MD of Pincher asks to share bylaw officer

The MD of Pincher Creek has proposed sharing a bylaw officer with the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass.

At the Municipal Council meeting on August 15, the members of council deliberated on the MD of Pincher Creek’s proposal to share Bylaw Officers.

“[The MD of Pincher Creek] have now sent a formal letter from their council essentially asking for us to reconsider bylaw services, specifically for their animal control and noise bylaws. They indicated they typically receive one to five complaints monthly,” said CAO Patrick Thomas.

Councillor Vicki Kubik expressed reluctance to assign any of the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass bylaw officers to another district.

“Because of the busyness of our own town and the amount of interactions that we ourselves are witnessing, I would be reluctant to send our bylaw officer not knowing just how much time would be committed, how much of our time and resources would be tapped. I agree with municipal collaboration, but I’m not sure that this is a good idea to send our officers to another district,” said Kubik.

Councillor Dean Ward said he agrees with Councillor Kubik’s arguments. 

“We debated for a long period of time here about hiring an extra peace officer because of all the issues we’re having and to now go through that process and take that piece off and shuffle them off to the MD of Pincher. I’m not excited about that at all,” said Ward.

Mayor Blair Painter said he agrees with the regional collaboration, but in his experience, it’s a “one-sided” collaboration.

Councillor Lisa Sygutek said she was open to a three-month pilot project with the MD of Pincher Creek to share a bylaw officer as a gesture of neighbourly collaboration. 

The council decided to accept the request as information and form a letter of response to the MD of Pincher Creek.

There was a public hearing regarding a Land Use Bylaw text amendment to add “Fitness Centre” as a discretionary use in the Industrial District. No one came forward from the audience and the hearing was closed. The bylaw then passed both second and third readings. 

There was also discussion involving the need to expand the existing “Subdivision Marketing Sign” in the Land Use Bylaw to include the opportunity to market a future development that may not necessarily be associated with a subdivision. This bylaw amendment passed first reading.