2019 March « Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community

Freeze on development for one year in the downtown core is now in place.

By Pepper Parr

March 6th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

At a Special meeting of Council, on March 5, 2019, Burlington City Council voted in favour (on a 5-1 vote with Councillor Sharman absent) for a staff report recommending an Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL). The ICBL temporarily restricts the development of lands within a study area for a period of one year, with a possible extension of a second year.

The lands in the study area include the Downtown Urban Growth Centre (UGC) and lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station.

During the one-year “freeze” on development in the study area, the City will complete a land-use study to:
• Assess the role and function of the downtown bus terminal and the Burlington GO station on Fairview Street as Major Transit Station Areas
• Examine the planning structure, land use mix and intensity for the lands identified in the study area
• Update the Official Plan and Zoning bylaw regulations as needed for the lands identified in the study area.

Northern portion of the lands subject to the Interim Control Bylaw

Southern portion of the lands subject to the Interim Control bylaw.

The recommendation to implement an ICBL was brought forward by City staff in response to two primary concerns:

1. Growth pressures that continue to emerge for the lands in the study area
City staff are aware of multiple pending developments in the application review stage where the proposed intensities are significantly higher than those anticipated by the Official Plan. In addition, there are many other expressions of development interest and land assemblies taking place in the downtown Urban Growth Centre and in proximity to the Burlington GO station where the intensities being considered are substantially larger than what is proposed in the current Official Plan or the 2018 adopted Official Plan which is currently under review.

2. The role and function of the John Street Bus Terminal as a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA)
The John Street Bus Terminal is identified as a MTSA in the Province’s 2017 Growth Plan. Its designation as a MTSA was relied upon by the Ontario Municipal Board in its decision to allow a 26-storey development at 374 Martha St, citing that as a MTSA, the terminal could support intensities well in excess of those contained in the Official Plan. The terminal’s capacity to absorb the transit impacts of significant growth plays a critical role in shaping the mix of land uses and transit development within the downtown UGC.
That’s the official line from the city. It was quite a bit more complex than that.

What isn’t at all clear yet is – where did the initiative for this move come from? Things like this don’t just fall off the back of a truck. Someone at some point a number of months ago came up with the idea of a freeze on development.

Director of City Building Heather MacDonald with Jamie Tellier who served as Acting Director while MacDonald was on a leave of absence. MacDonald did all the heavy lifting during the Standing Committee.

Heather MacDonald, the Director of City Building, the Chief Planner, has been away on a pre-planned leave of absence of about two weeks.

The city retained Gowlings, a top line legal firm to provide them with legal counsel on the decision.

The interim city manager has been in place for a couple of months.

Who did the deep thinking? Who thought through the ramifications? Who took a long look at the possible unintended consequences?

And why did the Mayor ask: “What’s the rush”.

Let’s look at those unintended consequences. For anyone, that includes the owner of a single dwelling who might want to build a deck at the back of their property: nyat – nada – nope. You won’t be able to do that.
You can ask for an exemption – it wasn’t clear during the Standing Committee that you will actually be able to get one.

Amica had its plans for this massive development put on hold for at least a year. There will be some grief for a number of people involved in this development.

Amica, the retirement home operator who have plans for a major development before the city to build a mammoth development on North Shore Blvd at the ramp to the 403, learned that they are within the boundary and that they are not exempt. They have a deal in place with the individual owners of a large co-op, to buy all the units. That sale may not get completed. The delegation from Amica chose to be a little tight lipped when it came to details.

As for the study itself – there are going to be two of them – both running parallel. One – the ‘land study’ which starts tomorrow, if it hasn’t already started, the other is the work leading up to the next version of the Official Plan that the City Building department is working one. One is said to be “informing” the other; a new phrase we are going to hear often.

The Standing Committee heard that there are several “first steps” that will get underway on Wednesday. The terms of reference have to be set out and the possible sole source consultants that will be brought in to do much of the work for the city. This will be a large contract – $100,000 appears to be the starting number.

There are only so many consulting firms that can take on a job of this magnitude – there are a number of firms the city might want to steer clear of – no hint at this point on who might be chosen.

The interim city manager, the deputy city manager and the Director of City Building would be the people who would make the decision – they may have already decided who they want to go with.

No mention was made of any request for a proposal.

Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna asked what impact the freeze would have on Committee of Adjustment decisions. That committee won’t be able to make any decisions – a freeze will be in place.

The rules that govern Interim Control Bylaws allow the city to lift the freeze at any time. It also limits the freeze to a one year period with a possible extension of a second year and a possible extension for a third year.

MacDonald said that exemptions could be made but that would have to come before Council. She added that she did not recommend changing the boundaries of the study. Once the word was out everyone appeared to want the boundary changed.

What became clear was that the OMB decision made on the ADI development on Lakeshore at Martha was what prompted the decision to go the Interim Control Bylaw route. The city lost that argument before the OMB, in part because ADI’s lawyers argued that the existence of a Downtown mobility hub allowed for the height they were asking for.

The center of the Downtown Mobility hub.

That hub gets referred to as a terminal isn’t much more than a place where you can buy tickets and keep out of the cold. It has taken on an almost mythical force that a developer turned into a winning argument before the OMB.

The Planning department was blind-sided by the developer and the city is paying a price for the failure to be fully prepared.

That decision sent a signal to the development community that Burlington was more than open for business. The development proposals were coming in at an alarming pace – far more than the City Building department could handle. (They should have stayed with the former department title: Planning department.)

Thus the decision to put a freeze in place.

An oddity that came to the surface was that the city still has to accept development proposals. They still have to hold pre-consult meetings with developers and give them the list of the reports they will have to provide. A development application, even with the freeze in place, can go as far as the Statutory Public Meeting phase – the Planning Act requires that.

There was a concern expressed that the clock will still be ticking and that the city will get dinged by developer and taken to the LPAT (Local Planning Act Tribunal) for not meeting the 210 time frame within which to make a decision on a development application.

Heather MacDonald said that it was the view of the Planning department, supported by a legal opinion, that LPAT would dismiss any such application.

A large part of the pause the city wants to take with the freeze in place is to determine just what the future of the terminal on John Street is. At one point the Transit people wanted to shut it down and move ticket sales into city hall. That idea got squelched.

Bridgewater from the west - higher elevation

Bridgewater as seen from the lake.

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kerns said she would support the Staff Recommendation because it was clear that the City Building department was overwhelmed and had lost control of the planning process. She said that at one point the Bridgewater development was the city’s legacy project – at 22 stories it is being dwarfed by some of the newer development proposals.

The question as to what happens to the development fees that have been paid wasn’t really answered. Nor was there any clear direction on what happens to those developments that were past the Statutory meeting point. It would appear that they are frozen at whatever point they happen to be at.

The value that has been placed on properties adjacent to large proposed developments has shot sky high. Councillor Kearns said some residents are seeing tax bills that have doubled.

Councillor Galbraith didn’t like the look of the ICBL, voted no – Councillor Bentivegna and the Mayor voted for it.

