Second reading of county fire services bylaw on hold

By Sharon McLeay Times Contributor

Wheatland County Reeve Glenn Koester contacted the provincial fire commissioner and asked for a review of fire policies in Wheatland County, the villages and regional fire associations in the Wheatland County area.
Koester said it was to eliminate any allegations that came up in the Aug. 14 council meeting, attended by various volunteer firefighters and concerned residents.
A reply from the commissioner stated that one of his roles is to provide regulatory, organizational, governance and compliance advice to municipalities and fire departments, according to provincial and federal regulations, but he requested a letter of consent from all parties involved. Council approved signing the letter on Wheatland County’s fire department’s review.
“He (fire commissioner) said this is a time of uncertainty with the new regulations that have come down, with OH&S and all,” said Koester.
Similar letters were sent to the other fire services and associations and two had signed and returned the letter by Sept. 4.
Rockyford Mayor Darcy Burke said they welcome a review of the Village of Rockyford and fire association policies and equipment by the commissioner’s office.
“We would do that as a joint effort to provide uniform service across Wheatland County for all ratepayers,” said Burke.
However, he took exception to the letter because it asked that they endorse the review for Wheatland County services.
Burke said they have no authorization to request that for Wheatland County-managed services, so could not provide signatures on the document.
“I cannot sign a letter asking the fire commissioner to investigate their operations in their own fire departments,” said Burke.
He also took exception to the wording of the letter, which described village councils and rural fire associations as “resistant.”
“This is not true,” said Burke. “Some concerns were noted prior to first reading. Those concerns were not addressed… there was no resistance. There were questions asked and comments made, as the bylaw is too heavily focused on operations and procedures, which should be covered in the fire service agreements.”
Councillor Ben Armstrong added information he had from telephone discussions and a board meeting with Dalum Fire and Hussar Fire. He also considered the input at the last council meeting as a public hearing.
“My understanding in all of this, and I could be wrong, is that they want us to revisit some portions of it (draft bylaw) but not the total bylaw,” said Armstrong. “My thoughts are we could put second reading on the table.”
He clarified that even after second reading there was room for additional slight adjustments to the bylaw. He considered that giving second reading would signal council’s intent to follow through with the bylaw and emphasize council is taking the bylaw seriously.
Councillors Jason Wilson and Amber Link said they would not support the move to second reading until a meeting with the affected parties was concluded on Sept. 11. Link said having second reading on Sept. 4 would be an additional slap in the face to affected parties. She reminded council of the county legal counsel advice for processes involved in making a bona fide decision.
Councillor Donna Biggar stated she agreed with the majority of the bylaw, but suggested moving forward with second reading on Sept. 4 would send mixed messages. She said council had asked for input and she wanted to hear what individuals had to say before moving to second reading.
Parkin reminded council that they passed a motion Aug. 14 in council to meet with the villages and fire associations prior to second reading and recommended the motion should be honoured.
Resistance came from other council members on the bylaw, those who don’t think the bylaw draft should be rewritten.
Councillor Scott Klassen indicated that there were parties outside of council recommending the bylaw should be rewritten and he could not support such a move. Councillor Tom Ikert said he would be 100 per cent opposed to rewriting the entire bylaw. He said he can only see some minor tweaks that needed to be made to the draft.
Link added a challenge to Armstrong’s expectations for the Sept. 11 meeting as an information only format, countering her hope for a collaborative meeting of shared information. She stated she didn’t think questions forwarded to staff before the draft came to council were answered and points weren’t clearly explained in the Aug. 14 meeting, leading to confused interpretations of the bylaw. Link and Wilson asked for more time to consider input in order to put forward the best bylaw possible.
Koester considered it might be prudent to put second reading on hold until the fire commissioner’s office can investigate and give advice, and council could consider comments that came up at the Sept. 11 meeting.