2:04:23] to $4,500.
[2:04:25] Uh any further discussion? I will call
[2:04:27] the question. Those in favor, those
[2:04:30] opposed.
[2:04:31] So that is defeated. We will now go back
[2:04:33] to Mark's initial motion to invoice uh
[2:04:37] for this incident in the amount of
[2:04:39] $1,500.
[2:04:41] Is there any further discussion? I'll
[2:04:43] call the question. Those in favor?
[2:04:46] Those opposed? That then carries. Uh I
[2:04:49] would now entertain a motion to direct
[2:04:50] administration to bring back fire bylaw
[2:04:53] number 220002.
[2:04:57] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would uh like to
[2:05:00] move to direct administration to bring
[2:05:03] back an amendment to fire bylaw number
[2:05:06] 22-002
[2:05:08] to cap recovery costs at uh a specified
[2:05:13] amount
[2:05:14] for unusual emergency events
[2:05:18] um and the events to be very very
[2:05:20] specific.
[2:05:23] Okay. Is there any discussion on that
[2:05:26] motion to direct administration to bring
[2:05:28] back uh an amendment to fire bylaw
[2:05:31] 202022-002
[2:05:34] uh to establish a cap and type
[2:05:36] parameters on the specifics of the
[2:05:39] incidents?
[2:05:43] » Just kind of thinking out loud. Thank
[2:05:44] you. Uh how would you define those
[2:05:48] special
[2:05:49] » Yeah, I think maybe just bringing it
[2:05:50] back would probably
[2:05:52] » I don't Yeah, fair enough. We don't want
[2:05:54] we don't need to word smith that. Yeah,
[2:05:56] » I understand what you guys are
[2:05:58] » Referring to.
[2:05:59] » You you're comfortable with that. Just
[2:06:00] to bring that back.
[2:06:01] » Okay.
[2:06:01] » So, uh John is direct administration to
[2:06:04] uh prepare an amendment to f fire bylaw
[2:06:06] number 22-00002.
[2:06:09] Any further discussion? I'll call the
[2:06:11] question. Those in favor? Those opposed?
[2:06:14] That carries. Thank you.
[2:06:16] » Thank you.
[2:06:17] » Uh thanks, Eve.
[2:06:18] » Thank you.
[2:06:21] Uh we have two pieces of correspondence
[2:06:22] before us today. Uh item one from the
[2:06:24] National Police Federation.
[2:06:27] Uh you can read that at your leisure.
[2:06:33] Uh at the bottom you'll see there's a
[2:06:35] couple bullet points regarding Alberta
[2:06:37] Sheriff's uh cease further investment in
[2:06:40] an advancement to the Alberta Sheriff's
[2:06:42] Police Service as a replacement RCMP. uh
[2:06:45] release comprehensive and independent
[2:06:47] and public available feasibility studies
[2:06:50] and a number of other bullet points
[2:06:52] there. Uh like I said, read that at your
[2:06:54] leisure. And our second item uh
[2:06:57] correspondence is from the Southern
[2:06:58] Alberta Chinese Association, the 2026
[2:07:01] barbecue, uh August 30th, and it's at
[2:07:05] the Rotary Picnic Shelter,
[2:07:07] entertainment, food service. Uh and the
[2:07:10] cost is $25 for adults and $15 for
[2:07:13] children. letter for are free. If you'd
[2:07:16] like to attend that, I'm sure we can
[2:07:18] arrange.
[2:07:20] Talk to Candace and we'll make that
[2:07:21] happen. Widler.
[2:07:22] » Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Weren't they
[2:07:24] also requesting
[2:07:26] uh a sponsorship instead of the city of
[2:07:29] Lethbridge? They wanted us to be the
[2:07:31] sponsor for their page. Or did I misread
[2:07:35] her email when I got it?
[2:07:46] No. Yeah. In that in that and there is
[2:07:49] there is a second um link there. Candace
[2:07:51] the letter.