It all came down to a 5-1 vote for the Staff recommendation with Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith voting against and Councillor Sharman absent for the second day in a row.

With the vote at the Standing Committee in place; they adjourned, turned themselves into a city council meeting and voted for the freeze then passed the necessary bylaw. It was a recorded vote with each Councillor having to stand and declare their vote – something new to the five newbies. Meed Ward told Galbraith to get used to being the lone dissenter – she had to do it for years.

Zap – everything was frozen.

Now we watch for the unintended consequences. This is a draconian bylaw that seemed to be necessary. Let’s get it right in as short a time frame as possible.

Will Burlington, this time next year, be “one of Canada’s best and most livable cities, a place where people, nature and business thrive”. Stay tuned.

Scobie on that Downtown Mobility hub

Wellness movement workshops facilitated by local artists at Performing Arts.

By Staff

March 5th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

It is a different kind of event.

Nice part is – it’s free – takes place at the Performing Arts Centre on Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 4 PM – 5:15 PM
series of FREE wellness movement workshops facilitated by local artists. These sessions will be fun, relaxing, rejuvenating, and a chance to reboot. This will be a time to delight in the diverse creative approaches and energies of four exceptional local artists.

Click for registration – which is mandatory.

Spring break at the AGB - lots to do.

By Pepper Parr

March 5th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

The Art Gallery as an interesting bunch of events for March Break.

They are all free and family-friendly activities.

Try your hand at the AGB Scavenger Hunt – sheets can be picked up at the AGB Shop or outside the Kid’s Studio.

Stop by the Family Activity Station in the Brock Lobby and take a closer look at all the mediums featured in Territories in Metal.

Grab a Family Activity Guide and do some colouring in your favourite AGB spot.

Explore six different exhibitions or check out one of the exciting demonstrations listed in the image below!

MARCH 9 Tapestry Weaving Workshop with Line Dufour | 11 AM to 4 PM in the Brock Lobby

MARCH 10 Felted Ball Workshop with Line Dufour | 11 AM to 4 PM in the Textile Studio

MARCH 13 Rug Hooking Demonstration with Lisa Meecham | 2 PM to 4 PM in the Brock Lobby

MARCH 13 Printmaking Demonstration with Tricia Rawlins | 2 PM to 4 PM in the Brock Lobby

MARCH 15 Photography Demonstration with Edward Eastman | 2 PM to 4 PM in the Brock Lobby

MARCH 16 Tapestry Weaving Workshop with Line Dufour | 11 AM to 4 PM in the Brock Lobby

MARCH 17 “Tokens” Workshop with Line Dufour | 11 AM to 4 PM in the Textile Studio

Housing for newcomers is a problem - the data focuses on where the problem is most serious

By Staff

March 5th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

Community Development Halton serves the community in a number of capacities. One is the raw information and statistical data it collects and interprets for use at the municipal level.

These “lenses” are produced on a regular basis – the most recent is on housing for new immigrants.

Housing and employment are the two most cited challenges faced by newcomers1 to Canada. For new immigrants, finding suitable and affordable housing is vital to their successful settlement and integration into the community. This Community Lens takes a closer look at newcomer’s housing need challenges in Halton.

Between 2011 and 2016, Halton received over 20,000 immigrants from all over the world. Over two-third (66.6%) of newcomers were admitted as economic immigrants, 27% were sponsored by family and 6% were admitted as refugees.

Newcomers are twice as likely to live in tenant households (30%) compared to 15% for the general population. Newcomers are also more likely in core housing need. According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), a household is said to be in ‘core housing need’ if its housing condition falls below at least one of the adequacy, affordability and suitability standards and the household would have to spend 30% or more of its total before-tax income to pay the median rent of alternative local housing that is acceptable (meets all three housing standards). Housing standards are defined as:

• Adequate housing is housing not requiring any major repairs
• Affordable housing costs less than 30% of the total before-tax household income
• Suitable housing has enough bedrooms for the size and composition of resident households

Planners want to impose a freeze on development in parts of the downtown core.

By Staff

March 5th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

The bylaw is pretty clear, almost blunt and it has $100,000 behind it to, get the work done “expeditiously”.

The task is to:

Assess the role and function of the downtown bus terminal and the Burlington GO Station as Major Transit Station Areas, including assessing the existing and long range planned transit service for the Study Area and the connections between the two respective MTSAs;

Examine the planning structure, land use mix, and intensity for the lands identified on attached schedules. (These are the maps included in the Staff Report.

Update the Official Plan and Zoning By-law regulations, as needed, for the lands identified.

Delegate authority to the City Manager in conjunction with the Director of Finance, the ability to single source or sole source work for this initiative that may exceed $100,000, allowing staff to begin the Study expeditiously.

To do all that the city wants to put a one year freeze on all development within a designated area. They will use an interim control by-law to permit the development freeze. That bylaw they want to have council pass states:

Notwithstanding any other by-law to the contrary, no person shall, for the lands identified on Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto:

a) use any land, building or structure for any purpose whatsoever except for a use that lawfully existed on the date of the passage of this By-law as long as it continues to be used for such purpose; or

b) be permitted to construct, alter or expand any building or structure, save and except where such construction, alteration or expansion is an outcome of a site plan application currently in process on the date of the passage of this By-law that is fully in accordance with the approved zoning bylaw. Site plan applications received for lands within the study areas include: 374 Martha Street, 490-492 Brock Avenue, 421 Brant Street, and 442 Pearl Street.

This By-law shall come into force and take effect immediately upon its passing by Council and shall be in effect for a period of one year from the date of passage of this By-law, or until such time that the Study is completed to the satisfaction of the City Council, unless this By-law is otherwise extended in accordance with the provision of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P.13, as amended.

The Municipal Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the giving of notice of the passing of this By-law, in accordance with the Planning Act.

This means those developers with projects that have yet to be approved will be getting a letter in the mail.

Planners asking council to put the brakes on development.

What does it all mean? The city has put the brakes on the number of development applications being put before the Planning department – with the exception of the four that are exempted because they are in the site plan phase.

Anything else is on hold while the city figures out what it wants to do with the Urban Growth Centre boundary and the Downtown mobility hub that has been a contentious issue almost from the day it was dropped on us.

The Planning department explains:

“The need for an interim control by-law is due to staff concerns with the cumulative growth pressures quickly emerging in the Urban Growth Center and on lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station that are requesting intensities significantly higher than anticipated by the Official Plan.

“The proposed study area includes lands that are within the Urban Growth Centre and lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station. The interim control by-law will allow the City the opportunity to complete a land use study.

“An interim control by-law would ensure that new developments within the Study Area will be informed by the City’s transit, transportation and land use vision for the Study Area. The recommended interim control by-law will ensure the City can realize the following objectives as set out in the City’s 2015-2040 Strategic Plan:

“An interim control by-law puts a temporary prohibition or limitation on the development of certain lands while a municipality is studying or reviewing its land use policies. This “freeze” can be imposed for only a year, with a maximum extension of a second year. In accordance with the Planning Act, there is no ability to appeal an ICBL when it is first passed; however, an extension to an ICBL for the second year may be appealed.

