By Marianne Coe
Broadband
This continues to be a troubling topic both in Council chambers and in the community. At the January 11th Council meeting Councillor Ratcliffe brought forward 2 motions essentially promoting the opportunities for this new council to get further information on improving connectivity in the county. Throughout the discussion he was repeatedly being accused of pecuniary interest, most notably by the CAO at that time. While Councillor Ratcliffe does have a vested interest in Light Link Technologies, his motions were simply an attempt to suggest information opportunities that would enable this council to make potentially more beneficial decisions on broadband. No contract or actual business ventures were involved so the accusation of pecuniary interest was questionable.
In the end a motion to invite local ISP’s to make presentations to council was passed. We hope that these opportunities will provide council with valuable information.
In the meantime, we hosted Phil Swanson from Missing Link at our January 12th CCTA meeting. Missing Link currently operates 30 towers in Clearwater County and has 300 customers in our area. Here are some noteworthy points gathered from that meeting:
· Fibre optic cable is not the complete answer. It is very costly to install but definitely useful when towers aren’t efficient in our topography. A combination of both towers and cable is necessary.
· Starlink is currently putting up numerous Low Orbit Satellites and this is a positive venture. Future service may, however, become a problem as usage increases and weather interferes.
· The County is currently installing 144 strand fibre in its backbone projects while most ISP’s are using 24 strand. It is definitely questionable why businesses directly involved with broadband operations have found it workable to use a more reasonably priced product. Apparently 144 strand is 3 times as expensive.
· The need to put fibre optic cable all the way to Olds to connect to O-Net remains a HUGE question. Originally the need was “justified” to avoid “redundancy” and to ensure constant service should local providers “go down”. Currently there are 4 local internet service providers in Rocky (Bell/Axia, Shaw, Zao, and Telus). While they use only 2 “channels “ of fibre optic cable, the chances of a total malfunction by all 4 is highly unlikely.
Moreover, O-Net is in very serious financial trouble. As reported in the January 5, 2022 issue of Mountain View Today, O-Net currently has a “debt and a line of credit totalling $18 million” and its future is uncertain.
Why are we even thinking of spending $3-4 million of our tax dollars to put fibre in the ground to connect to an operation that might also end up “in the ground”? It is urgent that Council get complete accurate information on our current expenditures on this endeavor, along with O-Net’s future. Clearwater County taxpayers should not be on the hook for something we absolutely may not benefit from.
Fire Truck Purchase
A more recent issue has been raised regarding the purchase of a new ladder truck to replace a 20 year old unit. As this would be a purchase involving Clearwater Regional Fire Services, both town and county are involved.
This issue was discussed at length at the January 25th County Council meeting with excellent information and questions begin brought forward by both councillors and staff. It might be worth your time to watch the meeting on your computer.
The county has approved a budget of up to $1.8M for this purchase while the town is budgeting $1.2M on this shared responsibility. Although the need for replacement is recognized there are some questions that remain:
· Why is a 100 ft. ladder necessary, rather than the current length of 75 ft.?
· Why is a “Pierce” truck needed instead of the more reasonable “Rosenbauer”? (The comment has been heard that this is like comparing a Cadillac to a more reasonably priced GM product.)
· Would putting the procurement of this truck out to tender result in a better price?
This matter will be discussed further by an Intermunicipal Collaboration Committee and then brought back to each council for approval.
Municipal Development Plan
Council recently directed the Planning Department to review last year’s public engagement comments, make revisions, and bring back a revised draft to Council. The process for more public engagement is also being reviewed.
As mentioned earlier the CCTA had made a request under FOIP to get copies of the comments made during public engagement opportunities organized by the county. We did receive copies and presented the results at our January 12th meeting. We hope you enjoy the summary below. Option 1 included phone calls, letters, and comments made during the various meetings. Option 2 included comments made online and through social media.
SUMMARY OF OPINIONS RE THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
Import opportunity Supportive of Opposed to Supportive Opposed
MDP changes MDP changes of process to process
Option 1 43 100 0 47
Option 2 37 66 1 17
Total 80 166 1 64
Funny February Questions:
Who always has a date on Valentine’s Day?? A calendar.
What did one boat say to another on Valentine’s Day? Are you up for a little row-mance?
What did the ghost say to his valentine? You look so BOOtiful!!
Coming Events:
Wednesday, February 9, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, regular meeting
Wednesday, March 9, 2022, 7:30PM, Arbutus Community Hall, regular meeting
