Kevin Hanson – Division 1
Quick Bits
Council’s June 10 Recreation Governance Committee approved $47,615 toward the Roof Ice Risk Mitigation project at the Bragg Creek Community Centre, about half the total capital cost. Operating grants also went to Bragg Creek’s Historical Society, Artisans Society, Performing Arts Society, Trails Association, and Wild Society.
Later that evening I attended RVC’s open house for Draft 2 of the Bragg Creek Area Structure Plan. Turnout was excellent. I could not quietly eavesdrop at the staff stations, as several residents kept me busy in conversation.
Division 1 Survey Feedback
Rocky View’s 2026 citizen survey was conducted in February and March across the whole County. Overall, 1,489 residents responded from all divisions. Division 1 had 235 responses, the highest of any division. Thank you to everyone who participated.
I want to do a deeper dive on one question. In Division 1, 31% said the County / Council is moving in the right direction, 42% were unsure, and 27% said wrong direction.
I believe that split matters. Comments from the 27% of Division 1 respondents who selected “wrong direction” should be carefully considered but not treated as the only view in Division 1. The larger “unsure” result may be just as important, because it shows many residents are still deciding whether they trust the direction, process, or outcomes.
I am not reading every comment as being about Bragg Creek. Many are, especially around hamlet growth, servicing, seniors housing, and the Area Structure Plan. But taxes, service levels, fire protection, hydrants, Elbow Valley West, Springbank country residential development, road maintenance, policing, recreation pressure, and follow-through are all part of the wider Division 1 picture.
Among the 56ish Division 1 verbatim comments attached to “wrong-direction” responses, the following overlapping themes emerged – See table.
The key development takeaway is that residents are not uniformly pro-development or anti-development.
Among “wrong-direction” comments related to development, the split was almost even. Roughly half expressed frustration that we are under-developing: projects delayed, housing options limited, businesses constrained, utilities unresolved, and improvements not arriving quickly enough. The other half warned against over-development, or development without enough thoughtful planning, servicing, environmental protection, or respect for local character. We did not collect similar open-ended feedback from the remaining 73%, so I have to interpret the verbatim views cautiously.
From a resident point of view, these themes are connected. Housing, tourism, taxes, trails, and recreation pressure quickly become questions about water, wastewater, roads, fire protection, parking, emergency access, service levels, jurisdiction, cost, and local impacts.
Some concerns tie back to the Bragg Creek ASP. Some tie back to the Springbank ASP. Some belong to the County as a whole, the Province, third-party groups, or regional pressures. Residents still experience those issues locally, so the frustration is real even when jurisdiction is complicated.
For me, the practical path forward is to keep connecting the dots. Planning, servicing, roads, taxation, emergency access, environmental protection, and public trust cannot be treated as separate conversations. Residents need to see what is proposed, what is not proposed, where County authority ends, how we are advocating, and how public feedback changed the work.
Bragg Creek and the rest of Division 1 are not standing still. Growth should not be treated as a sterile planning exercise detached from character, safety, servicing, taxation, environment, and trust. The goal is a plan residents can recognize as careful, coherent, and locally grounded, even when they disagree with parts of it.
Contact: KRHanson@RockyView.ca or call 403.463.1166.
| THEME | APPROX # COMMENTS | RESIDENT CONCERN |
| Growth / character | 29 | Too much, too little, or wrong kind |
| Consultation / trust | 16 | Input heard and reflected on / used |
| Infrastructure / servicing | 15 | Water, wastewater, roads, sidewalks, internet, hydrants |
| Local attention | 13 | Smaller areas want follow-through |
| Taxes / value | 12 | Rising costs need visible value |
| Red tape / execution | 9 | Slow approvals frustrate both sides |
| Environment / rural character | 8 | Wildlife, wetlands, quiet enjoyment |
| Emergency access | 7 | Wildfire evacuation and road safety |
| Governance/representation | 6 | Accountability and local voice |
| Shared-responsibility issues | 5 | Healthcare, policing, provincial roads, Kananaskis pressure |
Free Classifieds