RVC Council Update - Jan & Feb Meetings

Since our last update, council had several meetings.  Key events from these include:

• The January 28th public hearing to consider the revised Bearspaw ASP

• Three separate code of conduct discussions that revealed weaknesses in the investigation / reporting process

• Potential redirection of funding for recreation facilities

  
  

Bearspaw Area Structure Plan

In contrast to the Springbank ASP, the process to revise the Bearspaw ASP has largely aligned with residents’ preferences for how their country residential community should develop.  As a result, most of the residents speaking at the public hearing supported the ASP.  

There were some notable exceptions – residents whose properties were included in the ASP at the last minute without any consultation; a few residents who had lobbied unsuccessfully to have their properties identified for future commercial rather than country residential development; and lawyers representing the Ascension development who objected to the proposal to rescind its concept scheme as part of approving the revised ASP.

We have a lot of sympathy for the residents whose land became part of the “agricultural transition zone” in the last draft that came out a few weeks before the public hearing.  From our perspective, there should have been an opportunity to for them to provide their input before the public hearing.

In contrast, we have little sympathy for Highfield Development and its lawyers’ assertions that they were “blindsided” by the proposal to rescind the Ascension concept scheme.  That intention had clearly been part of Administration’s public engagement process since June.  If Highfield “missed” this, they have only themselves to blame as there was ample opportunity for them to provide input.  

While the Ascension concept scheme was approved by the previous council and by the CMRB (after Highfield committed to pay Calgary’s share of upgrades to the interchange at 12 Mile Coulee Road and Hwy 1A), its land use redesignation application was soundly defeated by the current council.  With the defeat of its land use redesignation and the revised Bearspaw ASP, Ascension’s proposed development would require significant restructuring to fit within the new ASP.  Given that reality, we see no logical reason to keep its old concept scheme “on the books”.

Next steps – the ASP was referred back to Administration to give councillors an opportunity to submit amendments based on what they heard at the public hearing.  The proposed amendments will be brought back for council’s consideration by the end of April 2025.  If those amendments are not substantive, the ASP will come back to council without a second public hearing.  However, if the proposed amendments are significant, as they were with the Springbank ASP, there should be a second public hearing, with the amendments distributed in advance for public input.  Stay tuned.

Code of Conduct – is the reporting process broken?

As we reported previously, council’s meeting in late November included a closed session to discuss code of conduct complaints.  Following that closed session, with no explanation, council made a broad-based apology to any employee who may have felt harassed or intimidated by actions of unspecified councillors. Council also amended the code of conduct bylaw to prohibit future complaints from anyone other than sitting councillors.

In another bizarre turn, the January 21st council meeting included an agenda item titled “code of conduct recommendations and training”.  The staff report, prepared by the CAO, presented the item as follow-up from the November meeting and recommended that, in response to reports from the Complaints Adjudicator, council should reconfirm its commitment to taking respectful workplace training.  

Councillors Wright, Hanson, and Samra questioned the process. The code of conduct bylaw makes it clear that the Complaints Adjudicator only reports to council when he concludes there has been a breach of the code of conduct and his reports are to be made public.  As Wright noted, there was no motion providing for this to happen.  After Reeve Kissel explained that they were given reasons in the November closed session as to why there wasn’t a report, council moved into closed session to continue the discussion.  When they returned, they agreed to defer further discussion until the next council meeting.

At the February 4th council meeting, in an attempt to finalize the matter, the CAO apologized and stated that the recommended training should not have been presented as being from a report by the Complaints Adjudicator.  

Hanson and Samra raised concerns about the process and stated that they wouldn’t be able to support the motion.  Samra thought the title “code of conduct recommendation and training” was enough on its own to explain his concerns.  Hanson agreed and further added that it was poor messaging to the public.  

In response, Councillor Boehlke stated that it was a “no-brainer” and the training was a recommendation from the Complaints Adjudicator.  And, Deputy Reeve Kochan stated that he didn’t know what you would call the agenda item other than a code of conduct recommendation.

Wright pointed out that council frequently takes training but doesn’t make motions before doing so.  She indicated that both Boehlke and Kochan’s comments made it clear that, if council needs a motion for this training, there must have been a breach of the code of conduct and that the training is the recommended sanction.  And, if that is the case, then the process is missing a key step – making the report from the Complaints Adjudicator public.

Hanson, Samra and Wright all clearly indicated they supported taking the training but voted against the motion since it contravened council’s code of conduct bylaw. The motion passed 4-3, with Kissel, Kochan, Schule and Boehlke supporting it.