“The Planning Act provides that an ICBL remains in effect if the new zoning regulations resulting from the ICBL are appealed. The Planning Act also sets out that when an ICBL ceases to be in effect on certain lands, a subsequent ICBL may not be imposed on those lands for a period of 3 years.

The part of the downtown core that will be subject to a development freeze. There are more detailed maps below.

“lCBLs are an important planning instrument as they allow a municipality to reconsider its land use policies by suspending development that may conflict with any new policy. ICBLs can also be exercised in situations where unforeseen issues arise, as a means of providing breathing space during which time the municipality may study the issues and determine the appropriate planning policy and controls for addressing the issues under study.

“The 2017 Growth Plan identifies an Urban Growth Centre as an existing or emerging downtown area and mandates a density target of a minimum of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare. It is noted that there is a minor discrepancy in the boundary for Burlington’s Urban Growth Centre (UGC) when comparing between the city’s current and in force Official Plan and that of the Halton Region Official Plan. For the purposes of this interim control by-law, the boundaries of the UGC as shown in the Halton Region Official Plan will be used to establish the boundaries of the study area relating to the UGC.

The northern part of the study area.

The southern part of the study area.

The 2017 Growth Plan defines a Major Transit Station Area as:
“The area including and around any existing or planned higher order transit station or stop within a settlement area; or the area including and around a major bus depot in an urban core. Major transit station areas generally are defined as the area within an approximate 500 metre radius of a transit station, representing about a 10-minute walk.”

This is part of the transportation system.

The 2017 Growth Plan defines Higher Order Transit as:
“Transit that generally operates in partially or completely dedicated rights-of-way, outside of mixed traffic, and therefore can achieve levels of speed and reliability greater than mixed-traffic transit. Higher order transit can include heavy rail (such as subways and inter-city rail), light rail, and buses in dedicated rights-of-way.”

“The 2017 Growth Plan does not define a Major Bus Depot.

Is this part of the “higher order” of transit?

“It is also noted that amendments to the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) policies are currently proposed by the Province in Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan. For example, the area around a Major Transit Station Area where intensification may be supported is proposed to be increased from 500 to 800 metres.

“In the context of the UGC and lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station, staff are concerned about the role and function of the Downtown John Street Bus Terminal as an MTSA as set out in the 2017 Growth Plan, and as relied upon by the Ontario Municipal Board (0MB) in the Adi Decision for 374 Martha Street.

“While the concept of an MTSA has existed since the emergence of the 2006 Growth Plan, the 2017 Growth Plan differentiates between those MTSAs located along a priority transit corridor (such as the GO Transit rail network) and those that are not. For those MTSAs located along priority transit corridors, the Growth Plan assigns prescribed minimum density thresholds of 150 residents and jobs combined for lands served by the GO Transit rail network. It is noted that this density threshold is less than the minimum density threshold of 200 persons and jobs combined as ascribed to the UGC by the 2017 Growth Plan.

“For all other MTSAs, the Growth Plan directs municipalities to plan and design these to be “transit-supportive” in accordance with Section 2.2.4.8 of the Growth Plan. Transit supportive is defined by the Growth Plan to essentially mean compact mixed use development that has a high level of employment and residential densities.

In order to get a better grip on development in the downtown core the planners are asking city council ti impose a freeze on development for one year.

“The 2017 Growth Plan does not include minimum density thresholds for transit supportive MTSAs that are not located on a priority transit corridor.

“While the Terminal is located in the UGC and a number of bus routes connect to it, it generally would not be considered to be “higher order transit” as would a GO Transit Station (for example: Burlington GO Station) or a conventional subway station as is the case in the City of Toronto where significant transit ridership occurs.

“The Study will allow for a detailed examination of the future planned function of the Terminal, which is a critical element of planning justification for the Downtown precinct framework which is absent in the Official Plan. The Terminal comprises a potential key land use element of the Downtown, and in staffs view, pursuant to the Adi Decision, is emerging as an unanticipated driver of residential intensification which may be unjustified, and which has not been planned for in the context of community and infrastructure services.

“Studying the appropriate role and function that the Terminal should play is critical in shaping the final pattern and mix of land uses and transit supportive development within the UGC and is consistent with MTSA policies.

“Moreover, given the close proximity of the Burlington GO station to the northern part of the UGC, it is prudent to study these two MTSAs and the areas around them in concert as they could have a direct influence on one another.

“The Growth Plan has steadily promoted the intensification of development within settlement areas since its inception in 2006. The 2017 Growth Plan has placed additional importance on intensification and transit through prescriptive policies targeting all UGCs and MTSAs. This is readily apparent from the Decision of the 0MB in the Adi case for 374 Martha Street. The 0MB held that compliance with the provincially prescribed minimum density target for Burlington’s UGC is not entirely sufficient; that the provincially prescribed target for the UGC is but a minimum, which municipalities should not hesitate to exceed, subject to good planning. Moreover, lands located within the boundary of the downtown MTSA deserve even higher densities.

“The City strongly objected to this Decision and requested a Section 43 review by the 0MB. The Section 43 Decision was released on November 5, 2018, and dismissed the City’s appeal for a re-hearing.

The OMB approval of the ADI development threw all the long term thinking in the air. The Director of Planning at the time missed a major opportunity to change the way the original hearing was proceeding.

“The Adi property is located within the Downtown Core Precinct which has a maximum height limit of 8 storeys in the Official Plan. Contrary to the Downtown Core Precinct policies, the 0MB approved a height limit of 26 storeys for the Adi property. The Adi Decision causes serious concern as it throws into question the merit of the established land use framework of the current and in force Official Plan for allocating and distributing the Growth Plan’s mandated density target within the UGC and the Terminal’s capacity to absorb the transit impacts of such unanticipated growth.

“When the boundary for the UGC was defined, staff’s best estimate at the time indicated that at build out, the densities prescribed in the current and in force Official Plan could meet the target set by the Growth Plan.

“With the incorporation of Adi’s recently approved density, together with other pending development applications that are requesting intensities higher than anticipated by the current and in force Official Plan (or the 2018 adopted Official Plan now before the Region for approval and currently under review), staff are concerned about the cumulative growth pressures quickly emerging in the UGC. At the Adi hearing, the Terminal was seen to be an MTSA that supports intensities well in excess of those contained in the Official Plan. Moreover, the OMB’s view was that by not approving the Adi proposal, it would be contrary to MTSA policy of the Growth Plan.

A portion of Growth Plan policy reads as follows:
“Within all major transit station areas, development will be supported, where appropriate, by …
d) prohibiting land uses and built form that would adversely affect the achievement of transit supportive densities” After considering the Adi decision, and the reliance that other developers in Burlington will place on the downtown MTSA as a rationale for additional intensity, it is imperative that the role and function of the Terminal in concert with the Burlington GO Station, be determined as part of a land use study.

