A second Point of Order was called in as many weeks as councillors continue to question campaign donations and a perceived “bias” over voting for applications before council.
This time, Councillor Al Sacuta called a Point of Order over a perceived “bias” of Councillor Rolly Ashdown for taking a $2,000 campaign donation from the developer of the controversial Bingham Crossing Development in Springbank.
The 200-bed senior’s facility and commercial space development application was up for subdivision approval on May 13, but was stalled and pushed until the next council meeting (May 27) over a split vote to move past 5 p.m.
The first Point of Order occurred during the scheduled hearing to amend the DC Bylaw for the Watermark Development in Bearspaw that will allow access to 10 additional lots, Springbank Councillor Jerry Arshinoff called a Point-of-Order over what he described as a conflict of interest on April 22.
Arshinoff stated that three councillors – Bruce Kendall, Ashdown and Earl Solberg – could be perceived as “bias” because all three accepted campaign donations from Watermark Development LP.
Under the Municipal Government Act (MGA) the reeve is required to ask the councillors who have been identified as having a perceived “bias” whether or not, there are in fact bias on the application.
Reeve Margaret Bahcheli asked Ashdown if he had a pecuniary interest or was bias towards the Bingham application.
Ashdown stated that he did not have any bias towards the application.
“I don’t mind answering the question, but I’m getting tired of answering the same one,” Ashdown said.
Kendall asked Arshinoff if he could vote objectively on the Bingham application as he had submitted “numerous letters to the local paper in opposition.”
Arshinoff replied that he could vote objectively on the application.
“I absolutely am fair and open to anything and everything,” Arshinoff said.
“I think that everyone has the right to all the information.”
Bahcheli cautioned councillors to remain objective during council proceedings and to refrain from “childish behavior.”
“If we lose the public’s confidence, we are in dire straights,” she said.
“It is incumbent (upon us) to come across as honest and transparent. If there is a reasonable representation of bias, then it behooves us to address it, but if it becomes childish, then I will shut it down.”
Bingham stalled
With a packed council chamber, councillors reviewed the subdivision application for the Bingham development in Springbank.
The highly-controversial application – which comprises 185,000 square feet (sq. ft.) for senior housing and 270,000 sq. ft. for commercial/retail space - has been met with public opposition since the application came before council in 2012.
Questions were raised over ground water, wastewater, traffic patterns, spray irrigation system, property values and the ISL engineering report previously reported on by the Rocky View Weekly on May 5, which outlined areas of concern for the third-party reviewer.
Calgary’s ISL Engineering and Land Services conducted the review of the development project and any potential effects it could have on the surrounding environment, in particular water and wastewater discharge.
The report – submitted to Alberta Environment on Feb. 20 – outlined comments regarding the development’s affect on the area.
“Has Alberta Environment approved the spray irrigation system?” asked Arshinoff.
Byron Riemann, the County’s general manager of infrastructure and operations, explained that it hadn’t been approved, but is a condition of application’s success to move forward.
A spray irrigation system will dispose of treated wastewater by spraying it over a larger area of land.
Similar irrigation systems are used in Strathmore and the British Columbia community of Cranbrook, according to Riemann.
Arshinoff asked if the concerns raised by the ISL engineering report had been dealt with in the subdivision application, regarding “ambient noise and decrease in property values,” among others identified in the report.
“We’ve had discussions with ISL and their concerns have been addressed,” said Riemann, who added that ISL - after a meeting the County held May 9 – retracted their original concerns for the application.
The transportation upgrades required for the development included: a new westbound off-ramp from the TransCanada Highway onto Range Road 33, a new single-lane roundabout at Range Road 33 and the new ramp, right in/right out access on Range Road 33 at the west site access, a forced left-hand turn slot from the exit onto Township Road 250 and the ultimate closure of Commercial Drive’s access onto Range Road 33.
“Developers will be responsible for the transportation upgrade (now and in the future) or it will be funded by the Rocky View Transportation Levy,” Riemann explained.
“Is it true that administration wouldn’t have recommended approval (of the subdivision application) if it didn’t meet (RVC) standards?” asked Sacuta.
Matthew Wilson, senior planner with Rocky View County, explained that the application met RVC standards.
Bahcheli moved to extend the council meeting past 5 p.m., but did not receive unanimous approval, and therefore the motion failed.
Sactua and Arshinoff voted in opposition of extending the council meeting.
The Bingham subdivision will come back to council on May 27.