From our perspective, the council majority’s treatment of this issue raises serious questions about why they are not following the process laid out in their code of conduct bylaw.  When the code of conduct process was revamped in 2022, council emphasized the importance of ensuring an independent assessment of complaints that reinforced council’s commitment to accountability and transparency.  Since there seems to be no doubt that council’s actions were in response to a complaint, the absence of a published report from the Complaints Adjudicator appears to violate all the principles they committed to when they revised the code of conduct process – the question is, why?

Given the shrouded cone of silence that this bylaw operates under, we don’t know if residents will ever know the answer.  What we do know is that the process is seriously flawed and with the elimination of the public’s ability to make complaints, what is the point?

Shifting ground on Springbank recreation facilities

At council’s budget meetings in the fall, the Springbank Park for All Seasons (SPFAS) presented expansion plans for an indoor turf field, requesting that it be included in the county’s current capital budget plans.  In response, council directed Administration to work with the SPFAS to bring a business case to the Recreation Governance Committee for its consideration.  The business case was presented at February’s Recreation Governance Committee meeting.

SPFAS is presenting its expansion plans as a substitute for the proposed Phase 2 of the Springbank recreation facility. The SPFAS’s plans include:

• An indoor turf field that can accommodate minor league soccer games, but which is anticipated to be used mostly for practices and training;

• Multi-use courts sized for competitive basketball that can be used for other court sports such as volleyball and racquet sports;

• A three-lane walking and running track around the perimeter of the court space.

The estimated cost of the SPFAS’s plans is $11.5 million, with the SPFAS covering 15% ($1.725M) of the total cost, leaving the County to fund the remaining $9.7 million.  As the SPFAS pointed out, this is much lower than the $18.2 million cost estimate for a county-led Phase 2.  This is true.  However, Phase 2 is not contemplated within the County’s 5-year capital plan.  Instead, the County has included $14 million in the 2026 capital plan to construct Phase 1 of the Springbank Recreation facility – the community centre.

When the SPFAS reps were asked if they had contemplated including the Phase 1 community centre in their plans, they indicated they had not.  They stated they envisioned the community centre as more upscale so that it could hold weddings and who wanted to hold a wedding while someone across the hall was playing pickle ball.  We find this perspective troubling since we had not thought the County was in the business of providing fancy wedding venues at the expense of functional and cost-effective community recreation facilities.

From our perspective, there are several unanswered questions that must be considered before any future decisions are made.  These include:

• Council and Administration have agreed that the existing Recreation Master Plan is flawed and needs to be reviewed, if not replaced.  So, why would the County commit to funding facilities that the Plan doesn’t identify as being needed for another 10 – 20 years.

• While the thought of new facilities may pique anyone’s interest, do ratepayers support doubling the County’s long-term debt over the next 5 years? This is what is estimated to finance the projected costs of planned recreation facilities and fire stations.  Not to mention the annual operating costs for the new facilities.

• Given the prevalence of multi-use community facilities elsewhere in the province, would it not make sense to examine the feasibility of combining the core community centre amenities with the proposed SPFAS facility, rather than funding an $11M recreation facility plus a $14M community centre?

• Is the SPFAS proposed expansion actually what Springbank residents want?  And, while it would be “nice” to have both, do they want these new recreation facilities more than a community centre or visa-versa?  Where did the assumption that we should build both now come from?

Both the SPFAS and Kochan asserted that the overall community supports the SPFAS’ plan.  However, the supporting evidence all came from sports organizations that will use the facilities, not from area residents and certainly not from all the other county residents who will also be paying for it.  It would be more persuasive if there was evidence for support from the broader Springbank and Rocky View community.

The last time Springbank residents were surveyed on their recreation “wants” was in 2017. Trails and pathways came out on top. The top-ranking indoor facility was fitness/wellness facilities, with courts ranked 7th and an indoor field ranked 10th on the list of priorities.  There’s no question that sports organizations in both Springbank and Calgary want more facilities, but what fraction of the overall Springbank community do they represent?

As an aside, we find it troubling that Kochan has no issue having county residents subsidize new recreation facilities in Springbank but objects to residents who are not connected to county utilities subsidizing utility rates for residents who are connected to these utilities.  We fail to see the difference.

To be clear, we are not against recreation improvements.  We simply recognize that there is only a finite supply of available tax dollars and that council should ensure that these funds are allocated in a fiscally responsible manner.

The current plan is for council to review the SPFAS’s proposal as part of the finalization of the 2025 budget, scheduled for early April.  It is not clear that any of these questions will be answered by then.