“The Study will provide certainty as to the future use of the Terminal and in turn, provide staff with the planning justification to undertake any policy refinements which may be warranted, both to the study area and to the City’s urban structure as a whole. Clarity respecting the long term structural role of the Downtown as an intensification area will also assist in setting infrastructure priorities for the City as a whole, including the land in proximity to the Burlington GO Station.

“The findings of the Study will facilitate an examination of the mix of land uses within the study areas and the role of their respective MTSAs in these intensification areas. The Study will also assess the existing and long range planned transit service for the study areas and the connections between the two respective MTSAs.

“Considering the two study areas together will inform staff and Council on the future planned function of the Terminal with regard to transit supportive development.

Developer is requesting intensities that are well in excess of those anticipated by the current and in force Official Plan. James at Martha

“There is an urgency that this Study proceeds as soon as possible as cumulative growth pressures in the UGC continue to escalate. Planning staff are aware of multiple pending developments in the application review stage such as 2082-2090 James Street, 409 Brant Street, 2069-2079 Lakeshore Road, as well as other expressions of high density development interests in the UGC and on lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station, which similar to Adi, are requesting intensities that are well in excess of those anticipated by the current and in force Official Plan (or the 2018 adopted Official Plan now before the Region for approval and currently under review).

Development proposed for south east corner of Brant and James.

“It is noted that there is an appeal of the application at 409 Brant Street, which at the time of writing this report is scheduled for a case management conference in summer 2019. Staff are also aware of a number of major land assemblies within the UGC where higher than prescribed intensities are anticipated to be applied for over the next few years.

Land Use Study Exemptions
“Applications for site plan approval fully in accordance with the approved zoning bylaw, received prior to the date of the passage of this by-law, on lands within the study areas shall be exempt from this by-law given that most of these developments have received planning approvals by the OMB/LPAT or Council.

“At the time of writing this report, site plan applications received for lands within the study areas include: 374 Martha Street, 490-492 Brock Avenue, 421 Brant Street, and 442 Pearl Street. No new site plan applications for lands within the study areas will be processed from the date of the passage of this by-law.

Nautique will rise at the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha.

The Carriage Gate development – The Element will get built across the street from city hall.

“Staff recognizes that there are some existing uses such as low density residential within the study areas that will be affected by the ICBL and they will be prevented from being altered or expanded during the term of the Study.

“There are some downsides and perhaps unintended consequences. “Potential financial matters as an outcome of an interim control by-law will likely include: reduced planning development application fees and revenues, reduced building permit and construction activity, reduced development charges received, and deferral of Capital Works projects within the study areas.

“Given the need to proceed expeditiously with the Study, this report recommends that the City Manager be delegated the authority for single or sole source the required work should the value exceed $100,000.
“The Study will require collaboration with the Transit and Transportation Departments to ensure the function of the Terminal aligns with the planning structure of the UGC and lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station. It will also provide greater clarity to the Capital Works Department when predicting life cycles and investments for various city assets within the study areas.

“No notice is required prior to the passing of a by-law for an interim control by-law however, notice has been provided for the proposed interim control by-law. Notice of passing of the interim control by-law shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act.

Conclusion:
“Given the implications of the recent Adi Decision and its reliance upon the MTSA status for the approval of 26 storeys, which is beyond the density level established in the Official Plan, and the above-noted significant development pressures, staff recommends that an interim control by-law be passed as outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. The interim control by-law will provide sufficient time for the Study to examine the planning structure, land use mix, and intensity for the lands within the study area. It is planned that this Study would be initiated immediately by staff in order that there be an expeditious planning process in 2019.”

This gets debated at a Standing Committee meeting this afternoon. Assuming the recommendation coming out of the meeting is to go forward – the Standing Committee will become a city council meeting and the by law will be passed.

Would it be fair and reasonable to cal this a Bold move?

The community needs the regional government to invest in enough subsidized housing to reduce wait times for women at risk that can be measured in weeks - not years.

By Andrew Drummond

March 4th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

From the left: Councillor Bentivegna, Mayor Meed Ward, Councillors Paul Sharman and Lisa Kearns

Halton Women’s Place held their annual fundraiser gala recently. It was a delightful affair with 413 attendees including politicians of all levels and parties. Part of the event was a live auction where one of the “items” being auctioned off was an evening party with a number of gentlemen from the Oakville Fire Department. It was a touching gesture (which raised $3,000) and was a wonderful way for the department to give back to the community.

However, as the department’s spokesperson took the stage to extol others to bid on them, he told the crowd about some startling statistics about Halton Women’s Place and the work that they do and the constraints that they work under. The most alarming statistic was that the shelter only has 52 beds and that as a temporary shelter, the majority of their residents are being transitioned to a full time, safe housing. This process used to take six to eight weeks, but now can take up to six to eight MONTHS.

There is such a lack of affordable housing in Halton region that a woman fleeing violence with her children can wait up to eight months in a shelter.

Within the HWP annual reports, an even more troubling trend appears. In 2014, the shelter housed 270 women and 211 children for some period of time over the year. The report also noted that “766 women did not receive shelter due to capacity”. In 2014, the shelter only was able to serve 39% of the need in the region. Compared to 2018 however, 2014’s 39% was a success. As a result of the reduced availability of safe, affordable housing in Halton, in 2018, HWP was only able to serve 173 women and 183 children. They no longer list the number of women turned away in the annual report, but only being able to assist 74% of their 2014 number cannot be a good sign.

There are two critical issues then, which need to be addressed for our community to be able to successfully assist women fleeing violence and abuse. First need Halton Women’s Place needs a stable source of funding.

Second Halton Region needs to ensure there is adequate housing for women to transition into. From the chart below, over the last 5 years, the level of funding from government sources has increased at less than the rate of inflation (8.2% total). As a result, HWP has increasingly relied on private funds to make up the gap in funding.

Fortunately for the shelter, the public has responded (+45.4% over 5 years), but raising private money is time consuming and unpredictable and forces HWP to devote its efforts away from its primary focus – helping abused women.

The second critical issue to alleviate the pressure on HWP is to increase the availability of subsidized housing across Halton Region. On the Region of Halton website for subsidized housing, there is an ominous note about wait times for subsidized housing.

“It is not possible to provide a specific wait time. Criteria used to place individuals and families changes regularly. Halton Region must follow provincial government regulations, which means the date on your application is not the only information used for placement on our wait list. The waiting time can sometimes take several years for units highest in demand…”

Finding affordable housing can take years. Hundreds of women fleeing violence are turned away from shelters in our region because of overlong wait times for safe, subsidized housing. This is simply not acceptable.
Turning battered women away is one part of the issue, but the longer wait times also have an impact on the women who do get into the shelters. One of the most important things these women need at this time is stability. They and their children are rebuilding a life, and the months they have to wait to start it is a significant strain on everyone. Permanency is a requirement for building a stable new life.

In its recent 2019 budget, the Region of Halton proposed a 1.9% tax increase for regional services. Regional Chair Gary Carr has taken to social media repeatedly to boast of “delivering an average property tax increase of 0.7% for Regional Services from 2007 to 2018, while maintaining or enhancing core services.” All of these increases fall below the rate of inflation. In other words, overall, Halton is collecting less tax to provide services and the end result has been, wait times for subsidized housing increasing year over year.

