$68.6 million to be spent on Capital projects - for a city that keeps talking about improving transit - a lot is being spent on roads.

Budget 2018 ICONBy Staff

December 12, 2017



During the final city council meeting of 2017 Monday evening, the significant seven approved a Capital Budget spend of $68.6 million without as much as a word from any Councillor and no one delegating.

The ten year capital spending forecast is for $688 million.

The tax increase for 2018 is expected to be in the 4% range.

Seventy nine per cent of the 10-year capital budget will be invested in renewing Burlington’s aging infrastructure in accordance with the city’s Asset Management Plan.

A breakdown of spending for the 2018 capital budget of $68.6 million includes:

• $32 million, the largest component, for roadways
• $11.5 million for facilities and buildings
• $8.1 million for parks and open spaces
• $7.1 million in storm water management
• $6.1 million towards fleet vehicles and equipment
• $1.8 million for information technology
• $1.4 million for local boards (Burlington Public Library, Burlington Performing Arts Centre, Art Gallery of Burlington, Burlington Museums)
• $630,000 in parking.

Capital budget 2018

This is where the Capital spending is going to go – $68.6 million in 2018

City Council meetings are usually quite short – this one lasted 40 minutes. There have been council meetings as short as 20 minutes. The Mayor likes to move things briskly.

The electronic voting system the city used didn’t function – again. The Halton District School Board has a system that works exceptionally well.

During the discussion before the voting on different items there was mention of cycle tracks on New Street that were going to come in at $5 million.

The item is in the 2019 capital budget just as a place holder (it had to be put in somewhere was the comment heard off camera) – no date on when such a spend would take place. The decision to get rid of the road diet New Street was put on does not seem to have had any impact on how New Street is going to work going forward.

The buzz word was “active transportation for city roads.”

Council received and filed an update on the work being done on the Waterfront Hotel development plans. Councillor Meed Ward commented that this was a work in process and that there was still a lot to be done.

Councillor Craven added that he was pleased to see the high level of community input and added that is it “fair and appropriate to point out that this the property is privately owned.”

Traditionally this council has been much more robust in the way they wished their constituents all the very best for the holiday season and spoke glowingly on how much they had gotten done during the year and how well they had done their jobs – none of that grandstanding Monday night.

This is a somewhat subdued city council. As usual the tough questions came from Councillor Meed Ward.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 comments to $68.6 million to be spent on Capital projects – for a city that keeps talking about improving transit – a lot is being spent on roads.

  • Tom Muir

    It’s great to see others pointing out Cravens’ statement in favor of private property rights. As a resident of Aldershot, his Ward, I have come to see over the last few years that Rick has never met a developer he didn’t like.

    He constantly looks for ways to defend them, and is I believe, an encouraging and supportive representative of their interests, even going beyond, as far as possible, what the OP and bylaws call for as written.

    Last week, I went to a neighborhood meeting on a proposal for a 6 story condo at 92 Plains Rd, right on the edge of a long established Aldershot neighborhood.

    It’s totally out of compliance with the existing OP/bylaws, but is promoted as in alignment with city proposals for the Mobility Hub, which Craven ardently supports without any reservations, and the boundaries of which end at this property line.

    It was a raucous meeting. Nobody was happy, and many expressed this clearly and sometimes emotionally and angry. Lots of issues I won’t go into here.

    A negative impact on nearby property values from this gross mass are clearly evident. Yet, Craven argued to deny this, obfuscating the issue by demanding “evidence”, ignoring that any sense of real estate valuation would see this as obvious.

    Craven got called out a couple of times for not showing any support to residents, and for trying to undercut their concerns.

    The city planner in charge threatened to shut the meeting down if the rancor and heckling that ensued was not stopped.

    The position of Craven to my experience has become evidently one of rationalizing any development that comes down the pipe – one has been approved, and there are several coming.

    The observed lack of support for residents, and the putting down of their concerns, is standard operating procedure by Councilor Craven.

    It’s about time residents are waking up and pointing it out.

  • Stephen White

    Thank you Councillor Craven for another brilliant and incisive analysis!!

    In answer to your question “Yes” we know the property is privately owned… thank you for that stellar observation. We also know about by-laws, and Official Plans, and zoning regulations, and how our Council can’t, don’t or won’t listen to residents’ opinions and perspectives on the issue. And come next election, we will hopefully provide you and other members of this Council with a first hand introduction of what voter rage at the ballot box looks like. No acclamations this time around.

  • Susie H.

    Ho, Ho, Ho, to all, tis the Season!
    A comment to Councillor Craven’s quote of is it “fair and appropriate to point out that this property is privately owned”. Do believe we all know that, and the citizens also know that strict limitations to already set zoning bi-laws can be enforced should the planning department mandate a low rise and strategic placement of any development for this unique area.