For the kids - Crossfield Winterhawk Kayla Bell gets some pointers from her coach during a Tier 3 novice game on Hockey Day in Canada, Jan. 30, at the Pete Knight Memorial Arena in Crossfield. The 10th annual event, Canada’s unofficial hockey holiday, was sponsored by Tim Horton’s and the CBC. Photo: Covy Moore/Rocky View Publishing

---

County council addresses debt misconceptions
Shannon Woodward, Rocky View Publishing, With files from Covy Moore

Rocky View council sent its Wastewater Off-Site Levy Bylaw back to administration, Jan. 26, for a few tweaks in preparation for final reading in late February.

The bylaw stirred significant controversy in the past two months as residents expressed concern that the County was incurring a debt of $200 million, nearly four times the current level.

County staff and council were adamant the bylaw is not a borrowing bylaw, rather it is a bylaw allowing the County to recover money from developers when they connect to sanitary infrastructure.

A FAQ sheet distributed to interested parties earlier this month states that, "The total estimate of $200 million as set out in the bylaw provides an estimate of total infrastructure that would be required at full build out. The infrastructure that has been completed to date will meet the projected demand for some time so further expenditures will not be required until that capacity is used. Once additional capacity is required, the initial investment should be recovered through off-site levies."

"There is definitely a perception that this is indeed a borrowing bylaw but it is simply a tool to go out and assess the cost of the infrastructure to the individual developers when they come for applications," said Bryon Riemann, the County’s project delivery manager of Infrastructure and Operations.

An email circulated by concerned residents suggested Rocky View County was proposing a "new bylaw that will increase the debt for the Balzac-Langdon wastewater system to $200 million" from its original $41 million price tag.

"This is not a borrowing bylaw. At this point we don’t even have the capacity to borrow $200 million," said Councillor Mitch Yurchak.

"I understand the concern but if they had the facts up front and proper and weren’t misled, I wonder what the concerns truly would be. I have had many meetings and many conversations with lots of my constituents and we’ve talked through the issues. Those that seek out the truth and the facts are comfortable with what we’re doing."

Councillor Greg Boehlke added this bylaw is not new, the current form of this wastewater off-site levy bylaw has been in place since 2005 when construction began on the East Rocky View Wastewater system and has been reviewed and updated on a yearly basis since then with no reaction from stakeholders.

Long-time Springbank resident Jerry Arshinoff continues to oppose the bylaw and hopes the time between second and third readings will be used by councillors to reevaluate and recalculate.

"I think the idea is absurd. It is an extraordinary expense for a relatively small population. Furthermore, it would be safe to assume that the vast majority of the people who live in Rocky View don’t want it," he said. "It’s a mammoth project at a mammoth cost for a small population to take a risk on for something that nobody wants."

According to the FAQ sheet, Rocky View County has felt pressure for many years to obtain a non-residential tax base.

"As more and more people moved into the county, demand for additional services increased. Meeting this demand for service while avoiding tax increases was becoming more and more difficult so the County embarked on a strategy to diversify the assessment base. The main focus of the strategy at this time was the East Balzac area. The County reviewed many options for servicing this area and eventually it was decided to proceed with building the infrastructure and recovering the costs through the off-site levy process."

Reeve Lois Habberfield responded to concerns by affirming that development taking place in Rocky View is not for the personal benefit of County councillors but for the benefit of all residents.

"It’s not to benefit us personally, it is to benefit the tax situation and the County," she said.

"We have an 80/20 split. Most of our residential properties are carrying the bulk of the tax load. If this gets developed the way we plan it, the developers pay for the infrastructure and the benefit to the county and everybody that lives here is that we’re going to have some non-residential taxes that pay for the services that we want to give everybody as residents: better roads, community centres, libraries and on and on. That’s why we’re doing this."

See related column: "Full Cost Recovery for County"

More Headlines This Week ...