Community level support was evident. Can’t say that much for the support from the Regional government.

The question is then, why is sufficient safe, affordable housing for our community’s most vulnerable people not considered a “core service”? There is clear evidence that the region is providing far less than what is required by its citizens and yet tax increases are still being kept below the rates of inflation. There is hope however, in 2018 Burlington elected a slate of progressive city councillors that are determined to work to support the more vulnerable among us.

But the effort needs to come from all levels of government. Our community needs the provincial government to increase shelter funding to at least the level of inflation. Our community needs the regional government to invest in enough subsidized housing that the wait times can be measured in weeks and not years. And our community needs the city to live up to its commitment to its most vulnerable.

In 2017 in Halton there were 3,156 police calls for domestic violence. And in Halton we only have 52 shelter beds for the women who made those calls.

Burlington's reserve accounts: how many are there, what are they used for and how much money is in them?

By Pepper Parr

March 4th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

The city of Burlington has tonnes of money squirreled away in bank accounts. Some of the money is ear marked for specific purposes. Other reserve funds are there to be used for almost any purpose.

The city’s reserves got a lot of attention during the recent budget deliberations. In a number of instances funds from a reserve fund were brought in to the 2019 budget to cover an project expense.

That there is now a bit of a struggle for control of those reserve funds became evident during the budget debates where sharp differences from the Interim city manager, the Director of Finance, Councillor Sharman and the Mayor. That debate ended with the chair of the budget committee promising not to raid the reserve accounts in the future.

In a document from the Finance department they explain that “Reserve Fund Assets are segregated and restricted to meet the purpose of the reserve fund. Investment income must be accumulated in the reserve fund and be accounted as part of it.

“There are two types of reserve funds: obligatory reserve funds and discretionary reserve funds. The following table provides a summary of our reserve funds and their purpose,”

Development Related Reserve Funds:
Development Charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from development of the area to which the By-law applies. – (By-Law No. 46-2014)

Central Park

Park Dedication
For funding parkland acquisition and other recreational purposes in accordance with governing legislation and municipal policy. (By-Law Nos. 147-1993, 57-2005, 70-2005)

Public Benefits
Funding to be utilized only for facilities, services and other matters specified in the policies of the official plan and Sec. 34 regulations as enacted and as more particularly set forth in the signed agreement between the City and developer. – (By-Law No. 15-2017)

Vehicle Depreciation and Replacements
To accumulate funds to be used for the purpose of funding replacement requirements and/or purchase of vehicles, equipment, accessories through the Capital Budget process. – (By-Law Nos. 140-2002, 141-2002 & 142-2002)

Transit Related Reserve Funds
Transit Inter-Regional/Capital to accumulate funds to be utilized for Transit Inter-Regional Capital Projects or other Transit related capital requirements as approved by City Council. – (By-Law No. 62-2002)
For the accumulation of monies to finance future transit capital requirements.
(By-Law No. 61-2002)

Transit Capital
For the transfer of funds from the Provincial Fall Economic Statement (2007) Funds for municipal transit capital expenditures. – (By-Law No. 33-2008)

Gas tax funds cover the cost of new vehicles.

Provincial Gas Tax
For the accumulation of monies received from the Provincial government under the Dedicated Gas Tax Funds for Public Transportation Programs. – (By-Law No. 123-2004)

Federal Gas Tax – Transit Dedicated
To accumulate funds to be used according to guidelines established within the Municipal Funding Agreement. – (By-Law No. 149-2006)
Transit Shelters Funds for use in the construction of Bus Shelters. – (By-Law No. 72-1992)

Burlington Hydro Proceeds
Used to capture interest and dividend payments to the City as the sole shareholder. The funds are used for capital renewal projects as well as provide funding to the Current Budget. – (By-Law No. 34-2001)

Capital Purposes
Contributions from the Current Budget are held in this fund before they are required in the capital program. Provisions to Capital from Current are made annually. (By-Law No. 2-1991)

Infrastructure Renewal
For funding minor reconstruction of roads, creek work, facility or building retrofit and repairs and technology replacement. Provisions from the Current Budget are made annually. (By-Law No. 116-1996)

Information Technology Renewal
For funding capital renewal of the City’s information technology Systems and infrastructure. (By-Law No. 109-2015)

Federal Gas Tax
To execute the Municipal Funding Agreement for the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenue under the New Deal for Cities and Communities between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Corporation of the City of Burlington. (By-Law No. 109-2005)

Aldershot public art - Waterdown and Plains #1

Public art on Plains Road

Public Art
To fund future expenditures related to the acquisition, installation, deaccessioning, maintenance, preservation, restoration, and collection management of the City’s Public Art Program. (By-Law No. 89-2004)

Railway Crossing
For funding future railway crossing improvements and possible new grade separations budgeted in the Capital Budget. (By-Law No. 33-1997)

Joseph Brant Hospital
In December 2009 Council approved a municipal contribution of not more than $60 million toward the JBH Phase I Redevelopment plan. (By-Law No. 28-2010)

Strategic Plan
For funding the delivery of the initiatives identified in the City’s 2015-2040 Strategic Plan. (By-Law No. 46-2016)

Strategic Land Acquisition
The accumulation of funds for the acquisition of land. (By-Law No. 56-2008)

Severe Weather
To accumulate funds primarily for the purpose of alleviating the fiscal impact of unforeseen or uncontrollable fluctuations in costs associated with severe weather events. (By-Law No. 60-2010)

Tax Rate Stabilization
To alleviate the fiscal impact on the city’s budget and tax rate as a result of unforeseen or uncontrollable fluctuations in budget expenditures and revenues. (By-Law No. 35-1994)

Building Permit Stabilization
For the accumulation of monies to stabilize building permit revenues. (By-Law No. 27-2005)

Planning Fee Stabilization
For the accumulation of monies to stabilize planning and development revenues. (By-Law No. 29-2005)

Engineering Fee Stabilization
For the accumulation of monies to stabilize engineering revenues. (By-Law No. 28-2005)

Commodity Stabilization
To alleviate the impact of unforeseen or uncontrollable fluctuations in commodity costs. (By-Law No. 06-2016)

Employee Accident
Required by agreement for funding Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) claims and related expenses incurred by the City as a Schedule 2 employer. (By-Law No. 25-1994)

Benefits
Fund consists of premium rebates from the insurance carrier, used to make various payments relating to the provision of benefits to staff. (By-Law No. 26-1993)

Economic Development
Used to fund economic development initiatives designed to capitalize on significant business recruitment opportunities. (By-Law No. 26-1998)

Waterfront Centre
For the accumulation of monies received from net surplus from the indoor operations of the Waterfront Centre as well as the net surplus revenues from the waterfront parking lots parking program for the capital renewal, capital enhancement and debt repayment of the Waterfront Centre. (By-Law No. 66-2015)

