Kneehill County council wants more information about a proposed bridge replacement before making a decision, or possibly undoing a decision made by the previous council. The discussion was held at the Nov. 12 regular meeting of council.

Councillors read a request for decision presented by Manager of Operations Andrew Philips regarding a bridge that is in need of replacement. “Bridge file #13480 (SW-36-33-25-W4M) is a three-span standard bridge located south of Highway 587 on Range Road 25-1,” stated the written report to council.

“This bridge file has a very low structural rating (33.3 per cent) and is proposed for replacement in 2026. Design of the replacement structure was approved in the 2025 capital budget.

“The Alberta Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Program (STIP) helps fund rehabilitation and maintenance on bridges and bridge-sized culverts on municipal roads. Typically, funding is only available for bridges with a structural rating of 44.4 per cent and lower. If the application is successful, provincial contributions could be up to 75 per cent of eligible costs.

“The advancement of this project is contingent upon whether Kneehill County revises STIP funding. If funding is not received, the project will not move forward in 2026 and the county would look to apply for STIP funding again in late 2026.

“The estimated construction cost of this bridge replacement is $2,983,968. If approved, the county would contribute $754,992 from the roads reserve while the remaining $2,237,976 would come from provincial STIP funding.”

It was noted several times at the meeting the previous council already approved moving ahead with this project by agreeing with the engineer’s recommendation of a three-span bridge instead of a twin-culvert option. Readers should note no information about the twin-culvert was included in the Nov. 12 agenda, likely for this reason.

Reeve Lonnie McCook disagreed with this approach however, stating he wanted to examine the culvert proposal before making a decision. The reeve stated he felt this way because he wanted to ensure the new bridge was wide enough for farmers to get equipment across.

Philips stated he had data from engineers about what the culvert option would cost, but didn’t have it with him and would have to send it to councillors later. It was stated by staff several times at the meeting the price of a triple-span bridge and twin-culvert option were actually quite close, but Philips stated he could’t remember the exact price.

Coun. Richard Hoppens, stating he’s had questions about this bridge from the public, agreed with McCook by saying the new bridge should be wide enough to accept farm equipment with no problems. Hoppens also pointed out the bridge in question has a large tree growing right next to it that should have been removed a long time ago as it causes access issues.

Hoppens also felt the culvert data should have been included as he refused to make a decision about grant funding until he saw such data. “I think we as a council need to have all information in front of us, not presented to us later,” said Hoppens.

As noted, a previous council already agreed to proceed with the triple span option with the question before the current council a decision to apply for grant funding.

Coun. Lowell Olson asked if the STIP program has a deadline, to which staff replied Nov. 30. Readers should note if such deadlines are missed, applications must wait for the following year’s program.

Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Mike Haugen pointed out this project doesn’t necessarily have to move forward in 2026, and reiterated that the previous council approved the triple span option contingent with STIP funding approval. Haugen also noted engineers, when making their recommendation for a triple span bridge, saw it as the preferred option because the price tag was similar to a twin culvert while a triple span has a longer life span.

McCook noted he felt councillors needed to look at all options regarding this bridge. Coun. Darcy Penner stated he hesitated to revise programs six months or a year into planning in this way.

Coun. Merle Anderson responded that councillors should make the decision they felt was right regardless of whether a program is affected or not.

Coun. Olson asked if engineers took into account the suitability of a triple-span bridge for agricultural equipment and staff responded yes, they did.

Councillors passed a resolution to have staff bring back more information about the twin-culvert option to their Nov. 25 regular meeting.