[2:07:54] » City of Lethridge sponsored our event
[2:07:55] last year. We are hoping Lethbridge
[2:07:57] County might consider supporting us this
[2:07:58] year as well if possible. Uh we would
[2:08:01] include the lo countyy's logo on our
[2:08:03] poster.
[2:08:08] I would I would open up to council for
[2:08:09] if you would like to
[2:08:12] if someone's interested in pursuing that
[2:08:18] » Just did it have a figure in it.
[2:08:21] » There is no financial number. No.
[2:08:26] » What is our usual donation policy like?
[2:08:38] couple hundred usually or what would
[2:08:40] they what would I don't know what the
[2:08:41] policy would cover.
[2:08:46] » I would move that we make a donation of
[2:08:47] $200 towards their request for the
[2:08:51] poster.
[2:08:51] » Okay. Uh so Lauren has moved to donate
[2:08:55] $200. I'm assuming from the counselor
[2:08:57] discretionary
[2:08:59] or from where would you like that to
[2:09:01] come from?
[2:09:04] Council donation.
[2:09:06] » Okay. From the council donation fund.
[2:09:09] » That's okay.
[2:09:10] » Yep. Okay. Uh so Lauren has made that
[2:09:13] motion. Is there any discussion?
[2:09:16] » Okay. I'll call the question. Those in
[2:09:18] favor? Opposed? That carries. Okay.
[2:09:21] Thanks, Lauren.
[2:09:23] Uh okay. I think that takes us to the
[2:09:26] end of our public meeting for now. We do
[2:09:29] have our 11:30 delegations. Uh we do
[2:09:32] have a few uh larger items to try and
[2:09:34] move through and close. So why don't we
[2:09:37] move into a closed session? I would
[2:09:38] entertain a motion to enter a closed
[2:09:39] session. Mark Mark has moved to go into
[2:09:42] a close session at 11:11 this morning.
[2:09:45] Any discussion
[2:09:46] called question? Those in favor
[3:28:59] Sound
[3:29:12] good? Okay. Whenever you're ready. Okay.
[3:29:15] We'll call the meeting back to order at
[3:29:17] 12:30 this afternoon. Uh we have two
[3:29:20] items remaining for discussion in close
[3:29:21] session. Item three, uh intermunicipal
[3:29:24] matters, ATIa section 26, disclosure
[3:29:26] harmful to intergovernmental relations.
[3:29:28] And item four, uh, CA report ATIA
[3:29:31] sections 19, 20, 28, and 29. So with
[3:29:35] that, I'd entertain a motion to enter a
[3:29:37] close session again. John John is moved
[3:29:39] to go to close session at 12:31 this
[3:29:41] afternoon. Any discussion? I'll call the
[3:29:45] question. in favor.
[4:26:57] out a close session. Uh, we have one
[4:26:59] item.
[4:27:01] Uh, John,
[4:27:04] thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move
[4:27:06] that Lethbridge County support the
[4:27:08] proposed Green Acres Foundation to
[4:27:10] borrow $10 million for the $26 million
[4:27:13] capital project of the affordable
[4:27:15] seniors apartment building at 105
[4:27:19] Kathina Boulevard West Lethbridge
[4:27:23] and that Lethbridge County understands
[4:27:25] that the request for $10 million in
[4:27:28] external financing requires ministerial
[4:27:31] approval and the Lebridge County
[4:27:32] acknowledges that under the Alberta
[4:27:34] Housing Act
[4:27:36] Uh member municipalities continue to be
[4:27:39] requisition to fund operating costs of
[4:27:41] seniors lodging facilities.
[4:27:45] John has made that motion. Is there any
[4:27:47] discussion?
[4:27:49] I'll call the question. Those in favor?
[4:27:52] Opposed? That carries. Anything else
[4:27:55] with our public meeting today?
[4:27:58] » Eric is adjourned at 128.