Paletta mansion

Paletta Mansion
For the accumulation of monies received from the net operations of the Paletta Mansion for the capital renewal and capital enhancement of the Paletta Mansion. (By-Law No. 64-2015)

Tyandaga Facility
For funding capital improvements to the municipally owned Tyandaga Golf Facility. (By-Law No. 4-1991)

LaSalle Park Pavilion
For the accumulation of monies received from the net operations of the LaSalle Park Pavilion for the capital renewal and capital enhancement of the LaSalle Park Pavilion. (By-Law No. 63-2015)

Senior’s Centre
For the accumulation of monies received by way of surcharge from facility rentals, program registrations, memberships and/or donations at the Burlington Senior’s Centre to support the capital renewal of the Burlington Senior’s Centre. (By-Law No. 65-2015)

Sports fields
For the accumulation of monies received by way of surcharge from facility rentals and/or unrestricted donations at Artificial Turf Fields, Sports Fields and Passive Parks (“Sports Fields”) to support the capital renewal and capital enhancement of these Sports Fields. (By-Law No. 61-2015)

Haber Community Centre
For the accumulation of monies received from the naming rights to Haber Recreations Centre to support the capital renewal and capital enhancement of the Haber Recreation Centre. (By-Law No. 67-2015)

One of several gymnasiums at the Haber recreation centre.

Recreation Centre
For the accumulation of monies received by way of surcharge from facility rentals, program registrations, memberships and/or unrestricted donations at Brant Hills Recreation Centre, Haber Recreation Centre, Mountainside Recreation Centre Community Rooms, Rotary Youth Centre, Tansley Woods Community Centre Gyms and Community Rooms, Sherwood Forest, Ella Foote Hall, Lowville School House (“Recreation Centres”) to support the capital renewal and capital enhancement of these Recreation Centres and the related program amenities. (By-Law No. 58-2015)

Pools

Beats the heat doesn't it? Your tax dollars at work.

Swimming pool. When the Nelson pool equipment failed funds to replace everything came from a reserve fund.

For the accumulation of monies received by way of surcharge from facility rentals, program registrations, memberships and/or unrestricted donations at Aldershot pool, Angela Coughlan Pool, Centennial Pool, LaSalle Pool, Mountainside Pool, Nelson Pool and Tansley Woods Pool (“Pools”) to support the capital renewal and capital enhancement of these Pools and the related program amenities. (By-Law No. 60-2015)

Arenas
For the accumulation of monies received by way of debt repayment from ice and room rentals at Aldershot Arena, Appleby Arena, Central Arena, Mainway Arena, Mountainside Arena, Nelson Arena and Skyway Arena (“Arenas”) for the debt repayment of Appleby Ice Centre. (By-Law No. 62-2015)

Culture
For the accumulation of monies received by way of surcharge from facility rentals, program registrations, memberships and/or unrestricted donations at Music Centre and Student Theatre (“Cultural Facilities”) to support the capital renewal and capital enhancement of these Cultural Facilities and the related program amenities. (By-Law No. 59-2015)

Funds for the Burlington share ($2.3million) for Randall Reef that had to be built to encase years of toxic waste in Hamilton Harbour we kept in a reserve fund.

Randal Reef
For the accumulation of monies for the purpose of providing the City’s and Region’s contribution to ensuring the successful implementation of sediment remediation efforts for Randle Reef, by way of agreement with Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Environment, City of Hamilton, Hamilton Port Authority and US Steel Canada Inc. (By-Law No. 25-2013)

Downtown Streetscape
Funds for use in improving streetscaping in the downtown core area. (By-Law No. 108-1994)

Community Heritage
Funds provided by the Ministry of Culture and the City to provide financial assistance to owners of designated properties. (By-Law Nos. 128-1985 & 16-1993)

Mundialization Committee
To provide funding for reciprocal gifts for the City of Burlington’s twin, Itabashi, Japan. (By-Law No. 89-1995)

Naval Memorial

The Naval Veterans Promenade will pass right in front of the Memorial.

The Naval Memorial; a prominent part of Spencer Smith Park.

Fund provided for the purpose of funding future expenditures related to the maintenance, preservation, restoration and management of the Naval Memorial Monument. (By-Law No. 81-2009)

LaSalle Marina
Funds collected from the sale of slips to be used for the capital replacement of the LaSalle Park Marina. (By-Law No. 17-2005)

Policy Initiatives
For funding corporate and departmental policy initiatives. (By-Law No. 106-2015)

Culture Initiatives
For funding expenditures to facilitate opportunities for enhancing city-initiated cultural programs. (By-Law No. 107-2015)

Energy Initiatives
For funding energy initiatives deemed to be feasible and in line with City objectives relating to energy conservation. (By-Law No. 108-2015)

Community Investment
For funding solely towards supporting future community initiatives approved through the Community Investment Policy. (By-Law No. 115-2015)

Sims Square
For the accumulation of monies received from the net operations of Sims Square for the capital renewal and capital enhancement of Sims Square.

Forestry
For Funding expenditures related to the preservation of City of Burlington’s tree canopy from invasive species and diseases such as Emerald Ash Borer, Gypsy Moth and Dutch Elm. This includes treatment programs, removal and replacement of impacted trees, and related coordination and communication costs. (By-Law No. 105-2015)

Parking District
For funding capital improvements to parking lots within the City. (By-Law No. 3-2007)

Downtown BIA
For the purpose of funding future capital projects and future tax rate stabilization. (By-Law Nos. 39-1997 & 99-1999)

BEDC Operations & Marketing
Funding for programs relating to the Downtown Partnership and the Burlington Economic Development Corporation. (By-Law No. 161-1993)

BEDC Innovation Centre
Funding to be used to alleviate the impact of unforeseen operating expenses or for capital purposes such as for renovations, improvement and equipment that will benefit users of the centre and most be approved by the Burlington Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors, or otherwise approved by Council. (By-Law No. 32-2018)

Library Board
Contributions from the Current Budget are held in this fund before being required in the capital program for Library purposes. (By-Law No. 70-2003)

Tourism Burlington
For the accumulation of monies to be used to cover Current Budget shortfalls and for special projects after the Current Budget has been expended. (By-Law No. 69-2006)

Museums Board
Funds for use in the acquisition of artifacts and for capital improvements to the Joseph Brant and Ireland House Museums. (By-Law Nos. 20-1990, 21-1990, 22-1990 & 143-1991)

The transformed Brant museum is scheduled to open in July.

Museum Board – Joseph Brant Transformation Project
Funds to be used solely for the purpose of funding the Joseph Brant Museum Transformation Project. (By-Law No. 56-2014)

Burlington Performing Arts Centre
For the accumulation of monies received from net surplus revenues from the operations of the Burlington Performing Arts Centre. (By-Law No. 55-2015)
Burlington Performing Arts Centre – donations
For donations contributed to the Burlington Performing Arts Centre. (By-Law No. 54-2015)

Burlington Performing Arts Centre – capital
For capital repairs, rehabilitation and renewal of the Burlington Performing Arts Centre. (By-Law No. 50-2015)

Trumpeter Swan photo contest winners.

