Dear editor:
On July 14, Rocky View County (RVC) council took the ultimate step in selling out the interests of its residents - they actually voted for the new administration building. Not only did council agree to the previously advertised and greatly opposed $32M (intended for infrastructure), but they immediately and magically came up with an additional $10M.
The ultimate hypocrisy is the additional $10M will come from the Tax Stabilization Fund. Stability and RVC council decisions are opposites. In the weird and not at all wonderful workings of council, the immediate and not previously disclosed extra $10M is reasonable as it is the result of “public consultation.” To add insult to injury, the county has given assurances the final price tag will not exceed $42M. What if it does? The choice would be abandoning an incomplete building or a further injection of your money.
How believable is the claim of no cost over runs? We just had a cost over run of $10M and the project hasn’t even started. There are badly needed infrastructure needs all over Rocky View that have been on a wait list for years. You may now assume that bridge repairs in Division 9, road improvements in Division 6, flood mitigation in Division 1, stormwater ponds in Division 4, etc. will be waiting many more years to get proper attention. Even then you have to hope there will be no other infrastructure needs coming up over the next few years. When you are bouncing down an unkept road, trying to get decent ice time for your kids or watching your basement fill with water you can console yourself in the knowledge that soon your favourite councillor will have a nice office with a mountain view. This is costing the average RVC family of four an incredible $4,500 - and that’s on the highly questionable assumption there are no further cost overruns.
Council and administration will tell you that your infrastructure needs can still be met through the most inappropriately named “ tax stabilization fund” - code for adding to the $60M debt by further borrowing. Even then, the operative phrase is that your infrastructure needs “can still be met,” not that they “will still be met.”
Alternatively, perhaps the favoured LIT (Local Improvement Tax) may be imposed. Essentially, an LIT means your tax money goes for the administration building - if you want anything done in your neighbourhood, you have to pay for it yourself. Even then you will still see a significant tax increase.
Some people have told me there is nothing to be gained by pointing out problems unless I can simultaneously suggest a potential solution. While that advice does have some merit, it also presents a conclusion that I should not tell people what is really going on.
My job is to tell people what is going on. Since I have no control over how other councillors vote, I do admit I don’t have a concrete course of action for RVC residents, but a collective demand for the resignation of those who have sold you out might be a good start.
Jerry Arshinoff, RVC councillor
