BARRHEAD – A County of Barrhead resident will receive a slight reduction in the bill to fight a June 4 wildfire on their Summerlea property near Thunder Lake.
Councillors decided to reduce the original bill of $1,000 to $750 following a discussion that included an in-camera session during their Aug. 16 meeting.
After Barrhead Regional Fire Services was dispatched via a 911 call June 4, firefighters were on the scene for a little over two hours, responding with its rapid attack vehicle, a tender, the two command vehicles and a personal vehicle.
County manager Debbie Oyarzun said the resident requested that the county review and reduce the bill citing extenuating circumstances, including that not all the firefighting was done on their property.
Under the county's Policy 23.02 (Fire Protection Service Charges), the municipality can charge residents 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 bylaw allows the county to charge the owner, occupant or person/entity in control of the property where fire control services were rendered, the person named in the fire permit, or, if known, the person(s) who started the fire.
"In this case, there was no permit, and we were not able to identify the person responsible for the fire, so it has to go to the landowner, occupant or who is in control of the property," Oyarzun said.
She added that BRFS fire chief Gary Hove and the landowner agree that the fire originated in the road allowance and spread to their property.
However, Oyarzun noted there is a discrepancy in how much of the fire was on the property in question and how much was on an adjacent, vacant lot.
"It was impossible for the fire department to determine where the property boundary was because of the trees and brush. They did not realize that they had crossed the property line," she said.
Oyarzun added it was only through a review and the use of overhead drone footage that they determined that the fire response could have potentially crossed a property line.
"But it is still impossible to tell how much of a sliver it went over," she said, recommending the council reduce the bill by 25 per cent cancelling the $250 remaining.
Deputy reeve Marvin Schatz had no issue with the recommendation but suggested they should be billing the other landowner.
"Do we know who the landowner is, where the balance of the fire was on? Why are we not billing them for the remaining $250, instead of cancelling it?" he asked.
Oyarzun said "it was not considered good customer service" to bill someone months after the service was provided.
"We are also using some discretion (the breakdown) could be 80-20. It is just too hard to make the exact determination," she said.
Schatz said he understood but felt it was unfair to bill one landowner and forgive another.
Coun. Bill Lane suggested that because of the uncertainty of the breakdown and because the fire wasn't the billed landowner's fault, the bill should be reduced even further to $500.
It was at this point that Oyarzun suggested that the discussion move in-camera.
"You are starting to look at legal implications to the bylaw in regards to the (Municipal Government Act) legislation," she said.