By Staff

March 4th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

Burlington is blessed with some of the best geography in the world; on family day hundreds of people showed up to walk amongst the Trumpeter Swans and watch these beautiful creatures strut about.

It was our pleasure to sponsor a photo contest and a delight to report on the event. We got this idea off the ground in less than three days – working with the Trumpeter Swan Coalition was a pleasure” said Gazette Publisher Pepper Parr.

The Trumpeter Swan Coalition did the judging and is pleased to announce the winners of the Family Day photography contest. The photos were taken on February 18th during the annual Meet the Trumpeters event at LaSalle Park in Burlington hosted this year by the Ontariogreen and BurlingtonGreen, in conjunction with The Coalition and the Trumpeter Swan Restoration Group.

First place prize went to Amanda Kerr for “Beauty and Grace”.

“There were so many beautiful photos submitted it was almost impossible to select just three,” said Liz Benneian. In the end, the Coalition chose photos that were very different from each other and that highlighted varying aspects of the Trumpeters and their winter habitat. Altogether 65 photos were submitted by 24 photographers.

The 1st place winner was a photo by Amanda Kerr called “Beauty and Grace”. Captured in the moment as two Trumpeters display, this photo expresses the beauty and grace of the swans at home within both the natural and man-made environment of Hamilton Harbour. Kerr’s winning photograph will be framed and presented to the City of Burlington.

Amanda is an animal nutritionist at the University of Guelph where she earned both a Bachelors and a Master degree. She is currently employed at the university. Amanda has been a serious photographer for just over a year. She used Cannon body with Sigma telephoto lens. She opened her lens at 55.6 and used a shutter speed of 1/4000th’

Prior to getting some heavy duty equipment Amanda was a point and shoot photographer. Her weekends are out hiking and looking for that just right photo opportunity.

Cathy Monrow. Iceberg Harbour (2nd Place)JPG

Cathy Rowcliffe – Iceberg Harbour

The 2nd place winner is a photo by Cathy Rowcliffe called “Safe Harbour”. It is a beautiful wide shot, with great depth of field that illustrates what a wonderful winter habitat the harbour at Lasalle Park is, not only for Trumpeter Swans, but for ducks, geese and all manner of water birds.
Cathy is a Burlington resident who has been taking pictures for a number of years. She loves getting out with her grandson and her camera.

Mary Lyn Hopper – Swans over Hamilton

The 3rd place winner is a photo by Mary Lyn Hopper called “Despite everything, they persevere”. This photo demonstrates the resilience of nature, and of the Trumpeter Swans in particular, who have fought their way back from the brink of extinction and have managed to survive despite human’s continuing assaults on the environment.

The Coalition also gave special recognition to photographer Jennifer Howard’s stunningly beautiful photo of two swans at the snow-covered lake’s edge called “Snow Birds”.

Jennifer Howard – Snow Birds

A sampling of the many other photos submitted will be showcased on the Trumpeter Swan Coalition’s Facebook page and in the Gazette in the weeks ahead.

The Gazette intends to sponsor the Family Day Trumpeter Swan Photo Contest for the next five years. Gazette Publisher Parr said: “Community is what people do where they live. Watching hundreds of people mingling with the swans and hearing the story about how this close to extinct species of birds was saved is what gives the city a large part of its character.“

“The Coalition thanks our partners and sponsors and especially all those who came out to enjoy LaSalle Park and learn more about this important over-wintering habitat for Trumpeter Swans and many other kinds of wildlife,” said Benneian. “LaSalle Park is a very special place and critical to the survival of the Trumpeter Swans that have made a comeback from near extinction. Having such a wonderful place in its own backyard is a real bonus for Burlington.”

Truth to Power - A Requiem for Indigenous Reconciliation? Did she throw the baby out with the bathwater?

By Ray Rivers

March 2nd, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

If I’d been prime minster of this great land I might have done some things differently. For starters I would have kept my promise to bury the undemocratic first-past-the-post electoral system. Preferential balloting for 2019, then an information campaign leading to a referendum on proportional representation as was recommended in the last parliamentary committee on electoral reform.

I would have applied the carbon tax universally across Canada and used the proceeds to remove the HST (federal portion) on electric vehicles, electric heating and appliances, and to help defer the costs of provincial renewable energy production.

And I wouldn’t have shuffled Jody Wilson-Raybould (JWR). She is a formidable force to reckon with, as anyone watching her carefully crafted testimony before the Justice Committee last week could see. She spoke straight-up and convincingly from detailed notes, though some of the most damning quotations were only from secondary sources.

Jody Wilson-Raybould: She spoke straight-up and convincingly

She said that nothing which had transpired was illegal. She had never been directed against her will, and while she sensed what she called ‘veiled threats’, no one had actually threatened her with anything. She simply got annoyed after some 11 people had asked or urged her to reconsider her position. Then she was shuffled to a different Cabinet position, but she could not talk about that. It was covered by Cabinet confidentiality.

So she spoke her ‘truth to power’, which according to Wikipedia is “a non-violent political tactic, employed by dissidents against the received wisdom or propaganda of governments they regard as oppressive, authoritarian or an ideocracy.” Is that really how Jody Wilson-Raybould saw the government she had been such a big part of for the last three and half years? And was that the political party of which she still wants to remain a member?

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and his nodding fellow Tories.

The Commons Justice Committee will not resolve anything substantive against the PM, it has a Liberal majority after all. The Ethics Commissioner will not find that Mr. Trudeau’s actions were intended to benefit him personally. And the RCMP will ignore the idiotic request by Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and his nodding fellow Tories.

JWR, or Puglaas as she is considered in her native culture, will be expelled from the Liberal caucus at an appropriate time and may return to her earlier work as regional chief of her first nation. Or having had a taste of partisan politics may look to join one of the other parties.

Either of the other major parties would likely welcome her. She might be more comfortable, though, with the NDP, and Jagmeet Singh would, no doubt, embrace her. Though, despite his recent victory in Burnaby South, some of the NDP membership might wish it were her rather than him as leader.

Justin Trudeau recruited JWR. There was history between their fathers. And though she never actually served in a specific Cabinet role related to her aboriginal background, he must have seen her assisting with his goal of achieving indigenous reconciliation. We know that she was at least marginally engaged in that issue. The Clerk of the Privy Council mentioned that there was some friction between her and other ministers on that file.

Reconciliation is more than making amends for the residential schools fiasco.

Reconciliation is a complicated matter and evades a single or simple definition. But it is more than making amends for the residential schools fiasco. Trudeau had been hoping we would finally get beyond the 1867 Indian Act – the most discriminatory piece of legislation in Canadian history, if we ignore what happened with WWII Japanese – Canadian interment. With JWR out of the picture, reconciliation is likely to be on the back burner until after the election, or perhaps even longer if Andrew Scheer becomes the next PM and follows Stephen Harper’s approach.

