BARRHEAD - County of Barrhead council denied a resident's request to waive the firefighting invoice for Barrhead Regional Fire Services responding to a grassfire earlier this spring.
Councillors unanimously denied the request from the Camp Creek area resident following a discussion at their Aug. 19 meeting.
Under the municipality's Fire Protection Service Charges policy, the municipality can charge residents (or owners of land or other property) up to $3,000 of the cost of a Barrhead Regional Fire Services (BRFS) response. The county decided on the cap because councillors, at the time, believed that most insurance policies would cover $3,000.
The resident stated via a letter that on April 20, he was in the process of cleaning up the stumps on his parcel that he had burned over the winter, when he "pushed an old burn pile with his tractor," which exposed previously covered hot spots.
The resident added that while he did his best to extinguish the hot spots, they had lit a patch of grass on fire, which subsequently spread to a treed area.
"I knew I couldn't contain [the fire], so I called 911," he said, adding that if he had not called the emergency line, the fire department would have had to contain a much larger wildfire. "Now seeing a $3,000 invoice for making a concerning call to 911 and saving a forest fire feels wrong ... This was not an intentional fire."
The resident also asked that council take into consideration that he was a senior living on a fixed income.
County manager Debbie Oyarzun said although the municipality has a policy in place, it does allow some wiggle room, allowing council to forgive any portion of the firefighting costs.
However, she said, administration recommended council deny the request outright.
In this case, the county invoiced the resident the aforementioned $3,000 of the $3,775 firefighting costs.
She also said the resident's version of events differs from BRFS' version.
"Talking to the fire chief, he said it was apparent that the landowner was actively burning brush piles on the property [at the time of the offence]," Oyarzun said. "It wasn't just a flare-up from something that had taken place earlier."
She also noted, at the time of the fire, a fire control order was in place, instituted on April 14, prohibiting outdoor fires.
As a result, the county's community peace officer, at the request of the BRFS fire chief, issued a $250 fine to the resident for violating the Prevention and Control of Fires Bylaw (Bylaw 8-2013).
Oyarzun added that, regardless of the fire restrictions in place at the time of the fire, the resident was still in violation of the bylaw because he did not have a burning permit.
Coun. Ron Kleinfeldt agreed with administration's recommendation.
"As far as I'm concerned, we should just deny it. Burning without a permit, during a fire ban, it seems like the individual is someone who is looking for an excuse after the fact," he said.
Coun. Jared Stoik asked if the resident had ever had a burn permit, stating that his letter indicates the cause of the fire dates back to a burn conducted in the winter.
Oyarzun stated that the resident had never applied for a burn permit.
"If he had a permit, from when he was supposedly burning in the winter, I would feel more inclined to [reduce the invoice]," Stoik said.
Reeve Doug Drozd suggested the resident was fortunate not to have received a larger fine, noting that the resident violated the Prevention and Control of Fires Bylaw in two ways: burning during a fire restriction and burning without a permit.
Deputy Reeve Marvin Schatz noted it really did not matter what the circumstances were.
"Our policy states that if you have a fire, you pay the first $3,000. It doesn't matter if they had a permit or not," he said.
Schatz noted that the reason the council of the day selected $3,000 is that it was the amount most insurance policies would cover.
"[The resident is responsible for $3,000] and he can put that through his insurance. If he doesn't have insurance, that is totally up to him," he said.
Barry Kerton, TownandCountryToday.com