It would be interesting to see a poll on how Canadians feel about SNC Lavalin and whether it should have to go to court or be allowed to plea bargain it’s way out of its two decade old corporate bribery charge, in otherwise corrupt Libya.

JWR decided to support the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and force SNC to run the gauntlet of a trial. She must have known that her party, and likely those on the other side as well, would have preferred to see a remediation agreement – the way this kind of crime is handled just about everywhere else.

But she chose a red line – a hill to fight for and hold. And she may have won the battle. The PM cannot possibly get his new AG to override the DPP after somebody leaked this story to the Globe and Mail, and all that has transpired since.

But somebody else needs to ask who leaked what appears to be Cabinet confidential information. They would likely be in violation of section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act given that you’d have to be there to get this kind of detail. So perhaps it wasn’t the whole Truth to the power that we heard.

Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.

Background links:

SNC Deal – Truth to Power – Indigenous File –

Reconciliation – Cabinet Confidence –

A city council that has shown it can work together and achieve good things: let us hope it lasts.

By Pepper Parr

March 1st, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

The shift that has taken place in the way city council works now is almost seismic.

Burlington voted for five new council members in October. Two of the five were the result of former councillors who decided not to run again. The other two were defeated at the polls.

The Mayor lost his chain of office – Marianne Med Ward now wears that symbol of office.

The 2010 to 2018 Council was almost always mean spirited – the Mayor was not able to change the culture of that Council. Meed Ward’s relationship with then ward 1 councillor Rick Craven was close to toxic; Meed Ward often felt her personal safety was at risk. The Gazette didn’t see it that way, however they certainly didn’t get along.

The 2019 city council – seven people quite pleased with themselves – they have every reason to be proud of what they ave done so far.

Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman was almost as bad as Rick Craven – they seemed to feed off each other with former Councillor Lancaster following along and former Councillor Dennison, who should have known better, let them get away with it.

Marianne Meed Ward was determined that this was not the way the city council she was to lead would work. She made that abundantly clear during the final meeting of the 2010 – 2018 city Council.

The question was: Could she pull it off?

Too early to be definitive but if what we are seeing so far – it is and will continue to be a much more collegial and effective city council.

Meed Ward gets to laugh from time to time.

When she realizes after hearing what staff and other Councillors have to say that her opinion needs to change – she is direct and forthright – and changes her mind.

She is also challenging staff in a way they have not been challenged for the past ten years. This is really healthy. There is certainly some chatter amongst the Directors as to how she inserts herself into a situation – they will get over it and come to realize that they are fortunate to have a Mayor who will actually lead.

Meed Ward still has some work to do on getting her council members onside. In an important vote related to the Randall Reef work being done in Hamilton, Meed Ward said she wanted her colleagues with her on this one. The motion passed but it was one of those 4-3 votes Burlington used to see every council meeting.

Councillors Lisa Kearns, Paul Sharman and Kelvin Galbraith did not vote with her on the item which had to do with using reserve funds money for a short period of time.

Randall Reff - The secomnd worst environmental waste depsoit in the country is pretty close to home isn't it

Randall Reef – The second worst environmental waste deposit in the country had to be cleaned up: Burlington paid $2.3 million over ten years.

Randall Reef is a three government level undertaking to bury tonnes of toxic sludge in Hamilton Harbour. Burlington is in for $2.3 million, Hamilton $6 million – the Region and federal government in for the balance.

The most socially liberal spend came from Councillor Sharman who said free transit for people who do not have enough money to live on “is the biggest gift we can give them” put the expense in the base now.

The Region uses a formula that is made up of LICO + 15%. The low income cut-offs (LICOs) are income thresholds below which a family will likely devote a larger share of its income on the necessities of food, shelter and clothing than the average family.

Thus a household with one person will be eligible for the free transit if their income is below $29,139.

The cut off point for larger households is set out below.
1 person 29,139
2 persons 36,276
3 persons 44,597
4 persons 54,147
5 persons 61,412
6 persons 69,262
7 persons or more 77,113

There were some extraordinary decisions made at the Standing Committee meetings this week. They should hold up at the Council meeting at the end of the month.

Related news stories:

Meed Ward – final 2018 Council meeting.

Randall Reef

Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette

Private Tree Bylaw now in effect within the Roseland; maximum fine $100,000

By Staff

March 1st, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

City Council has been toying around with a private tree bylaw for years.

A tentative toe in the water step has been taken – now we wait to see how the public reacts.

This glade of trees on the east side of City View Park is to be cleared of these trees to create space for the construction of Maintenance space. BurlingtonGreen didn’t think this was necessary.

There are the tree huggers who argue that no one owns a tree – we are just stewards of one of God’s gifts – here to take care of the tree while the tree takes care of us.

On the other side there are those that see the tree as their property and no one is going to tell them what to do with their property.

And if someone wants to cut the tree down because they are tired of raking up the levees cutting down that tree is their right.

With a “pilot” private tree bylaw in place we now get to see what the Luddites actually do.

Private Tree Bylaw is now in effect within the Roseland community area, for two years. During this time, consultation will be facilitated by the Roads, Parks and Forestry Department to investigate the feasibility of rolling out the bylaw city-wide. At the end of the two-year pilot, a decision will be made by council to make the bylaw city-wide as-is, make changes to the bylaw or cancel it.

The pilot project protects private trees with diameters larger than 30 cm, historic and rare tree species from damage or destruction.

Two information sessions were held; one for residents of the Roseland Community and one for the general public. The presentation from the information sessions can be found at burlington.ca/privatetree.

About the Private Tree Bylaw

Within the Roseland Community, no person can injure, destroy, cause or permit the injury or destruction of a tree with a diameter of 30cm or greater or of a tree of significance (historic or rare).

To read the full bylaw, including information on permits, exemptions and fines, visit Burlington.ca/PrivateTree. The document is ten pages in length.

Roseland tree boundaries 2019

Examples of exemptions include:
• Trees with a diameter of less than 30cm
• For the purpose of pruning in accordance with Good Arboricultural Practices
• For emergency work
• If the tree has a high or extreme likelihood of failure and impact as verified or confirmed by an Arborist or the Manager
• If the tree is dead, as confirmed by the Manager of Urban Forestry, or designate
• If the tree is an ash tree (due to the Emerald Ash Borer), as confirmed by the Manager of Urban Forestry, or designate
• If a tree is within two metres of an occupied building
Permits

A person wanting to remove a tree with a diameter larger than 30 cm or of significance can apply for a permit online by visiting Burlington.ca/privatetree.

Fines
Minimum fine is $500. Maximum fine is $100,000.

That $100,000 fine will be the talk of the cocktail circuit in Roseland.

Steve Robinson, Manager of Forestry, the guy who is going to have to oversee this one did say that: “As this pilot progresses, we will be looking at what is working, what isn’t working and if any changes are needed. Once we have enough information to make an educated decision, we will present our findings and recommendation to council. We want a system in place that protects our trees and is manageable from a staffing perspective but doesn’t infringe upon property owner rights or slow development.”

Links and Resources
Private Tree Bylaw Pilot (project page)

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: