 By Pepper Parr
December 15, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
There will be some heavy reading for the newly elected Council. Director of Finance Joan Ford is going to deliver a copy of the Budget book to Council members December 23rd. It is usually a thick publication.
 Citizens meeting at the Art Gallery and going over a budget that has basically been decided. Burlington’s version of citizen engagement. The Budget book will come in two versions; one based on the format used previously and another in the new Service Based Budget format that will focus on Results Based Accountability.
The city has done two surveys – asking people what they want in the way of services and what they are prepared to pay. There was a survey done with the members of the Insight Panel and another that could be answered by anyone who was prepared to take the time to go through the document.
Getting a grip on what the public wants and what the city can afford to spend is the challenge this year. In the past we heard Mayor Goldring put out a number on what he wanted to keep the tax rate increase at – he’s not said anything about what he wants to see for 2015.
At a previous meeting of the Corporate and Community Services Committee the Mayor did mention that “we are in the ditch to the tune of $2 million”.
 Joan Ford, the city’s Director of Finance knows where every dollar comes from and where every dollar gets spent. When the money she needs is not forthcoming – she refers to that as an “unfavourable variance”. Director of Finance Joan Ford came back with a reply that only an accountant working for a bureaucracy would utter: Ford explained that the amount was not $2 million but $1.8 million and that it was an “unfavourable variance”.
Try that one in the private sector.
The shortfall is the result of delays in getting funds from the province to cover the cost of cleaning up after the ice storm LAST Christmas. The public sector does move at a different pace.
The early version of the claim the city was making on the province was for $2.9 million which included money spent by the Regional government. There was apparently a conversation between the city and the Region – suggesting perhaps that the Region do their own paper work?
It has been the city’s practice to hold a public meeting after the budget was basically set. A slick booklet was prepared for those taking part in the public meeting, usually held at the Art Gallery of Burlington.
City hall staff now realizes that the Burlington boundary doesn’t stop at the QEW and is looking into the possibility of holding public meetings at Tansley Woods and or at the Haber Recreation Centre.
 By Pepper Parr
December 9, 2104
BURLINGTON, ON
Marketing organizations and local governments want to know what you think.
In the case of the marketing types – we know their game – they want to sell us something.
With local government – the game isn`t the same. As far as they are concerned – you are already a customer and you aren`t going to the competition – because there isn`t any.
 Regional government offices at one end of the complex, Regional police at the other end. Halton Region creates a panel of 36 people each year and runs a series of questions by the panel,
The Regional government holds a “civic lottery” Lottery to find 36 local residents to form a Citizens’ Reference Panel. Invitations to form the panel were mailed to residents across the Region last week. Panel members will help determine which issues, services and programs matter most to the people who live and work in Halton.
Their insights, along with input from the broader community, will help the newly elected Regional Council develop a strategic work plan and set out priorities for the next four-year term.
Calling the Regional Council now in place “newly elected” is true but a bit of a stretch – of the 21 members of Regional Council only three are new to that level of government.
Same people – they will probably arrive at the same conclusions.
Regional Carr explains how the panel works. “Every four years Council works in consultation with stakeholders to gather feedback on the areas that matter most to Halton residents and businesses.
“Members of the Citizens’ Reference Panel have a unique opportunity to hear directly from Halton staff and local experts. Armed with a solid understanding of Regional services and processes, Panelists play an invaluable role in helping to shape the future of Halton Region.”
A Civic Lottery uses random selection to bring together groups of residents, balanced for age, gender and geographical location, to represent their community. Last week 10,000 letters were delivered to randomly selected households in the City of Burlington, the Town of Halton Hills, the Town of Milton and the Town of Oakville. Eligible candidates who receive the invitation can put their name forward for the Civic Lottery. The invitation can also be transferred to other members of the household. The 36 Panelists will be randomly drawn from among the respondents on January 8, 2015. The deadline for eligible candidates to enter the Civic Lottery is January 7, 2015.
 The Panel will meet over two full Saturdays on January 17 and January 31. The Panel will also meet on the evening of Wednesday, January 21 for a special Public Roundtable Meeting to which all Halton residents are invited.
Together, the Panelists will learn about the trends and pressures facing Halton Region as well as the services and programs the Regional government provides. As part of this process, the Region has prepared a draft Strategic Action Plan to serve as a starting point. The draft document will guide the discussion and assist in the development of specific, measurable actions that can be implemented over the next four years.
At the end of the process, working with expert facilitators, the Panelists will develop a series of informed recommendations to present to Regional Council.
Burlington uses a different approach – they put a survey on line and ask people to tell them what they like and don’t like in terms of the services the city provides for the tax money they pay.
Related article:
Burlington community survey
 By Pepper Parr
December 9, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
The City of Burlington is asking Burlington’s property owners, business owners and renters to complete an anonymous online survey to tell the city what services matter most.
“We have identified all of the services the city provides and have refocused our budgeting to show citizens the investments we are making into each service,” said Joan Ford, the city’s director of finance.
“We are looking to the community for input on the importance and value of services.”
 Starting in 2015, the city is using a new system to budget and has 24 public services and 13 internal services to help provide efficient, effective services to the community. Those services include road and sidewalk maintenance, fire protection and transit.
“The City of Burlington must make thoughtful choices among competing priorities to deliver good service for good value,” said Mayor Rick Goldring. “Using our Insight Burlington online community panel, and an anonymous survey connected to that panel, we hope to hear more about the services people in Burlington value.”
The Insight Burlington survey will take from 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
It is available from now until December 19 at www.burlington.ca/whatmatters.
 By Pepper Parr
November 18, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
We did elect them – well 34. 14 % of us did. In twelve days the newly elected council will get sworn in and determine what they want to achieve in the next four years.
 Full team was returned to office. Now they need to get down to work. Long list of tasks and opportunities. Now that the significant seven have all been returned to office – what do they have on their plates for the immediate future and perhaps for the length of their term of office which officially starts December 1 when they are all sworn in. A stronger sense of enthusiasm and drive would be nice
Mayor Goldring explained to us during the election campaign that his first term was a “cleanup/setup” operation. He didn’t explain what he had cleaned up and he hasn’t clarified yet what he means by “set up”. We wait to hear that story.
A partial list of the issues facing this Council includes:
 The city now has a site plan application. Will they approve what has been submitted and provide a permit? Air Park – what does the city want to do with it? The city now has a site plan application in hand. Once it is reviewed they will decide if a permit should be issued. Bu what is the long term plan for the air park and is the city going to be able to get the cooperation it needs from Rossi?
Beachway – while the homes in that part of the city – just to the west of Spencer Smith Park are not about to be expropriated – city hall is reported to be beavering away at plans and designs that will come forward at some point in this term of office. One wonders when the public will be invited to the planning
Downtown development: Always an issue in Burlington – which in itself is telling. When we get a downtown one wonders if we will recognize it.
 Major development opportunity in the Old LAkeshore precinct. Huge developments underway. How will it all play out during this term of office. Old Lakeshore precinct – sometime this year work will start on the Bridgewater project that is to consist of a 22 storey condo, a seven story condo and an eight storey hotel. The hotel was to be open for the Pan Am Games but that won’t happen. Is there any thinking being done as to what the long term vision is for the properties between Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road and that part of the waterfront?
Ranked voting: Mayor Goldring kind of liked that idea. Let’s see when he moves to bring it forward now that the province has said it is to be permitted. The only member of the current Council who would have been impacted by Ranked Voting would have been Blair Lancaster – but if you look at who placed second and third – Lancaster suddenly doesn’t look all that bad.
Size of Council. Sometime during this term of office the Regional government will realign its seats and probably give more to Milton. That “might” mean a change in the number of seats Burlington has on the Regional Council. Right now Burlington has seven regional seats which makes every City Council member a Regional Council member as well. Half of a Council member’s income is paid by the Region
Governance: The Council whose term ends the morning of December 1st developed a good approach to Governance and devoted one meeting every quarter to looking and talking about the way they were running the city. There was some very productive work done at those meetings – let’s hope they are continued.
 Does current City General Manager Scott Stewart have a change in the title on his business card in the works – or will the moving trucks be getting a call. Scott has kept the city running for the past six months.
A new city manager and an overhaul of the senior ranks. The task of hiring a new city manager is underway. Burlington is seen as one of the better city’s to run and we will be a popular choice for some of the better people out there. The last time this city hired a new City Manager they brought in Jeff Fielding from London who was energetic and had more new projects going than staff could keep up with. His decision to head for what he thought were greener pastures in Calgary put a lot of new ideas into a tail spin and staff had to scramble to work without the drive and focus Fielding brought to everything he did.
He fortunately had Scott Stewart beside him to execute on most of the ideas. Stewart was in the running for the job of City Manager last time and has his hat in the ring this time around as well. If Stewart doesn’t get the nod this time – you can expect him to be making an appointment with a moving company. The guy has been holding the city together for the past three months.
Citizen Engagement. Engaging the community is theoretically what every city hall is supposed to do. Burlington didn’t do all that well on that level. When Cam Jackson asked the late John Boich and former Mayor Walter Mulkewich to lead research into just what was needed to better engage the people who pick up the tab, few expected the report that was produced. Shape Burlington shook up many at city hall who felt they were unfairly picked on which was quite telling.
Some of the senior staff at the time felt they knew what the public needed and that the public didn’t need to be engaged all that much.
When the Shape Burlington report was released there was some hope – but a closer look at the people who served on that committee was revealing – Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster were on the Shape Burlington Committee and withdrew when they decided to run for office. They were certainly not champions of involving the public during their first term of office but both got re-elected.
Code of conduct: While the Mayor likes to talk about how well this Council functions – in truth it doesn’t function all that well. The Councillors for wards 1 and 2 can’t stand each other – which makes it awkward for them because they sit beside each other.
Councillor Taylor, because of his experience, has a vision of the city and where he thinks it should go that is quite different than that of his colleague ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison who has served more than 20 years on Council.
These two old timers (that’s intended as a compliment) never did share a common view of the city and the direction it should take. Taylor tends to work from strongly held principles – for Dennison its all about business.
One would like to think they would serve as the institutional memory for Council and while they both know where all the skeletons are buried they seldom put forward much in the way of long term thinking for the city. Councillor Taylor has done some excellent work with his Mt Nemo initiative but that has yet to bear any fruit. The city is spending $200,000 to determine if a heritage district is worthwhile.
Water Street property. This Council is going to have to make a decision soon on just what they will actually do with that stretch of property between St. Paul and Market Streets. They did vote in principal to sell the property subject to the price to be paid and some legal questions that have to be resolved.
Mike Swartz, spokesperson for the other two property owners, commissioned a report on the evolution of the property including the arrangements that were made for the building of the breakwater and the infill that was put in place to prevent natural erosion.
The report includes the Swartz version of the legal arguments that hound this issue. A concern for many is that the report Swartz commissioned will be used by Council to justify their original decision but because it is legal in nature the city’s solicitor might advise that it be kept under wraps. It would appear that the document is certainly germane to the issue – it should be made public if it informs the debate.
The citizen based Waterfront Committee has taken issue with how this matter has been handled and asked for an investigation on the way the city handled this issue. The Municipal Act allows for any person to request that an investigation be undertaken respecting whether a municipality, local board, or a committee of either, has complied with the closed meeting rules contained within section 239 of the Act. Municipalities are able to appoint an Investigator for the purpose of examining these closed meeting complaints.
A request was made last June – at this point the city Clerk’s office said they have yet to get the report. Might be a can of worms with this one
 Georgina Black got Burlington to the point where it produced the best Strategic Plan possible under the circumstances. Will Council now move forward with a plan that has both a vision and drive? Strategic Plan. The city put together a pretty good Strategic Plan in 2011. It was limited mostly because of the inexperience of the Council at that time. Given that it will be the same tribe creating the Strategic Plan for the next four years we can expect a shorter time frame to get the document done and a better final document.
Georgina Black of KPMG led Council through the 11 half day exercise. She realized part way through the second session with a group that consisted of both senior staff and council that there wasn’t what she called a BHAG – a big hairy audacious goal – something the city wanted to do.
Burlington doesn’t have a vision; it doesn’t have a goal – what it does have is many groups with goals of their own but nothing that the city can get a grip on and work towards.
Mayor Goldring did make an effort in the first half of his first mandate to pull people together and figure out what we wanted to be when we grew up. That event was as close to a disaster as you can get without being called a failure. The Mayor never produced a report for an event that came in at $50,000. It was all private sector money.
Official Plan: A critical document for the city. Frequently a bit of a yawn – not this time. Burlingtonians are demanding that we have a plan that we stick to and not change at every developers whim
Outstanding Development: Eagle Heights in Aldershot; Tremaine and Dundas in the north east end and Upper Middle Road at Burloak in the east centre part of town. All three are major development opportunities.
Economic Development: Where are we on this file? What defines us? Have we created a niche – something are better at than others and are thus attractive to corporations looking for a new location. Have we gotten beyond that tired phrase: the best mid-sized city in Canada?
This is a lot to get done in a four year term. Does this Council have the drive, vision and fortitude to achieve any of it?
By Pepper Parr
July 28, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Once City council had lopped close to $400,000 off the payroll with the retirement of Kim Phillips and Tom Eichenbaum, the significant seven did their usual non-debatable statements and then took a six week break – they will be back right after Labour Day.
 Ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward is looking at the financial side of the city much more these days. As chair of the Community and Corporate Services committee she shepherds the budget review through the Standing Committee and has brought a much more feisty approach to that process. Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward said they were going to be away for a “short period of time” and the Mayor reminded Cogeco listeners that the members of council would be doing there door to door thing – given that this is an election year. The Mayor said you could expect to see him at your door as well – even though he is running against himself – and on that basis a number of people think he could lose.
 Director of Finance Joan Ford does a great job of providing the data and her department does a good job of collecting the taxes as well. It’s the spending side that is causing the long term financial stress. Ms Ford doesn’t do the spending. In approving the reports from the Standing Committee on Community Services there was mention of a report that was “received as information only” in which the Finance department set out what the tax hit for 2015 might be. There was no discussion about this at Council – but it’s something you might want to print out and stick under their noses when they come calling for your support.
In 2010 Council set the budget for 2011 and came up with a 0% increase, due in large measure to the first time citizens saw Councillor Sharman’s “bull in the china” shop approach to getting what he wanted. At the beginning of the term that is coming to an end, Mayor Goldring spoke of a 10% increase over the four year term. They came close. You won’t be so lucky in the next term – the projection is for a 4% increase each year for the four years.
Here is how Finance explained it all. Council was being given the parameters on which staff will prepare the 2015 budget. The framework presented in the report outlined principles that have been recognized by Council as important policy decisions, as well as highlighting budget drivers that will impact the 2015 budget.
By way of background, in November of 2012 Council approved a Long Term Financial Plan which outlined strategic objectives to ensure financial sustainability and responsible financial management; that is what Finance will be working from as they develop the 2015 budget.
On March 4, 2014, Council received the 20-Year Simulation of Forecasted Budget Drivers, which provided “a high level overview of major budget drivers and expected future tax rate impacts”. Inherent in the annual operating budget process are the normal pressures of inflation, growth, resources and fluctuating revenues, compounded by infrastructure renewal costs. This forecast as presented continues to recognize the anticipated drivers for the 2015 budget year resulting in;
2.1% increase to maintain existing services
0.6% to address corporate pressures
1.3% to address increased infrastructure funding
The above brings the forecasted increase to 4%.”
 The significant seven – how many of the rascals will get re-elected. The Mayor appears to be on the way to acclamation, but there are at least three council members who are at some risk risk. Finance was good enough to point out that this is an election year, and staff want to ensure that the framework includes the important policy decisions of this council while not pre-supposing any budget decisions for the incoming council. What they are saying is that this bunch of rascals had a plan but the next bunch of rascals don’t have to live with it.
The 2015 budget will ensure the following;
- Base budget tax rate changes are aligned closely with inflation, represented by the three year annual rolling average of the Consumer Price Index (Toronto). The 2011-2013 annual CPI average was 1.92%
- Ensure debt in the capital budget is used in a fiscally responsible manner, following the parameters in the city’s debt policy
- Provisions to reserves are made to ensure adequate cash flow to meet defined current and future needs
- Continued emphasis on moving forward with infrastructure renewal projects and maintain approved levies dedicated to reduce the infrastructure deficit, which is short something around $49 million
- Transition to service based budgeting and recognize value for services through the reporting of public services.
The following are highlights of the key budget drivers as identified in the 20-year simulation presented in March:
Maintain current service levels (That shouldn’t be seen as a given.)
Address areas for revenue increases/ shortfalls ICI revenue has been consistently short, a negative number in 2013 and probably another negative for 2014 when all the numbers are in.
Match growth-related cost impacts with growth revenue (assessment growth)
Manage labour costs within a workforce planning strategy
No additional Joseph Brant Hospital levy for 2015 and beyond
Dedicated infrastructure renewal levy of 1.25% as per the approved asset management funding plan
There are many initiatives currently underway that will impact the presentation of the 2015 budget. The City continues its transition to a service-based organization with a commitment to performance measurement, continuous improvement and accountability; but this is virgin territory for Burlington – expect some major hick-ups on this one.
The service portfolio currently has a total of 50 services (28 public services); this number may change as the service list is refined. Business plans summarizing the service strategy, existing service delivery, performance measures, and resources required to deliver the service at current service levels are in the review process. The 2015 current budget will be presented in both a service-based format and the traditional departmental-based format to ease the transition to a new budget presentation; that translates into close to two budgets which ramps up the staff time.
Staff continue to look for ways to improve the presentation for the capital budget and forecast. A corporate team is currently underway developing changes to the capital budget to bring the focus to infrastructure renewal projects and growth projects. The capital budget will remain a 10-year program, broken down by asset categories. However, projects that are outside the scope of infrastructure renewal or the Development Charge program (growth) will be identified separately for Council’s consideration during the budget review process.
 Sealing cracks on roads is one of the preventive maintenance tools before a road has to be rebuilt. Shave and pave has proven to be money well spent – and we are spending a lot of money on this tool. This Council has been proactive in addressing the city’s infrastructure gap, over this council term. Most recently, council approved the asset management financing plan, a balanced approach to address renewal needs over the next 20 years. Council has identified infrastructure renewal as a key priority, through the approval of dedicated infrastructure levies and continued emphasis on infrastructure projects in the capital budget.
Below is a brief timeline of the 2015 budget process. -one might add there is a magic wand in there as well. Somewhere in this time frame the city will be interviewing and hiring a new city manager who will undoubtedly want to put his finger prints on the budget documents.
Current and Capital budget overview – January 2015
Council Information Session – January 2015
Public Engagement – February 2015
Budget review – February 2015
Council budget approval – March 2015
Budget review and approval cannot occur until the New Year, after the new council has been inaugurated. Council also has to realize that municipal funding pressures in the provincial budget may impact Burlington. The province has a huge deficit it wants to reduce by 2017 – and that is not going to be easy. There is significant pressure on the province by the credit rating agencies (their ratings determine the interest rate the province has to pay) to reduce spending – some of those reductions might come out the hides of the municipal sector.
No one expects the near municipal rape of the Harris government, but those spending cuts have to come from somewhere.
Add to that the cost of the Official Plan and the costs it might create for the city. The transportation master plan (get transit in there as well) and whatever the new council decides it wants in its Strategic Plan; none of these are likely to reduce costs
Don’t forget the expanded winter control service to parking lay-bys and plowing links to primary sidewalks. Then there is the Ontario One Call service that requires all Ontario municipalities to join On1Call by June 19, 2014. Roads and Parks Maintenance annualized the cost to the city at $76,370 in 2015 plus a 25% contingency.
That comes perilously close to a $100,000 chunk out of the corporate apple and the city couldn’t register as much as a word in the way of complaint.
 Cathy Robertson has the unenviable task of knowing just when to get the snow plows out on the road and organizing her fleet so that the snow is plowed before people head for work. The Windrow in the drive way – sorry about that. The Burlington Economic Development Corporation managed to spend tens of thousands on report after report – now they will want funds to get into the game of actually doing some economic development. During the lead up to the creation of the reformed EDC all kinds of expensive ideas were flying around the room. This was an opportunity for the private sector to do what they like to do – take risks – with public money.
The Finance department adds that there might be upcoming reports from other sectors not yet brought to Council.
Mention was made of the opportunity to create a new strategic plan for 2015 and beyond, that can enable larger budget changes such as multi-year budgeting, which could shorten the review period and resource requirements, while maintaining the objectives of the Long Term Financial Plan.
That’s a little like the $60 million obligation the city took on to pay for the part of the Joseph Brant Hospital the city said we had to pay for – the requirement got laced into the budget and the taxpayers saw a new line on their tax bill. Don’t expect that cash grab to disappear once the $60 million has been collected.
Income tax was introduced to Canada as a First World War measure – that one is still with us. It is always wiser to have bureaucrats justify what they ask for every year – keeps them on their toes.
16% for the next four years eh! – and that’s the out of the gate number. Will Councillor Sharman manage to get himself re-elected and do his 0% increase for 2015 the way he did in 2011? He will want to be Mayor after that.
 By Staff
March 31, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Each year the province requires municipalities to publish a list of all those who earn more than $100,00 annually. The data is presented as the salary paid and benefits given that are taxable.
Burlington civil servants were given a 1% salary increase in the 2014 budget.
Councillor Marianne Meed Ward brought a motion to Council that was approved asking the city manager to look into the free parking and free transit passes that are given city employees. Meed Ward is of the view that this benefit is taxable and should be treated as such.
The first figure shown after each name is the annual salary, the second is the taxable benefit.
ADCOCK ALAN Firefighter $102,172.28 $487.27
ALDHAM JUDY Field Services Supervisor $104,070.38 $2,225.26
ALLDRIDGE BRIAN Platoon Chief $124,140.31 $649.80
ANTONIOW PHIL Manager of Program Development, Budgets and Contracts $112,680.32 $622.77
AXIAK ROB Manager Facility Operations and Special Projects $105,876.99 $552.03
BAKOS MICHAEL Captain $108,247.81 $571.12
BARRY PHILIP Captain $108,610.77 $573.86
BAVOTA ANTHONY Fire Chief $157,572.65 $1,906.95
BAYLOR MARK Captain $110,816.79 $570.96
BAYNTON STEVE T. Captain $111,727.68 $586.64
BEATTY DAVID N. Fire Chief $105,836.89 $3,409.68
BEDINI CHRIS District Supervisor $105,298.61 $662.70
BENNETT RANDY Manager of Information Technology Infrastructure and Operations $117,305.77 $640.34
BENNITT JAMES District Supervisor $101,209.87 $764.12
BERDAN MICHAEL Transit Supervisor $103,954.97 $456.07
BIELSKI BIANCA Manager of Development Planning $131,198.38 $739.08
BIRCH CHARLES T. Captain $112,490.88 $585.12
BLACK JEFFREY Manager of Field Services $105,641.57 $3,398.73
BOYD LAURA Human Resource Manager $106,215.06 $590.76
BRILLON SYLVAIN Firefighter $100,870.86 $484.09
CAUGHLIN DEBORAH Manager of Council Services $104,747.58 $582.24
CHOLEWKA CHRIS Captain $107,542.24 $564.00
CLARK CARY Manager of Development and Environmental Engineering $109,618.58 $550.80
COULSON ANN MARIE Manager of Financial Planning and Taxation $133,138.56 $702.66
CRASS JOHN Manager of Traffic Services $106,854.96 $599.16
DI PIETRO ITALO Manager of Infrastructure and Data Management $118,340.36 $655.44
DONATI DERRICK Firefighter $101,799.93 $495.31
DOWD TIMOTHY Captain $117,192.97 $585.12
DUNCAN JOHN Transit Manager $120,963.15 $1,069.52
EALES MARK Captain $106,407.96 $559.95
EICHENBAUM TOOMAS Director of Engineering $165,413.29 $877.56
EVANS FRANCES Manager Halton Court Administration $104,071.88 $575.45
FIELDING JEFF City Manager $249,940.24 $8,898.60
FIORAVANTI LEANNE Solicitor $105,949.26 $510.32
FORD JOAN Director of Finance $153,457.30 $838.93
FRYER E. TODD Firefighter $101,929.55 $519.12
GLENN CHRISTOPHER Director of Parks and Recreation $132,997.91 $731.28
GLOBE DARREN Captain $107,508.37 $573.49
GOLDRING PATRICK Mayor $168,155.78 $2,511.56
GRISON GREGORY J. Captain $111,727.66 $585.74
HAMILTON SCOTT Manager Design and Construction $111,514.22 $618.78
HAMMER CHAD Firefighter $101,951.54 $493.89
HAMMOND BILL Fire Training Supervisor $107,840.61 $562.56
HART TIMOTHY Firefighter $103,027.20 $492.49
HAYES DENNIS M. Platoon Chief $127,478.73 $617.46
HEBNER PETER B. Captain $114,146.11 $585.12
HURLEY BLAKE Assistant City Solicitor $134,557.07 $644.83
JAMES MICHAEL Training Officer – Fire $102,489.52 $570.96
JONES SHEILA City Auditor $123,574.30 $664.26
JONES STEPHEN Captain $107,384.25 $550.83
JURK ROBERT Senior Project Leader $105,261.62 $581.57
KEANEY THOMAS Firefighter $100,775.57 $486.09
KELL DONNA Manager of Public Affairs $114,486.31 $630.35
KELLY JOHN Captain $110,246.84 $579.30
KIPPEN MARK Firefighter $100,628.48 $496.85
KOEVOETS MATT District Supervisor $106,906.64 $1,394.19
KRUSHELNICKI BRUCE Director Planning and Building $160,581.87 $891.60
KUBOTA ERIKA Assistant City Solicitor $134,346.99 $644.86
LAING BRUCE K. Captain $111,727.68 $585.12
LAPORTE N. JASON Captain $109,433.52 $571.25
LASELVA JOHN Supervisor Building Permits $103,581.39 $578.01
LONG MARK Captain $114,237.26 $591.85
MACDONALD GARY F. Captain $111,727.68 $585.12
MACKAY MICHAEL J. Captain $111,727.68 $587.71
MAGI ALLAN Executive Director of Corporate Strategic Initiatives $172,840.24 $967.56
MALE ROY E. Executive Director of Human Resources $182,946.28 $1,012.56
MARTIN CHRISTOPHER Captain $108,414.44 $553.46
MATHESON JAMIE Firefighter $100,671.68 $492.84
MCNAMARA MICHAEL J. Captain $112,644.56 $585.12
MERCANTI CINDY Manager of Recreation Services $113,175.87 $568.20
MINAJI ROSALIND Coordinator Development Review $100,370.93 $560.67
MONTEITH ROSS A. Deputy Fire Chief $136,019.93 $1,601.85
MORGAN ANGELA City Clerk $140,406.98 $753.15
MYERS PETER R. Captain $111,727.67 $593.09
NICELIU KENNETH Firefighter $104,681.45 $514.61
NICHOLSON J. ALAN Captain $111,727.68 $585.12
O’REILLY SANDRA Controller and Manager of Financial Services $113,228.22 $591.60
PEACHEY ROBERT Manager Parks and Open Space $111,558.40 $623.32
PHILLIPS KIMBERLEY General Manager $212,612.61 $8,730.36
POLIZIANI MATTHEW Captain $107,950.52 $557.81
REILLY PETER Captain $114,474.01 $589.90
ROBERTSON CATHARINE Director of Roads and Parks Maintenance $146,163.10 $1,304.38
SCHMIDT-SHOUKRI JASON Manager of Building Permit Services and Chief Building Official $135,620.24 $738.61
SHAHZAD ARIF Senior Environmental Engineer $100,995.97 $560.26
SHEA NICOL NANCY City Solicitor $168,958.55 $814.29
SHIELDS LISA Assistant City Solicitor $134,626.43 $638.32
SLACK CRAIG D. Platoon Chief $128,234.10 $649.80
SMITH CLINT Platoon Chief $127,352.17 $649.80
SMITH SIMON Firefighter $100,129.68 $498.05
SPICER MIKE Director of Transit $134,021.48 $708.84
STEIGINGA RON Manager of Realty Services $113,120.85 $618.84
STEVENS CRAIG Senior Project Manager $101,835.28 $570.98
STEWART SCOTT General Manager $217,635.03 $10,462.48
SWANCE JEFFREY W. Captain $111,727.67 $585.12
SWENOR CHRISTINE Director Information Technology Services $163,040.20 $861.42
TAGGART DAVID Manager Facility Assets $111,045.99 $610.32
THANDI JAZZ Manager Procurement Services $101,688.67 $561.61
VRAKELA STEVE Field Services Supervisor $101,325.60 $1,691.68
WEBER JEFF Deputy Fire Chief $139,961.19 $5,933.10
WHEATLEY RYAN Captain $110,407.44 $570.96
WIGNALL T. MARK Firefighter $102,867.06 $512.74
WINTAR JOSEPH Chief Fire Prevention Officer $110,934.32 $621.60
WOODS DOUGLAS S. Captain $112,106.48 $585.12
ZORBAS STEVE General Manager $167,678.00 $923.12
ZVANIGA BRUCE Director of Transportation Services $145,292.33 $775.86
 By Pepper Parr
March 12, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
During the time of Jesus in first century Israel, there were tax collectors who could walk up to a man and tax him for what he was carrying. These tax collectors were hated and despised because they were usually fellow Jews who worked for Rome. There were many taxes needed from the provinces to administrate the Roman Empire. These taxes paid for a good system of roads, law and order, security, religious freedom, a certain amount of self-government and other benefits. The men who did this work were called publicans.
It isn’t all that much different today. The province of Ontario requires the municipalities to maintain roads and water treatment plants; we have to have a police force, we have to have a Medical Officer of Health who administers rules the province puts in place.
The city of Burlington levies taxes. City council recently passed a budget that set a budget of $133,816,211 for current operations and $67 million for capital expenditures and determined that home owners will pay a tax of $12.78 for every $100,000 of property valuation. That property assessment is set by MPAC – the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation..
Every property owners know what the taxes are on their homes – what most people don’t know is that different types of property pay a different amount of tax
Residential property is taxed at what they refer to as 1; which means they pay that $12.78 for every $100,000 of property assessment.
There are eight different classes of property:
Residential (1.0)
New multi-residential (2.0)
Multi-residential (2.26)
Commercial (1.45)
Industrial (2.35),
Farmlands (0.20)
Managed forests (0.25)
Pipelines, (1.06)
 This Enbridge pipe line runs from border to border of the city – they pay .06 more on their assessment than you do for your house. What is the pipeline asses at? We don’t know that. Those numbers in brackets represent the tax ratio rate, with residential always set at 1. So for a property assessed at $200,000 that is residential that rate would be 2 x $12.78 a property that is classed Commercial the rate would be 2.35 x $12.78 assuming the same $200,000 assessment
 This isn’t exactly the middle of a farm field is it. Land that could be taxed as commercial gets a farmland tax rate even if it is in the middle of town – all you have to do is cut the hay and bale it. Take a look at that farmland rate and recall driving by one of those vacant lots on the South service Road where you may have seen round bales of hay that never seems to get taken away. That property managed to get itself classes as farmland and all they have to pay is 0.20 of that $12.78 tax rate. Now you know why developers can hang onto land and are patient while its value increases. They get it classified as farm land, have someone cut what is really low, low quality hay and pay 1/5th of the rate you are paying for your property.
Those tax rates are set by the Regional government. Burlington has seven seats on the 20 member council – but don’t expect our team to suggest a different tax structure for farmland held by developers or for that matter, land in those large estates north of 407. Huge homes where people live in the lap of luxury – which is fine. Heck they earned their money (didn’t they?) and if they can afford that kind of space good on them – but have them pay the same taxes as those poor shmucks in the suburbs south of Dundas.
Things used to better in Burlington; there was a time when the city levied a tax on telephone poles. “we can’t do that anymore” advised the Director of Finance. There was a bit of a wistful look in her eye when she made that statement.
 By Pepper Parr
March 5, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The John Street transit terminal will remain in place – for now. On a vote of 5-2 (Sharman, Dennison were prepared to let people stand out in the cold) The city is currently looking at the matter of transit hubs – there are four that are being avidly discussed – with the John Street location seen as one of the more critical locations. The Burlington GO station has more bus routes going through it – 16 as opposed to the 8 that run through the John Street location. The Mayor sees it as a critical part of the downtown core.
 There was a time when a much larger bus terminal existed 25 yards to the left of this small terminal on John Street – it was where people met. There were fewer cars, Burlington didn’t have the wealth then that it has now. We were a smaller city, as much rural as suburban. The times have changed and transit now needs to change as well. The transit people wanted to shut the terminal down because the drivers wouldn’t need the facility and the public would be able to get answers to their questions at the Harvester Road transit office which is open longer than the terminal and has staff available on Sunday. What Spicer kept calling “fare media” when he meant bus tickets, would be available at local retail locations in the downtown core. The Queen’s Head and Coffee Culture are the closest retail locations that are open long hours but Spicer told council that his people had not approached anyone yet.
Were the terminal to be closed, tickets will be available at city hall – but the hours there are limited. What was startling was no mention whatsoever about customer comfort. In this brutally cold weather that has been with us for more than a month the outdoor shelters just don’t cut it. The terminal is a warm place to wait for a bus.
Mayor Rick Goldring said transit had to have a meaningful presence in the downtown core and added that he talks to a lot of people who use the John Street terminal.
The Mayor and Meed Ward were the only two people to talk about the terminal. Meed Ward then moved on to part two of her transit mission: where was transit in the Transportation Master Plan review which has focused a bit on the creation of four mobility hubs. Burlington’s friends and supporters of transit (Bfast) couldn’t see it in the proceedings so far.
 Mobility hubs at the GO stations is close to a no brainer – it is the possible hub in the downtown core that has yet to be thoroughly thought through. Council decided that closing the terminal on John Street to save $8000 a year was not a bright idea. Meed Ward was the chair of the committee reviewing budget submissions which means when she has a question she turns the gavel over to her vice chair Paul Sharman who behaved like an enforcer on a hockey team and appeared to feel his job was to keep the puck away from Meed Ward and if she did get her hands on the thing – then his job was to knock her down. It was particularly deplorable behaviour during which there was precious little respect shown. We have seen this kind of behaviour from Councillor Sharman in the past.
With the gavel in his hands Sharman challenged her right to bring a new matter to the committee meeting. The Clerk ruled that Meed Ward could bring a new matter and given that transit was being discussed and her matter was related to transit she wanted to proceed.
What became clear during the discussion about the John Street terminal is the difficulty the city is having with just what it wants to do, will have to do and can afford in terms of public transit.
The transit advocates maintain that the city had not made it perfectly clear that transit was part of the Master Transportation Plan the city is currently reviewing.
General Manager Scott Stewart put that dog to rest when he made it perfectly clear that transit is a vital part of the transportation thinking.
 Doug Brown, chair of Bfast – Burlington’s friends and supporters of transit, can read a bus schedule better than most bookies can read the Racing Guide. He meets with Susan Lewis a transit user. Doug Brown Bfast chair said he has been asking if transit was being considered within the Transportation Master Plan and hadn’t been given an answer. Last November Brown sent the following questions to everyone he felt was involved. He says he has yet to get an answer. Bfast wants to know:
1) Will the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) develop a comprehensive long-term transit plan, including funding, to guide the growth of a robust transit system?
2) Will the TMP fully analyze and assess all opportunities to minimize road and intersection widenings and the construction of additional parking facilities through investments in transit, active transportation, and Transportation Demand Management?
3) Will the TMP be evaluated against criteria demonstrating that implementation of the TMP will:
a) meet the City’s own planning objectives (ROPA38 requirement to increase local transit to 11% modal split from current 2%);
b) meet the objectives of the City’s Strategic Plan (walkable, liveable, inclusive communities; GHG reduction targets)
c) will be environmentally and economically sustainable by determining all costs and benefits of proposed transportation options
4) Will the TMP look at successful measures in other cities (i.e. Portland, Ottawa, Victoria) to increase transit and active transportation modes.
Meed Ward read these out at the budget meeting. Stewart said he wasn’t aware of the questions; Meed Ward said she would send them to him.
The discussion around what the transit issue really is was instructive. Burlington is expected to increase the transit part of its modal split (that is the number of people who use different forms of transportation) from 2% to 11% by 2031 and that can only happen if transit ridership increases by 10% each year.
Blend into that the fact that transit ridership was lower in 2013 than it was in 2012.
City manager Jeff Fielding points out that our population is only going to grow by 1900 a year for the next ten years and then asks: “Do you really think you are going to get a modal shift from 2% up to 11% in the next 20 years. I can’t see it, I really can’t see it and I’m a big transit supporter. There may be some other approaches we need to look at.”
Councillor Taylor was just as direct. He said we are not going to get new people to take transit. If transit is to grow it will have to come from the existing population – and that is going to mean changing our communities and intensifying. The one way you can change transit said Taylor is to make it more convenient for the users.
 Councillor Sharman was both direct and blunt. Burlington is a great city and a place where wealthy people want to live. Wealthy people have cars. No one moves to Burlington to get around using transit.
Those views sum up the predicament and the challenge that transit faces.
That brought Meed Ward back into the conversation with a question for staff: “Can they tell us with some specificity how transit will be handled within the Transportation Master Plan?” Stewart was able to oblige her. Transit will be part of the Transportation Master Plan discussions but there will not be a transit business case coming out of the TMP.
Stewart undertook to get answers to the Bfast questions; when, asked Meed Ward. Not in March, that’s for sure responded Stewart; probably in April or May.
Transit is due to produce their first report card on how the service is doing in June. Add to that the news that transit is currently working with the providers of a technology that will give the transit managers real-time data on who gets on and off a bus and exactly where this happens; data Burlington Transit says is vital if they are to effectively allocate the resources they have.
As the discussion was coming to a close Sharman, filling in as chair of the meeting, asked Meed Ward if she had a motion. No, she replied and I now want to withdraw the motion I might have had. She had made her point – transit was now very much on the table and a part of an upcoming agenda.
Viewpoints that were not known before were now public.
The city does have a transit advisory committee – problem with that committee is that it can’t manage to meet which increases Stewart’s frustration level.
 Susan Lewis a consistent transit user, she doesn’t drive, was asked to join the Transit Advisory committee and headed downtown in January for a meeting. When she got to city hall she and one other person were the only people in the room; the meeting had been cancelled and not everyone was told.
Mayor Goldring and Councillor Meed Ward want clarity, the transit advocates want a clear policy commitment and better funding. The city manager doesn’t want to provide that money because he doesn’t see value in it and the bulk of this council don’t have a lot of time for transit. They spent more time talking about the removal of snow.
There is one sliver of hope. The city manager is a transit supporter and he would very much like to have some bold ideas to work with. The Bfast people, who can be a bit pedantic at times, do know what moving people around on public transit is all about.
If Stewart does manage to get all the players in the room he just might find that the Bfast people have a lot to offer; he just has to manage the frustration that overcomes him on occasion. He might think in terms of making Bfast the transit advisory committee. It couldn’t be any worse than what he has now – and the transit staff would be well served to listen carefully to these people. More respect for each other would go a long way as well.
The discussion really wasn’t a budget issue; Meed Ward was pushing the rules, but she brought to the table a discussion that has been needed for some time. Councillors Lancaster and Dennison had nothing to say; it will be a long time before you see either of them on a bus.
 Back to those mobility hubs and the John Street terminal. The hubs and hinged to the GO stations which makes sense – the downtown hub was the location that council wasn’t as certain about.
One of the “big picture” tasks the city is working on is opportunities to develop the north end of John Street where the city owns a parking lot that abuts the plaza at the top of John Street.
 Medica One or the Carriage Gate project – pick the name you like best – will go up at the top of John Street and consist of a medical offices building, an above ground garage and an apartment/condo complex. It will bring significant change to the intersection and drive redevelopment of the plaza to the immediate north, A transit hub a couple of blocks to the south then makes a lot of sense. The Carriage Gate group is expected to break ground soon on its medical building, parking garage and apartment/condo tower which will make the Caroline and John Street part of town a busier place.
 Parking lot # 3 at the top of John Street just south of the shopping plaza is being given a very close look for redevelopment. The Carriage Gate development will draw people to the area creating a John Street that could undergo significant development. There might be life in the downtown core yet. Some of the city thinking has the plaza at the top of John Street being given a massive make over and that portion of John Street north of Caroline a cleanup – it looks more like a laneway right now. All this thinking will impact what happens at the south end of John, where just blocks away the Delta Hotel and the Bridgewater condominiums are about to see some real construction activity.
A John Street mobility hub then would be a critical part of any makeover of this part of town which is all very much a project that is in the thinking through the ramifications stage.
The Mayor wants to stay with this one; get in front of it and lead the parade.
 By Pepper Parr
March 5, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
What started out as an ask of $134,513,000 as a total tax levy, which called for a tax increase of 4.66%, got pared down to $133,889,000 which would have meant a tax increase of 4.13% finally came in at $133,816,211 and a tax increase of 3.5% which works out to $12.78 for each $100,000 of residential urban assessment – it took close to two months to whittle that number back.
 The number represents an increase of 3.5% which over the term of this council totals 10.13% over the four-year term – slightly higher than the 10% the Mayor went on record with. Expect to hear that point made regularly by this council during the election we will have in October.
Budgets however are a lot more than just numbers; the deliberations that get a council to their total are an honest look at the values these seven people bring to the job they do. At times the view was exceptional but all too often it was disappointing, limited and showed a timidness and an inability to come up with the bold yet creative ideas that would both grow the city financially and at the same time maintain the quality of life people who live here expect.
The hope for Burlington was seen at a Committee of the Whole Meeting that took place while Council was going through the budget deliberations.
In its media release the city included all the pat on the back stuff – and staff did do a fine job of making all the parts come together – but this was not a great budget. It was adequate.
There were more than a dozen citizen delegations – it is hard to identify those that were listened to with the exception that the city manager did promise he would come back to the arts and culture community no later than June and let them know if he has been able to find a full time equivalent to use as the spot for a cultural manager. That spark of creativity didn’t come from anyone on this council.
Highlights that the city points to include:
One-time funding of $86,000 for Community Development Halton for social programming, including North BurLINKton and the Chill Zone
$115,000 one-time and $25,000 ongoing funding for an extra round of loose leaf collection in areas north of the QEW
$643,000 toward infrastructure renewal.
Back in 2010 the city was told they had to come up with $60 million as its share of the redevelopment price for the Joseph Brant Hospital. That amount has been paid out during the past year with the levy rising each year to what will be a $1.2 million increase this year which brings what we are setting aside this year to $4.8 million. That levy by the way is not likely to ever disappear – once they have their hand in your pocket they will find a way to keep it there.
 This year there was very little, if any, mention of “shave and pave” that process we use to keep the cost of maintaining our roads manageable.
The budget this paid much more attention to culture than it did to the state of the roads; an exceptionally heavy winter resulted in a lot of discussion about what we want to do about snow removal.
The size of the staff compliment was always on the table. No new hires but a lot of re-evaluating positions and redeveloping the job done. We learned during the budget deliberations there was going to be a total workforce review to determine what the city has and what it needs in terms of a workforce and how to use what it has to get what we need done.
 By Pepper Parr
March 3, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
She is serious. Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward is moving with some dispatch on her desire to see the city show the free parking staff get as a taxable benefit.
 Lot of staff in the Locust Street lot. Covered space is a prime perk – Council member wants to tax it. In a note to her colleagues she said: Upon further discussion with staff, staff have advised that employee parking in the downtown has been provided on a scramble basis which is open to interpretation. Therefore, Council has the option to direct staff to review and address in 2014 employee parking with respect to the taxable benefit status, specifically for union and non-unionized city employees, downtown local board employees and members of Council including implementation issues such as notification requirements, options and, other related impacts.
 Meed Ward created a data sheet for her council colleagues pointing out WHAT All of these details could be outlined in an implementation plan staff would bring back to council. Thus the wording of the motion for tomorrow’s meeting, to keep it simple, is as follows:
“Direct staff report back on an implementation plan in 2014 for employee parking as a taxable benefit.”
Now we get to see just how the other six members of council treat this matter. Teachers get free parking – we don’t know yet if this is treated as a taxable benefit. The legislation certainly suggest it should be treated as such.
In her note to her colleagues Meed Ward brings up the issue of “parking on a scramble basis” which is when the first person to get to a space can take it. And as long as there are spaces available – a person can park. When spaces are not available – they are out of luck.
Expect to see considerable discussion around that issue.
If the city manager were smart – and he is – he should just fold on this one and thank Meed Ward for her contribution and advise that the city will resolve this issue quickly – in favour of the tax payers.
Ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward is looking at the financial side of the city much more these days. As chair of the Community and Corporate Services committee she shepherds the budget review through the Standing Committee and has brought a much more feisty approach to that process. For those that watch the goings on at city hall – it would be easy to get the impression that Meed Ward just might be positioning herself for a move. She has yet to file nomination papers as a candidate in ward 2 – but then that applies to everyone else on Council except for the Mayor who filed early in January.
Meed Ward brought up the matter of free staff parking and said she thught it should be debated during the budget cycle. This Council hopes to make the budget final on Tuesday – this issue puts a fly in that ointment.
Background links:
Is Meed Ward looking at her chess board and plotting her next move?
Meed Ward suggests free staff parking is taxable.
 By Pepper Parr
February 22, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
There will be a heritage planner – a full time heritage planner but getting the position secured was easier said than done.
The question in front of city council as they worked their way through the budget was: how much did they want to spend on a heritage PLANNER – $206,000 or $103,000.
The city already has a heritage planner who spends half of her time on heritage matters and the rest of her time on other planning work; she is swamped. She gives the city far more time than she gets paid for and has done a lot of superb work.
Heritage has become a sort of favourite flavour of the moth in this city. The Heritage Advisory Committee is much more active – at times they think they need a full time planner. When the decision was made to go forward with the idea of a Conservation Heritage District for the Mt Nemo Plateau the work of the heritage planner suddenly got much bigger.
The question then was – how much staff resource are needed? For some reason council wanted to get right into the weeds on this one. They first talked in glowing terms about the job the current heritage planner has been doing and then began to map out her career for the next ten years until they were told that wasn’t council’s job.
 It was about 15 months ago that rural Burlington began the discusion about what it wanted to be. Some things were clear – others not as clear. The early draft of a vision got put on a huge board and for the most part the community liked the look of what they had said to each other. Council had gotten into the weeds on this one the way they do far too often. For a bit it looked like they were going to start running the department. Should the current planner become full time on heritage? a full time role and contract someone for an additional half day; no that’s not good use of human resources. OK look for someone within the department and have them pick up the development work the planner was doing – the rationale for that view was that development is off so there must be bodies in planning with nothing better to do.
General manager Scott Stewart who signs off on everything that comes out of planning, struggled to get a grip on all the ideas flying around when the city manager pipes up with his position: it isn’t pretty.
“You don’t Jenna, she does; she decides what she wants to do. You have asked us to manage – then let us manage; that is not your job; this is not the type of discussion we should be having; you have me here to tell you things like this.”
 A heritage planner was critical if a Conservation Heritage District bylaw was ever to get passed. First part of that effort got through a Standing Committee. The proposal to think about turning the Mt. Nemo Plateau into a Conservation Heritage District which is just at the information gathering stage will require a lot more of a planner’s time. That file has the potential to become a lot messier than it would at first appear – when individual land issues are on the table get ready for noisy meetings.
Councillor Taylor is a big advocate on for making the plateau a conservation district – he wanted the planning resources available.
While council was digesting that blast from the city manager, Scott Stewart the general manager invited the Director of planning to “take it outside” where they worked out the possible time/task splits
The proposal was to have 1.5 heritage planners – then it looked like they were looking at two planners. Then there was a tussle over what this planner would be doing. The issue was where the planner was going to come from and the amount of work that was going to get created by the Mt. Nemo Conservation District task that is now on the table – or look as if it is going to be on the table.
A motion to hire more people failed, the amended motion to make the existing half time planner into a full-time position and distribute other work she was doing within the existing staff compliment passed 6-1 with Taylor voting against the decision made. He wanted more in the way of human resources than his colleagues were prepared to pay for.
 Residents look at a large map of their community during a Rural Summit more than a year ago. That meeting was the genesis of making the Mt Nemo Plateau a Conservation Heritage District. Some members of council wanted to know why staff just didn’t do the staff allocation. It was a new position – they were moving from a half time heritage planner to a full-time heritage planner and that was a decision council had to make, explained director of finance Joan Ford. What Ford was trying to say in a polite way was that council had to decide on the expenditure – staff would then decide who should be doing the job.
Councillor Meed Ward said she had “difficulty with the process that got us here”.
Was the spend going to be $103,000 or was it going to be $206,000 and would the new position be added to the base staff compliment or would they go outside and contract with someone, or would they look within the planning department and find someone who wasn’t all that busy.
Councillor Lancaster thought the city was moving too quickly on this file. Her view was that council needed to be more reflective and to take some time. But that wasn’t the view that Councillor Taylor brought to the horseshoe. The Conservation District would be in his ward and he is fully aware as to just how powerful the people in North Burlington can be. They were the folk that hung in and fought the Nelson Aggregate quarry expansion. Those people know how to dig in and for them a Conservation District would solve a lot of their concerns or they think it will.
 It took $2 million out of the legal department’s budget to pay for the tear long tribunal that decided the Jefferson Salamander was important and that an expansion of the existing quarry should not be permitted. It was rural Burlington residents who were the force behind that battle – they were not to be trifled with. The expansion to the quarry was going to be in the lower part of this topographical map Councillor Dennison said that “we didn’t ask for this, we don’t need to get all gung-ho about it. He wasn’t all that keen on the “foremost specialist the city hired to do the first cut of the research presented at the January meeting. Get ready to see this as a file that becomes very contentious.
At the community event in January city planner Bruce Krushelnicki explained that a Heritage Conservation District was created through a bylaw passed by the city. No one else has any input on that bylaw he explained. The city can pass a bylaw to create something and they can revise that bylaw anytime they wish.
What the planning department has to do is do the research necessary to figure out how best to craft a bylaw that will stand up to scrutiny – and at the same time ensure that the community wants such a bylaw and understands the ramifications. There are both ramifications and consequences – some of them unintended.
Once e a bylaw is in place it tends to take on a life of its own – which is what the rural life advocates want to see.
Making that happen requires a lot of hard work, a lot of research and a lot of public opinion massaging.
The first battle was to get the planner in place so that some of the early research work could get done.
There will be a planner, working full-time on heritage matters. The planning department will figure out a way to reallocate day-to-day work in the department.
Our significant seven weren’t seen at their best on this issue and they needed the sharp rebuke from the city manager to remind then what they were supposed to be doing.
At times one wonders how we manage to stay out of serious trouble.
Background links:
Rural Burlington figures out what it wants to be.
 By Pepper Parr
February 22, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
When they brought things to a closer on Thursday we had a CURRENT budget of $134,339,651 agreed upon at the Standing Committee and a tax increase of 3.9%. Staff had asked for a tax increase of 4.3%
Council may whittle down the staff budget request when they resume budget deliberations early in March. At that time they get to decide what they want to do with the $2.7 million surplus – money not spent in 2013. The finance staff call these “retained savings”.
Photoshopping at its very best – the Significant Seven have never got along as much as this photograph would suggest. Several of then can’t stand one another. Mayor has said he would be quite happy to see them all re-elected. What has council done so far? The Cultural Manager was off the table, the Museums of Burlington got the contract person onto the staff roster. The Economic development people got their money but there were some strings attached.
An assistant supervisor for school crossing guards wasn’t approved but the Heritage Burlington property tax rebate did get the green light it was looking for. The Performing Arts Centre is going to get a closer look.
Bus cleaners were going to get $65,000 a year but they would be doing other work as well
Community Development Halton did get the $85,000 they were seeking (they got the same amount last year) but Councillor Taylor had to promise that he would not be asking for the same amount of money next year.
Of the 47 items that council members wanted to discuss – less than 20 got covered – so there is quite a lot of ground to cover.
On Monday the 24th, Council meets as the Development and Infrastructure committee.
Tuesday they meet as the Community and Corporate Services committee.
Thursday they do a significant session as a Committee of the Whole and focus on just where we are with the Economic Development Corporation – which is, as one real estate professional in the city put it a “disastrous embarrassment”. The economic development chicken has finally come home to roost.
The first week of March council meets on the 4th to complete the budget review and hopefully approve the document and set the tax rate for 2014.
For some reason the budget agendas this year have had the feel of a bit of a hustle to them. Usually a Standing Committee meets and recommends a budget, the public gets a few days to read, review and reflect on the document and if there are serious concerns people can delegate at the Council meeting that will approve the budget.
This year the Standing Committee will turn itself into a Council meeting and pass the budget on the spot. We don’t see much community engagement in that process. For Councillors who are up for re-election one would think they would be a little more solicitous and ensure the public gets a chance to voice their opinions. Guess you are all going to have to wait to make your opinion known on election day – October 27th.
 By Pepper Parr
February 21, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
There isn’t going to be a Cultural Manager in Burlington during 2014 – perhaps in 2015, but a Standing Committee just didn’t see a compelling case for hiring a new person for a job that wasn’t as clearly defined as it could have been.
The arts and culture community brought its existence to the surface – the city learned a lot more about who they were, what they are and what they do. Their lobbying efforts blew hot and cold. They certainly pulled the Mayor into their circle – but that wasn’t enough.
Staff, particularly general manager Kim Phillips, who is the lead on culture in the city, didn’t do all that much to support the creation of the position.
Council seemed to feel that a full-time cultural planner was enough for now and would revisit the needs of the cultural community next year.
 What was nascent and budding – has been stunted at the administration level. It is going to be up to the artists to create whatever structure is needed. What the city will see is various initiatives – and there is some very solid work being done by individual artists, but people who are not always the best at administrative stuff aren’t going to be able to market and move the idea that Burlington is a legitimate cultural centre forward very much.
There is some hope but it doesn’t exist at council nor at the senior staff level.
 The unveiling of the Spiral Stella outside the Performing Arts Centre on a bright summer day was thought to be the beginning of a breakthrough point for the arts and cultural community. Hasn’t worked out that way, yet – but art perseveres – their day will come. Discussion on this item that was on the books for $128,000 + a one time set up cost of $8,320 started with Councillor Lancaster saying she was not on for this one – mostly because she didn’t think there was all that much to manage –and on that point she was right. The arts community saw this as a person who would do some ground breaking and seed planting.
Mayor Goldring followed Lancaster saying he would not support the expense – at least not this year. Councillor Sharman said he was where the Mayor is – not at this time.
Councillor Craven wanted to know what the impact would be without a Cultural Manager – he seemed to think that with the cultural planner in place whatever had to be done would get done.
General manager Phillips conceded that the Cultural Action Plan that Council has approved will certainly proceed much slower. She added that there is some cultural mapping being done –people are adding data on who they are and what they do to the web site.
Councillors Taylor and Dennison took a pass – made no comment.
 The city’s cultural planner is all the arts community has at this point. There is some cultural mapping being done – which is useful in itself but won’t do all that much to build the tremendous potential culture has in this city. Angela Papariza will use her well-developed culture background and training to work with people like Trevor Copp – not likely to see much more in 2014. For Councillor Meed Ward – it was also a “not now – re-evaluate later” an odd decision given that much of the cultural activity is in the downtown core which is her bailiwick. Meed Ward could see where this was going.
The question now is – what is the cultural planner going to do? The current occupant of the position certainly has cred within the arts and culture community but Burlington has had good people working the culture file in the past – and they have all moved on.
The hope for many was that with the surprising energy that was seen within the arts and culture community (it was always there – just not seen or appreciated) the time had come to get serious and develop the opportunity.
The Arts and Cultural Collective did as much as they could – and then some. Trevor Copp sent out a last-minute plea to the Collective membership: “Without this position, Arts & Cultural Grants, an outside Arts body, use of space and bylaw reviews in our favour is seriously jeopardized. All our work may go up in smoke. Let them know how you feel please”.
What happens next will depend on the kind of energy and leadership that comes from the general manager handling this file. Don’t get your hopes up.
Background links:
Turns out the art community didn’t get anything from the cookie jar.
 By Pepper Parr
February 20, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
Doug Brown knows more about what Burlington hasn’t managed to do with its transit service than anyone else in the city. He has personal files that cover more than 25 years of transit history. He brings a strong personal commitment to public transit and can tell you how difficult it is to get about not only the city but the Region if you rely on public transit.
 Doug Brown and Susan Lewis look over a 1982 copy of the city’s bus schedule.  They called the bus schedule the Digest in 1982 – a time when Burlington had 18 bus routes and a schedule that fit on one large piece of paper. The current bus schedule is 28 pages long – many of the bus drivers don’t understand the thing. We met with Doug Brown and Susan Lewis to talk about the delegations each of them had made to the Community and Corporate Services Committee Brown brought along a copy of the 1982 transit schedule – which at that time was called the Burlington Digest
Last year Brown and a group known as Bfast , Burlington for Accessible Sustainable Transit, made presentations to the Standing Committee that was reviewing the budget for 2013. In their presentations, they presented what they believed was clear evidence that Burlington had continually underfunded transit. They presented the findings of consultants reports, and compared Burlington’s capital and current transit budgets against peer communities (the same communities used in the City’s budget report to compare tax rates). Bfast had hoped the City would carefully weigh the facts and either make some adjustments to the transit budget, or explain to them why they should not be influenced by the facts. To the dismay and disappointment of the Bfast people Committee members had no questions for the delegation, and adopted none of the recommendations.
Bfast hoped the committee reviewing the budget for 2014 would follow the guidelines in the recently adopted Engagement Charter and give citizens meaningful involvement in the budget process. We expect Council and staff to “walk the talk”.
Bfast was of the view that 2013 witnessed a step backwards for transit in Burlington. Despite some restoration of operating funds in the operating budget, there were many route changes which riders found confusing, resulting in reduced service on some routes. Also, the 8.4% fare increase, which was not supported by any analysis or staff report, resulted in Burlington Transit riders paying fares even higher than Toronto’s TTC. Transit users were not consulted about any of these changes. The net result is widespread dissatisfaction with Burlington Transit and a loss of riders from both actions.
 In 1982 there were a number of ticket agents throughout the city. Today there is one bus terminal which the transit people want to close; the public would have to troop over to city hall to buy a ticket. City hall closes at 4:30 pm – never opened on weekends. The 2014 budget does not increase the City’s investment in its transit system. The fulfillment of Burlington’s Official Plan and Strategic Plan require significant additional investment in transit. ROPA (Regional Official Plan Amendments) 38 requires that the transit modal share go from its current 2% to 11% by 2031. This will require an average annual increase in ridership of 10%.
The growth of transit in Burlington requires a long-term plan and funding commitment. The ongoing Transportation Master Plan is an opportunity to develop a long-term transit plan, however, we have been advised by Transportation Department staff that the Transportation Master Plan will not do this. Since the termination of the Transit Master Plan in January 2012, the City has lacked any long-term transit plan.
The budget according to Bfast, continues to treat transit in isolation to the other parts of the City’s transportation system (roads, parking, and active transportation). The majority of the capital budget is for roads, (increasing in 2014 to 54% from 51% in 2013), while transit’s small share of the capital and current budgets does not even get shown in the budget pie-charts.
During the 2013 budget deliberations Bfast we recommended the City look at traffic demand management (TDM) as a means of reducing the very costly widening of roads and intersections in the 10 year capital budget. In the case of the Appleby/Harvester EA, we have been told by the project engineer that TDM was not being looked at or considered.
There are some budget items that reflect the City’s low priority for its transit system.
We note that the funds approved in the 2013 capital budget for transit priority measures ($100,000 for 2014) have been quietly removed from the 2014 budget. Transit priority measures should be part of the Transportation Master Plan and the current Appleby/Harvester intersection plan, as such measures will reduce the car traffic and forego the need for expensive road widening.
Bus Cleaning: It is not clear what is being proposed or if more or less money is required. Bfast fears that that the City may be considering a lower standard of cleaning for the buses. This would be unfair to both drivers and passengers, and sends a wrong message to current and potential transit users. However, Bfast does support the proposal to have the cleaning done by city staff rather than by external contract provided bus cleaning is not compromised.
 There was a time when the car did not rule and the transit department saw bus service as something that was vital. The marketing people certainly took a different approach. Imagine something like this coming out of the transit department today? Back-end loading of transit in 10-year capital budget. Bfast points out that 75% of bus purchase expenditures occur in 2018-2023 and only 25% occur in 2014-2017. Similarly, a large proportion of bus stop location upgrades and bus shelter expenditures occur in 2018-2023.
To be fair, the city has said it will be doing a total revision of the current capital budget –so anything in that budget beyond this year has to be seen as something that will be getting a very close look. Bfast might want to begin developing its own long term capital plan and prepare to take that to the city.
It appears that the City is planning to close the Downtown Terminal on John Street which Bfast describes an important place of shelter, information, tickets, and washrooms for passengers and drivers. While not a major budget item, the Downtown Terminal is very important to transit users and for the development of a walkable, liveable downtown. Ward 2 councillor Marianne Meed Ward has said she will be speaking very strongly for the retention of the John Street terminal.
Bfast argues that city council has not yet seen a detailed business case for the closing of the terminal downtown and more significantly, neither the general public nor transit users have yet seen a business case for the closing of the terminal. Bfast adds to that the Official Plan process that is holding meetings on potential mobility hubs with the downtown as one of four such mobility hubs. One of the fundamental parts of a mobility hub as defined by the City’s Official Plan process and Metrolinx is that they contain a transit terminal. Further, the Master Transportation Plans is integrating all modes of transportation including transit and at this point we do not know how that plan will deal with transit and the downtown terminal.
 If there was ever a place to locate a transit terminal – that would be John Street where the only terminal in the city is now located. Transit department is recommending it be removed and tickets sold at city hall. Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward isn’t buying that business case Bfast suggests this Council is not in a position to determine whether a downtown transit terminal may indeed be a necessary part of an effective transit system that can grow and serve the public effectively in the long run. Any decision to close the downtown terminal now to obtain efficiencies which translate to only $16,000 annually might create long term problems and cost the City far more if the City then has to re-introduce a terminal in the downtown. Bfast is recommending that the future of the downtown terminal be deferred until the Council is more clear on the direction of the Mobility Hub concept re the downtown and the Master Transportation Plan ideas re transit in the downtown. Further, Council needs to direct staff to consult with transit users and the public regarding a possible closing of the terminal.
In their remarks to the committee hearing budget delegations Bfast points out that the 2014 capital budget does include a major investment ($3.4M) in street-scaping in the area of the Downtown Terminal. Surely, this is an opportunity to redevelop the present “kiosk” into a first-rate terminal facility.
There are parts of the transit portion of the budget that confuse Doug Brown, part of the Bfast committee. Referring to a part of the budget about Restoring Transit Services, Brown says “it is unclear exactly what is meant by the item, we haven’t seen the separate report referred to in the Budget document. It would be logical to assume that the Restore Transit Services item comes from the lost capital revenue from changing the federal gas tax funding from a 70-30 split to 80-20. ($500,000 for two years gives $1,000,000). This shouldn’t be regarded as an additional funding option since the funding is already there, just diverted to roads.
Bfast believes Burlington Transit needs to put money into new, (replacement and additional), buses, more shelters, real-time schedule information online and at bus stops, and, more marketing.
When Burlington created its first really relevant Strategic Plan it had no idea how readily the citizens would take to the document. There are very few delegations made that don’t refer to the document. Bfast puts a firm grip on the making Burlington “a walkable, liveable community”. Brown points out that this view has been reinforced by some thoughtful presentations at the bat the Mayor’s Inspire Series where Christopher Hume and Gil Penalosa spoke. Brown wants to see at least some of the ideas that were brought to the city adopted. If we aren’t going to pay any attention to the experts we bring to Burlington to talk to us – then why bother bringing them?, asks Brown.
Dan Burden, an urban planning expert, was engaged by the City to “set the tone” for the Transportation Master Plan. Burden recommended the City create narrower streets to create street life and make the streets safer and more useable by pedestrians and cyclists.
However, the 2014 Budget includes very large expenditures for widening the roads and intersections ($21M for Walkers Line & North Service road and $23M 10 yr. total for Harvester – Appleby to Guelph Line) while, transit, sidewalks, and safe cycling facilities have been underfunded.
 Doug Brown, chair of Bfast, wants to see a bus schedule with routes that work for people and not the current bus route set up in place. It doesn’t work claims Brown. Susan Lewis, who does not drive looks on. There are places she just cannot get to in the city because transit doesn’t work – at least not for her. Brown makes a point that many make on the budget review process Burlington has in place. “Public input on the Budget has again come at the 11th hour, when large changes to the budget are not possible. We encourage the City to provide their citizens with a much earlier opportunity to help shape the budget in the future.”
Doug Brown is chair of Bfast. He brings degrees in science and engineering to the volunteer work he does. What boggles a lot of people is that Brown isn`t used by the city as a significant source of information and advice. Doug Brown was riding the bus in Burlington before the current Direct of Transit Mike Spicer even got to this city.
The city has an asset it needs to consider leveraging.
There is a lot more to be written about transit and how people like Susan Lewis get around in the city. Let’s see what city council decides to do with the current transit budget.
 By Pepper Parr
February 19, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
You can`t fault Councillor Jack Dennison for trying – and try he does. During a Standing Committee last week when discussions on the capital projects the city will take on in 2014 as they spend the $67 million plus that council is expected to approve Tuesday evening, Dennison felt there were opportunities that were being missed and wanted the city to consider selling the Tyandaga Golf course property.
 Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison always has an eye open for an economic opportunity – sees a great one for the city: sell the golf course. “This isn’t a business we should be in” Dennison commented, echoing remarks city manager Jeff Fielding had made more than a year ago. While Tyandaga is currently running at a bit of a profit that was not the case a couple of years ago. At that time the golf course juggled its business model and tightened up its management practices and the profit and loss statement began to look better.
Dennison just doesn`t think the city should be in the golf course business and pointed to the “40 golf courses” in the surrounding communities – that number might be a stretch, but Burlington certainly has its share of golf clubs that are a 15 minute drive from the downtown core. Should the city be in a losing business when there are plenty of very good private golf clubs in the community?
 Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison sees 200 homes on the Tyandaga golf course property and thinks the Catholic Diocese property that front on Brant Street could be made a part of the project as well. Dennison saw the 110 acre Tyandaga property as prime residential development land and talked of being able to get something between $12 and $18 million for the land alone. He added to that the immense development charges that would accrue to the city and then the tax assessment which he pegged at $200 million.
Dennison told his colleagues that the property had 33 acres of land that could be developed and because of the location he saw at least six houses on each acre getting pretty close to 200 homes on a prime site that would have 76 acres of parkland.
Before we knew it Dennison had $1.6 million in additional tax revenue in the city’s coffers.
 The golf course wants to spend $150,000 this year on upgrading parts of the golf course – Dennison wanted to defer that spending while the city took a closer look at the property and the opportunity he felt it offered.
The rest of Council wasn’t as gung-ho as Dennison. They Mayor said it looked like a “cash grab” to him but didn’t explain what was wrong with wringing cash out of an underperforming asset.
The rest of Council didn’t get very excited either. Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven was delayed in getting to the Standing Committee meeting and missed a discussion that would have taken a major public recreational service off his plate.
Councillor Sharman took the high road and said the selling of the golf course had to be looked at in a “broader context” but didn’t elaborate on what that meant other than to say that the city was “not ready for the discussion”.
Councillor Meed Ward piped in with her view that adding residential assessment isn’t always a good deal for the city. “For every dollar of tax revenue we pull from residential properties we end up, over time, spending a $1.40 Dennison came back with “that argument doesn’t really hold all that well”.
Council needed some input on just what the planned spending on the golf course was for and called Director of Parks and Recreation Chris Glenn to the podium. Odd as it may sound Glenn wasn’t able to say just how many golf courses there were in Burlington, nor could a member of his staff come up with a solid number.
 Were anyone to ask a privately operated golf course what their competition was you would expect them to tell you exactly how many competitors they had and be able to tell you which were their closest competitors in terms of course usage and revenue. The mindset of the private sector is a lot different from the mindset of the public sector where the renewal of an asset is based on a chart or a schedule that dictates when an asset has to be renewed. The private sector operator would wring every possible nickel out of a piece of equipment. Any expenditure comes out of the bottom line which tends to be the owners pockets.
Glenn explained what the $150,000 was going to be used for – and added that it wasn’t really a capital expenditure from the city’s point of view – the expenditures were going to come out of reserves the golf course had in place.
For Dennison it was an opportunity that was being missed; he wanted to see the asset being used in a much different way. He didn’t manage to convince his colleagues to go along with him – the motion to defer the item was lost on a 4-2 vote. But Dennison did manage to plant a seed – the city manager is way ahead of him on this one. When city council decides what businesses it wants to be in – the golf course business is not likely to be one of them.
Another question is: will Jack Dennison be on Council to see this kind of development take place.
At the Tuesday evening Council meeting the Capital budget was approved for 2014. There are loads of items in the longer term capital budget that will be getting a much different look during the year. City hall will begin the process of totally recasting capital expenditures as it reorients itself to its new financial reality. Among the projects in that capital budget that will be getting a closer look are the railway underpasses on Mainway and Burloak – neither is going anywhere in 2014 – both will be getting a closer look as the longer term capital budget gets its remake.
On the books for the 2015 to 2023 capital spending is a massive $494,012,195 in capital spending. City manager Jeff Fielding looked at the cookie jar and knew pretty quickly that the number wasn’t possible – thus the decision to totally recast what we want to do, what we have to do and what we can do in the way of capital spending for the next 15 years.
 Lori Jivan, on the right, Acting coordinator budget and policy with the city explains the 2014 budget at a public meeting. With the capital budget of $67,973,902 nailed down – let’s look at where the money is going to come from: Lori Jivan, Acting coordinator budget and policy explains:
External other: These are monies the city gets from other place, could be the provincial government, the Region or some other municipality we are doing a joint project with. If Tremaine Road was having work done on it – because it is our border with Oakville they might be paying part of the cost. We pick up $10,089,000 from this source.
Debt: We sometimes decide to borrow money to pay for a capital project. This year the city projects they will borrow $6,903,000
Cash from the current budget: This is tax revenue – money the city collects as taxes. A portion of the tax money gets pushed into the Capital account. For 2014 they are moving $16,684,000 into capital expenditures
IRRF – this is the Infrastructure Recover Fund which amount to $2.000.000 the city gets from Burlington Hydro. It comes to the city from Hydro as a dividend which the city places in the Infrastructure Recovery account. $2,000,000
SCD: Special Circumstances Debt. This is an estimate of the amount of debt the city will have to take on for special project – one time situations that might get taken on. The Performing Arts Centre is an example of a one time Special debt.
FGT: Federal Gas Tax. The portion of the federal gas tax that the city receives. For 2014 that is set at $4.774,000
Provincial Gas Tax PGT: The portion of the provincial gas tax the city receives. For 2014 that is set as $850,000.
Reserve funds will be used with $20,648,000 coming from the development charge reserve and $5,027,00 coming from what the city calls “other”.
 By Pepper Parr
February 11, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
City manager Jeff Fielding has to be a happy camper today. Council gave him $67 million and change for the various capital projects he has on the go. Actually he got $67,973,902.
Council like to go through these budgets and lop off a bit here and a bit there to leave the clear impression that have a grip on the spending. Part of the budget process is to have council members send in the items they want more information on – there were 25 pages of those. If a Council member wants then to debate the item they put it on a list.
 This year there were 17 items from just two council members: Dennison and Taylor of ward 3 – both whom have been on council individually for more than 20years
 Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison, who knows the Tyandaga part of the city very well – used to represent that part of the city – wants to see a couple of hundred million dollars home on the land. His thinking appears to be aligned with that of the city manager. Capital projects are all those roads, buildings and vehicles the city needs to keep things moving. At one point it looked as if Fielding was going to have an additional $10 million in savings when Jack Dennison, ward 4 came up with an idea that would have the city out of the golf business and sell of the Tyandaga property and get a couple of hundred high-end single family dwellings built. Dennison had figured out everything except the potential development charges but his colleagues weren’t buying it – too premature they said.
However, the writing was on the wall for Tyandaga – too many people see it as land that can be put to better use. Dennison said there were 40 golf clubs in the area – that number seemed high – Parks and Recreation Director Chris Glenn wasn’t able to say how many golf clubs there were in the city, which seemed odd.
Sometime last year city manager fielding did say that he had some ideas about the Tyandaga property – felt there was more value for the place than the city is getting from operating a golf course.
There was a $250,000 capital expenditure related to what city hall – staff and elected council members want to do with city hall – but the lips got kind of tight when that subject came up. Dennison wondered of part of that quarter of a million couldn’t be moved back to 2015 but Allan Magi, Executive Director of Corporate Strategic Initiatives explained that there was a report that would get produced and presented in June that would set some of the “high priorities” and “options” for the city.
Because this is a real estate matter fielding didn’t want much said by anyone to anyone. He told Council he would get back to them with a confidential memo that would tell all – but it wouldn’t be telling all to everyone.
Get ready for some interesting ideas on a significant city hall initiative – maybe a new one. Bet on it staying in the downtown core.
There will some of that stuff that is known to hit fans in the late Spring or early summer – which is when Council members will be gearing up their re-election campaigns. One of the ways to deflect the details on the pier and its legal fallout would be to get all warm and fuzzy about a brand new city hall that is going to (finally) revitalize the downtown core.
 Marianne Meed Ward chaired the meeting – she runs a swift, no-nonsense meeting; this is a council member that has learned a lot in the four years she has served the city. Much more focused when it comes to running a meeting. As chair she gets to talk as long as she wants – and to the delight of her colleagues she has learned that 50 words can often do as much as 500 words.
 By Pepper Parr
February 10, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
With the city budget determined as both capital costs and Operating costs – it can still be very confusing.
Council members have tons of questions. Rather than have some questions asked several times city staff pull
together all the questions and consolidate them – letting staff dig out the answers and put the collection in front of council
– it runs to 25 pages.
 Markings identifying portions of the street intended for cyclists. Future plans for bike lanes:
Setting aside part of roadways for cyclists is still a work in progress in Burlington. The cycling advocates
lost the battle to have dedicated lanes on Lakeshore Road – something to be remembered come the
civic election.
Question: Provide a consolidated breakdown of capital funding sources and total cost to install bike lanes for the projects identified in the capital budget.
Response: Preliminary Bike Lane forecasted costs
Ref # 2 Appleby Line @ Harvester Intersection
$ Costs if part of road expansion
Standalone costs (no planned expansion)
Year 2018 $22,000 $822,000
Ref #
|
5
|
Harvester Road @ Guelph Line IntersectionYear 2017 |
$22,000 |
$148,000 |
| Ref # |
6
|
Harvester Road – South Service Road to CenturyYear 2017 |
Drive$161,700 |
$823,200 |
| Ref # |
7
|
Harvester Road – South Service Road to WalkersYear 2017/2020 |
Line$365,200 |
$699,500 |
| Ref # |
8
|
Lakeshore Road – Maple Avenue to City LimitYear 2015/2017 |
$451,000 |
$957,000 |
| Ref # |
11 |
North Service Road @ WalkersYear 2014 |
$187,000 |
$277,000 |
| Ref # |
12 |
Waterdown Road NorthYear 2016 |
$528,000 |
$818,000 |
| Ref # |
13 |
Waterdown Road WideningYear 2014 |
$72,600 |
$312,600 |
| Ref # |
16 |
Plains Road Reconstruction |
|
|
| Year |
2015 |
380 m @ $220 /m = |
$83,600 |
$1,005,000 |
| Ref # |
17 |
South Service RoadYear 2016/2017 |
$52,800 |
$209,600 * |
| Ref # |
19 |
Brant Street @ Plains RoadYear 2017 |
$22,000 |
$66,000 |
| Ref # |
20 |
Harvester Road @ WalkersYear 2016 |
$22,000 |
$272,000 |
| Ref # |
21 |
King Road – SSR to NSR |
|
|
|
|
Year 2019 |
$57,200 |
$2,532,000 * |
| Ref # |
23 |
Walkers @ DundasYear 2016 |
$22,000 |
$52,000 |
| Ref # |
24 |
Walkers @ Upper MiddleYear 2018 |
$22,000 |
$122,000 |
| Ref # |
25 |
Waterdown Road Bridge Widening at Hwy 403 |
$17,600 |
$1,500,000 * |
| Ref # |
28 |
Burloak Drive Grade SeparationYear 2020/2021 |
$44,000 |
$2,000,000 * |
| Ref # |
31 |
Lakeshore Road ReconstructionYear 2019 |
$37,400 |
$179,100 |
| Ref # |
32 |
Plains Road @ York Blvd RoundaboutYear 2023 |
$33,000 |
$83,000 |
| Ref # |
33 |
Walkers Line – Hwy 407 to No 1 SideroadYear 2020 |
$239,800 |
$824,800 |
| Ref # |
85 |
Eastport Drive Cycling ImprovementsYear 2017 |
$11,000 |
$1,000,000 * |
|
|
TOTAL
|
$2,473,900 |
$14,702,800 |
Harvester Road corridor:
Question: Harvester Road Corridor Improvements and Widening. Provide the total cost of all works proposed along the Harvester Road corridor.
Response: The total gross cost of projects along the Harvester Road corridor is $ 27,489,500.
Sealing cracks on roads is one of the preventive maintenance tools before a road has to be rebuilt. Shave and pave have proven to be money well spent – and we are spending a lot of money on this tool. Road repairs – sealing cracks:
Question: Provide the list of suggested roads that will be crack sealed.
Response: The following table identifies the proposed 2014 crack sealing candidates
| Road |
From |
To |
| WILLOWBROOK RD |
PLAINS RD |
ENFIELD RD |
| GLENWOOD AVE |
NORTH SHORE BLVD |
TOWNSEND AVE |
| RICHMOND RD |
MAPLE AVE |
HAGER AVE |
| POMONA AVE |
LAKESHORE RD |
SPRUCE AVE |
| PINE COVE RD |
SPRUCE AVE |
NEW ST |
| ROCKWOOD DR |
WOODVIEW RD |
WALKER’S LINE |
| TURNER DR |
LONGMOOR DR |
BENNETT RD |
| GRAPEHILL AVE |
WALKER’S LINE |
STRATHCONA DR |
| MELBA LANE |
SPRUCE AVE |
STRATHCONA DR |
| LINDEN AVE |
HAWTHORNE AVE |
SPRUCE AVE |
| REEVES RD |
WHITE PINES DR |
TOTTENHAM RD |
| MAPLE |
LAKESHORE |
FAIRVIEW |
Downtown street lights:
Question: Is the sum of $884,000 in addition to the $1.9 million included in previous budgets to complete Decorative Street Light Restoration works on the downtown?
Response: The sum of $884,000 is new funding. The restoration project is to start in 2016 and continue yearly for 4 years with an expenditure of $222,000 per year. The previous Capital funding was for the reconstruction of Brant Street, burying utilities and installing Decorative Street Lights.
Central Arena Facility Renewal/Enhancements – Skyway
Question: Is money needed for these arenas? What is the future direction of Skyway?
Response: Funds for Central Arena are identified for 2015 and funds for Skyway Arena are identified for 2017. Staff will be conducting an ice needs review in 2014 to determine if the current inventory will meet customer needs for the next 5-10 years. The results of this review will be presented to Council. If the review warrants major renovations to either arena, staff will submit a business case in conjunction with the 2015 budget submission.
The capital budget will be recast in 2015. As such, the 2014 capital budget and forecast focused on 2014 projects. The project in the capital budget assumes a revitalization of Skyway Arena based on life cycle renewal requirements. However, prior to proceeding with this a strategic review of the need for this facility vis-a-vis ice user needs as well as other community needs will be under taken as directed by Council.
 Longer term thinking has city hall being replaced but for the immediate future improving the sound system in Council chamber – FINALLY! and improving some of the meetings rooms is where capital dollars will be spent this year. City Hall:
Question: What work is being done on the city hall building for the $250k in 2014?
Response: A City Hall Administrative Study is underway which will provide a recommended strategic option for City Hall needs. Funding identified in 2014 is to advance the high level option recommended in this study to design development including costing for capital budget purposes.
Looking at what to do with city hall long term doesn’t mean it will be left to disintegrate.
Question: Provide the detail of the work being done in 2014 for public meeting rooms and council chambers.
Response: (a) Meeting rooms on 3rd floor: Replacement of carpeting, furniture and technology. (b) Council Chambers: Audio equipment only.
 Now the biggest park the city has – and the furthest from the bulk of the population. City View Park:
It is now the biggest park the city has – but very few people get to use the place tucked away as it is in the north-west sector of the city – easier for Waterdown people to get to the place.
Once you are there – the site is wonderful. Many don’t like the plastic grass and argue that we will rue the day we have to pay for its replacement and cost of getting rid of it. It was hoped the location would be a big Pan Am Games attraction but all Burlington is going to get is a decent chunk of rent money for space soccer teams use to practice. The public will not be allowed onto the site during those practices.
Question: Outline the need for the 1.8 FTEs and $158K of operating requirements in 2016 and 2017.
Response: 2014 request of $5K supports the portable washroom facility required at the site. The amounts for 2016 and 2017 should be adjusted as follows:
Move request for $15K and 0.3FTE from 2016 to 2015 to provide a student for maintenance of the 3 premier sports fields starting in the Pan Am year. This student will work weekends and will provide a presence in the park, collect litter, groom fields as needed, inspect the trails and ensure the fields are being used as permitted. Three artificial turf fields have been built out and the large investment in this infrastructure requires a greater level of oversight and service.
Move request for $143K and 1.5FTE to 2019 when the Pavilion construction is scheduled. The FTE’s are for one permanent staff person (Equipment Operator) and one seasonal temp. With the build out of the pavilion, the washroom building will be open and the picnic areas. Much like other city parks (such as Central, Nelson, Sherwood Forest, Millcroft, Lowville) the investment in infrastructure combined with high use require increased staff levels to ensure that maintenance standards are met.
 Information technology is everywhere – but not always something you can put your finger on. Done well it will save most people time and the city administration a tonne of money. Expensive – yes – but we couldn’t exist without it. Information technology:
City hall is going to use the internet as much as it can to both improve its communication with its citizens and to reduce its costs. The Information technology department will be charged with delivering on the policy that Council decides upon.
There will be some bumps along this road – we don’t have an IT department that manages to be ahead of the curve in the IT field – to be fair few municipalities are able to keep up with the change. Major corporations stumble on this one. Add to that – that technology takes longer to complete – almost every time.
Project: E-Government Strategy Implementation
Question: a) How much funding has been committed to the E-gov’t program (to date and future)?
b) How many FTEs (permanent and temporary) are assigned by year?
c) With the money being spent, what will be the outcomes / transactions?
Response: a) The E-government program funding is:
Approved to-date:
$1.21 million (2011 – 2013 capital budget requests for software, hardware, implementation, IT staff costs). The projects supported with this funding are the web portal, e-commerce, public involvement, community calendar, service requests.
$490,000 (current budgets for business project staffing costs). These staff are supporting projects for recreation services, web design and migration and overall e-government program implementation. (one-time expense)
2014 capital request:
$240,000 to support projects in development services, open data and staff support.
Total of $1,940,000. This reflects what was requested in the 2012 budget in a 3 year capital program (2012 – 2014).
b) Staff assignments to E-Government Program:
Program manager 3 years, Business Analyst – 2 years, Application Analyst
– 2.5 years, P&R Business Lead – 1 year, Web Specialist – 1 year. The Program Manager and Application Analyst positions finish in 2015 and all others end in 2014.
All of the positions are temporary assignments done through secondment or contract.
c) E-Government Program deliverables are focused on enhancing and expanding our customers’ online experience. Our goal is to introduce more electronic service options for the public and enhance the information access/search ability with improved navigation.
Services delivered to date include: The online Live and Play guide with direct connection to program registration, Public engagement through MindMixer, Tax bill/statement electronic distribution and payment through EPost, Online Tyandaga tee time bookings, P&R program waitlist notification and receipt printing, Online facility availability, Online P&R membership registration.
City information data sets available through our Open Data project for developers and interested community members e.g. our transit schedule is now available through free apps to make it easier to know what bus to take based upon where you want to go.
Our future deliverables are:
Providing a single online reference point for Public Involvement opportunities with the City through a new web page
Online facility availability to meeting rooms and picnic spaces
Revitalized map views to make them easier to use and understand
More data sets for developers to create apps for our citizens to use e.g. cycling routes, construction plans, approved budgets
A new website with the ability to put more services and information online in an easier to access format e.g. service requests, development service permits and applications
An enhanced community calendar
A more user friendly and flexible e-payments solution
Emerald Ash Borer
This is one of those projects where we often don’t know that we are doing – but then no one else in the field knows all that much either. It is complex, based on science that we are still learning about and it is expensive. The hope is – and that’s basically all we have at this point – is that we can keep ahead of it. Not much of an upside but the downside is to lose thousands of trees – and if tax payers are concerned about property values – imagine a street that loses all of its ash trees. This is a tough one.
 This little creature is costing us a fortune – and we are not at all certain we are going to win the battle to stop the infestation. Question: a) How effective is the current program?
b) What were the results of the pilot program in Oakville?
Response: a) Although the effectiveness of the current program is still being understood, observations indicate that treatment has contributed to the prolonged life of ash trees. To date, the trees requiring removal have been primarily those that are untreated and there has not been a significant impact to treated trees. In some cases, non-treated trees have been removed beside treated trees that are still standing.
 How much damage can the Emerald ash bore do? Trees in Cambridge that are lost. b) Staff will request information from Oakville staff about the results of their pilot study and provide Council with this information as it is received.
The above are a few of the items in the capital budget for 2014. The numbers are for the most part place holders while the city totally re-casts the capital budget for 2015 – which is when the new budgeting tools begin to come into play. Service based budgeting, Result based accountability and new Business process management tools will become THE approach used at city hall.
Will they make a difference. You want to hope so – there are some costs coming our way that could cripple the 2020 taxpayers.
 By Pepper Parr
February 4, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Where would you go if you wanted to figure out what RBA and BPM and SBB meant? You could do worse than talking to someone who has CIA, CCSA, CFE, CGAP, CRMA behind her name, which is what Sheila Jones, the city’s auditor has behind her name.
And she can explain what RBA, BPM and SBB mean and why they are both very relevant and important to the financial management of the city.
Burlington has, up until the 2014 budget year, based its spending on what each department does. City manager Jeff Fielding has changed that approach to a focus on the service that is delivered to the citizens of the city.
The objective is to first identify the services the city is in and decide if these are businesses we want to be in. There are a total of 54 services, of those 13 are internal to city hall – think legal and HR; leaving 41 services delivered to the public. Of that 41 – 31 are delivered by the city. Others are delivered by other levels of government. Region is an example – they handle water and waste removal.
If the residents of the city, and let us hope that it is the residents who make the decision along with their council members, and not just the administrators at city hall, decide a particular service is something they want and are prepared to pay for the city manager will assign responsibility and accountability for the effective and efficient delivery of that service to a specific person.
As a broad approach to the delivery of services it would appear sensible – now how do you define the metrics that will be used to measure the value of the services and determine if it is being delivered in an effective and efficient manner?.
 Sheila Jones, CIA, CCSA, CFE, CGAP, CRMA, Burlington’s first auditor Back in December, at a Committee of the Whole meeting Auditor Jones took Council through a detailed overview that left them with more questions than answers. Jones used about 45 minutes to lay out the changes that were in the works and asked for feedback.
She started by explaining what was going to be fundamentally different.
 The city is moving from a traditional approach to budgeting where all the expenses were attached to a department. They are moving to an approach where the expenses are attached to a service the city delivers. The city administration does see this as an effective way to manage the city. The approach is going to be for staff to provide Business Plans and Cases, Performance Tracking and Monitoring, Performance Reporting and Continuous Improvements.
At the end of this process the city manager expects to be able to ask, and answer two critical questions. There is a third question that you the voter will get to ask and answer.
Fielding is requiring his staff to tell him:
How much did we do?
How well did we do it?
He then wants you, the public, to tell him if you are any better off?
The process he is putting in place certainly has merit. Fielding is the kind of guy who thinks things through but isn’t afraid to change his mind if he didn’t get it right the first time. He has a lot of experience with “unintended consequences”.
The time line for all this:
 First, if you ever wondered what they do at city hall – charts like this are an example. This was not an easy task. It sets out the time frame to get to the new approach. This will be a very significant shift for staff and will be the making of careers for some and maybe early retirement for those who can’t make the transformation. Public input and education are a critical part of this process. What the city wants to do is promote dialogue about: Service management, Council and Service Owner roles and responsibilities, and the portfolio of services delivered to the public.
The city wants input on the level of service performance accountability reporting people want to see, along with the Importance and value of services delivered.
Auditor Jones wanted to know where Council felt they fit into the process. Were they OK with maintaining a strategic view of services by making decisions regarding commissioning and/or decommissioning of services; increasing and/or decreasing service levels and their appetite and/or tolerance for risk and a review of service portfolio?
Examples of de-commissioning a service can be seen in the 2014 budget. Do you want leaf collection in the fall as frequently; how often do you want sidewalks plowed.
Jones asked: Do you accept Council’s role and responsibilities? 100% they said BUT, …there was still some work to be done to show the link from strategic goals to performance management.
The report that was being discussed set out Senior Management, Service Owner and Staff Role and Responsibilities. Each was to:
Maintain an operational and tactical view of services by: making decisions regarding how services are delivered within the limits of Council approved service levels and budgets; determining, tracking/monitoring and reporting on performance and identifying risks; determining and implementing opportunities for continuous improvement; reviewing services and maintaining the service portfolio based on the decisions of Council.
Jones went on to give a detailed example as to how this would work using Burlington Transit as an example. Those details will be part of a different article.
Everything the city does under the 2015 budget will be somewhere within the Service Portfolio that is currently being revised and refined. That data is expected sometime in the spring when it can ideally become part of the election debate.
At this point in time the service portfolio consists of:
 A Service Portfolio is a list of all the services the city delivers. With the new Service Based Budget there will be a business plan for each service that will be approved by each Council at the beginning of its term of office. This basically sets out what the city is going to deliver.
Full details of that portfolio have yet to be released – there could be some surprises in that document. The core, the foundation of this new approach is the service that the city delivers. What services does the city want to be in and which services does the city want to get out of. This is a Council decision – what staff want to know is: What is the most suitable cycle time for a Council to review the service portfolio? 60% said at the beginning of new council term; 60% said some other time and 20% said at the beginning of each year. That comes to 140% – is this a harbinger of the kind of number stuff we can expect?
Every service will have a Business Plan that sets out the rational, purpose and the expectation the service will deliver. Whenever there is a change to the Business Plan a Business Case has to be provided.
One assumes these business plans and business cases will be on-line, which, if the Strategic Plan is any example, the public will pick up on very quickly and begin to demand that what is published is delivered. Which is exactly what city manager Jeff Fielding wants them to do – he wants the public to hold his staff accountable for his staff to learn to be accountable to the public they serve.
What is going to be in a business plan: Service Banner, Current State, Sub-services, Recent Continuous Improvements Initiatives, Financial Investment, Human Resource Investment, Emerging Opportunities & Anticipated Risks, Measuring Success and Service Objectives.
The presentation was extensive. Each of the parts of the Business Plan had forms that staff had to complete.
It all starts with what city people call the Service banner which a high level view of what the service is, why it is being delivered, what it will cost and how it will be reviewed by city council.
 The document that sets out the high level view of the service being delivered.  This type of document sets out the working plan for a service. The focus is always on improving the quality of the service and keeping the cost in line.  How much money has to be put into the service and what are the HR needs. Burlington has managed to keep the number of people on staff down – and without the use of all that much in the way of contract work.  City manager Fielding wants to see improvements and realizes that means taking some risks – and some of those risks will not work out. Staff can advise Council, Council has to make the decision. The public has to learn that changes need to be made and that much of the territory we are moving into is uncharted waters. Mistakes will be made and the public is going to have to learn to accept the mistakes. The Pier was not a mistake – but it was a classic example of terrible oversight and shockingly poor management.
 These are the documents that performance evaluations are going to be based on: Did city hall deliver – and if they didn’t, why not and if the why not isn’t satisfactory maybe HR will suggest another line of work – outside city hall.  For city manager Jeff Fielding it is all about improvement in the way services are delivered along with a hard look at what the city wants to actually deliver. Fielding isn’t a hard-nosed, cut everything to the bare bones. He thinks the flowers along main roads is a plus and are a part of what makes Burlington the top city it is – BUT he wants to make sure the public fully understands the costs – and is prepared to pay them. Fielding says the ear he has to the ground tells him the public is prepared to pay the cost for the extras – Council of course has to make that decision. With Council having had an overview of the process Auditor Jones wanted to know how they, Council, wanted to track what was being done.
She proposed that Council review the service portfolio at the beginning of each new council term. The Service Portfolio is that list of all the things the city does – the different businesses they are in.
All the Business Plans for all the services in place would be before Council and be made part of the orientation process for a new council and reviewed again annually during the budget process.
Council would look only at those services that have had a change made to them which would be shown in business cases that would be before Council. Waiting for a staff member to decide a change was needed and that a business case should be written up works only if you have a civil service that is responsive and genuinely feels they are accountable to the public. Many are, quite a few are not – it’s a culture change that is still being created.
Auditor Jones then wanted to know: What is the appropriate frequency of reporting performance
Measures; 40% said quarterly; 40% said semi-annually and 20% said annually
Jones took the middle road and proposed that management report to Council semi-annually to coordinate with financial reporting starting in 2015.
Management proposed to assess quarterly as the methods and data for calculating performance measures become stable, predictable and easy to access. This is a work in process that will need quite a bit of fine tuning.
Jones then poses the critical question: What does the public needs to know? Key messaging would include: what is the service portfolio?; why is it important to them? why should they care?; what is the service management framework?; what is a business plan?; what is service based budgeting?
The intention is to do this work in Q2 2014 using various communications channels along with Council involvement to actively engage the public in a process of education and awareness promotion.
Jones is close to emphatic when she says the city needs this valuable information from the public to assist Council in making decisions about services and service levels and to help administrate and prioritize initiative and activities. The city will begin gathering this kind of information in Q3 of 2014 for the 2015 budget and every year after that to inform the budget process.
What is the most suitable cycle for review of a service?
When a service review is defined as a formal undertaking by the service owner to ensure what is delivered is of the highest value to the community; that it applies best modern practices for cost-effective delivery, and directs valuable, limited resources to the delivery of community valued programs and services, a business case is prepared. The limitation here is that it is the service owner making the decision to review. The city might want to look for a way to pull the public into the process.
Council split on that approach as well: 40% said let’s do it bi-annually; 40% by priority sequence and 20% based on some other criteria.
Management came back with having management determine a service owner and Council requirements and develop a Service Review Framework and Methodology for implementation in 2016.
The public will participate – if you give them the opportunity. More than 70 people turned out for a budget review that was held at the Art Centre. The city didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to hold an event at Tansley Woods, where space is admittedly limited nor did they look at all the space in the Alton Campus.
And that was it – Auditor Jones had set it out for them:
Develop performance measures and complete business plans
Undertake continuous improvement efforts
Develop and implement: service based budget views; service performance accountability reporting and service review framework and methodology. Then educate the public on service management
With just under an hour for the presentation Jones asked: What do you think? And there wasn’t a word, not a peep from one of the council members. All seven members of Council were totally mute. Not a word, not a question. There was no interaction, no debate – nothing, which did not bode well for where this vital initiative for the city is going to go.
What was it that Jones said that stunned the seven? If the elected types don’t respond – what likelihood for a robust public response?
Before this new approach gets taken out to the public a lot more work needs to be done on the current council – because they didn’t appear to get it.
Jones has been the city auditor since January of 2009. A 20 year Royal Bank Financial Group veteran where she ended her career with the ban as senior manager of enterprise operational risk assessments. She also holds business degrees from Dalhousie and Queen’s universities.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON.
February 4, 2014
Jeff Fielding has a problem. It’s a big problem. We aren’t sure exactly when he realized he had a problem nor do we know when he fully realized the extent of the problem. But there is no doubt today that he has got a firm grip on the problem and he can tell you exactly what it is with one simple graph.
 The chart covers a long period of time and it is difficult to read the detail but the trend isn’t hard to miss. Those red lines represent the amount of money the city does not have but needs to spend if roads and other capital assets are to be maintained. Are there efficiencies anywhere? Fielding will tell you that we aren’t in a desperate situation – yet, but he adds that if we don’t do something now – we will be in a close to desperate situation. The problem is with the asset’s the city owns.
In January of last year Fielding briefed Council corporate Asset Management Project. At that time Italo DiPietro and Paul Rohoman were seconded from Engineering to Corporate Strategic Initiatives to give the task the dedicated and focused attention it needed.
The city’s tangible capital assets, based on their replacement value is approximately $2.5 billion. Of this, approximately $2 billion is made up of linear assets including roads, storm sewers, bridges/culverts and sidewalks. A further $295 million is made up of city owned facilities and buildings. Collectively these two categories comprise approximately 92% of the city’s total capital assets as measured by replacement value.
 The objective of this project has been to report on the status of the city’s infrastructure, including adequacy of funding levels in the context of full life cycle needs. Following this, the project team would work with Finance staff on the analysis of funding scenarios and implications for the long-term condition of the city’s tangible capital assets.
In the asset management world seven things matter:
1. What do we own and where is it? (Inventory)
2. What is it worth? (Costs and replacement rates)
3. What is its condition and expected service life? (Condition and capability analysis)
4. What do we need to do to it? (optimum preventative maintenance and rehabilitation)
5. When do you need to do it? (Capital and operating plans)
6. How much will it cost?
7. How do you ensure long-term affordability? (Short and long term financial plan and acceptable risk)
These are large numbers. This is arcane language – only something an account would get excited about. However, if one looks at the data in a format that is easy to understand it evokes an Are you kidding me?
 Goodram looking north from LAkeshore: a classic Burlington Street that cost $2.9 million to rebuild just a portion of the street. Last summer Goodram Street was rebuilt. The street was close to 60 years old and its best before date had passed – some time ago. So the city rebuilt the road, rebuilt the sidewalk and the sewers at a total cost of $2.9 million
There were 54 homes on the stretch of street that had the construction work done. Based on the tax revenue the city derives from those 54 homes it will be at least 24 years before the $2.9 million has been recovered. In the meantime of course the city has to provide the good people on Goodram the normal services anyone else gets.
That kind of mathematics is just not sustainable – which is why Jeff Fielding and his staff are looking for more efficient ways to run the city. Somehow we must get a grip on what we are spending on the assets we own.
Director of Finance Joan Ford does a great job of providing the data and her department does a good job of collecting the taxes as well. It’s the spending side that is causing the long term financial stress. Ms Ford doesn’t do the spending. It is important to note, said a city Corporate Strategic Initiatives (CSI) report that asset accounting is different than asset management. The former is backward looking and is focused on developing an annual charge based on expected service life (amortization period) and depreciated cost based on the acquisition cost (net book value). It is not based on actual replacement cost or actual condition of the assets, and in many cases the actual inventory of assets has been pooled and does not give specific details on an asset itself. Asset management on the other hand is forward-looking and is focused on planning for the maintenance and renewal needs of an asset in the future. It is a management and capital planning methodology. Critical difference that impacts on the way Fielding has to find the money to pay for the replacements.
To provide a full long-term assessment of funding needs, a 60 year time horizon was used for both the facilities and buildings assets and roadways. Meeting new building code and accessibility requirements will add to the actual cost of projects.
 Based on this analysis, the existing backlog of now needs for facilities and buildings is estimated at $13.2 million. With existing funding levels a moderate backlog is forecast to persist on average over the next 25-30 year period.
In the longer term, the forecast for facilities is shown to increase significantly, as long life building systems reach the end of the useful life. The extent of the cumulative backlog will be approximately $25 million at the end of the planning horizon approaching year 60.
Ouch!
The existing backlog of now need roads has been calculated at $105 million. The shave and pave program has extended the life of our roads but there is nothing that can extend them forever. Existing funding levels indicate a major deficit in approximately 2025 which is when a large volume of roads that will be at the end of their useful life and will require full reconstruction.
One of the objectives in the City’s Long Term Financial Plan is Predictable Infrastructure Investment. The city’s infrastructure is aging, and funds must be committed to ensure it is properly maintained and renewed. It is imperative that a strategy be developed in a way that ensures our assets are protected and maintained at minimum cost to the taxpayers.
There are several possible financing strategies available to address the issue of the existing backlog and the growing infrastructure funding gap. Capital from Current funding (Cash) is one of the preferred strategies. It requires detailed planning to ensure that funds can be collected over the life of the asset. . This option would require incremental increases to the city’s existing dedicated infrastructure levy. This would directly impact tax rate increases as well as restrict the ability to utilize property tax levies for other needs.
That last sentence needs to be read a second time. `… require incremental increases to the city’s existing dedicated infrastructure levy. This would directly impact tax rate increases as well as restrict the ability to utilize property tax levies for other needs.
Funds for new project would not be available.
In order to move towards a cash-based renewal program there may be a need to reduce the speed by which the city achieves the optimal life cycle funding level. Lifecycle spending levels may need to be slowed down to match funding capability, and new initiatives and programs restricted to match available funding. Despite these challenges, the cash funding option is preferred due to its sustainability.
 A rapt audience listened to an overview of the 2014 budget. What they have yet to have explained to them is the desperate situation the city will be in ten years from now if something isn’t done in the next few years to figure out how we are going to pay for the maintenance of the roads we have. The city`s reserve funds are improving but the city nevertheless got a “warning” rating when the last report was received.. Drawing upon reserves to fund infrastructure renewal will only be sustainable in the long run, if contributions are made on an annual basis from the tax base and other revenues.
Tax monies put into reserve funds is then not available for other projects.
As well, the city may want to establish a policy of maintaining a minimum balance on the capital reserve funds. This will allow the city to maintain financial flexibility and match funding required by other government grant programs without incurring additional debt.
The Parks & Recreation Department currently adds a surcharge on room rentals and programs at select locations. These funds are then held in a reserve fund for that facility’s capital renewal needs. The practice is not currently in place at all locations and the surcharge being collected is often insufficient to cover all renewal needs. The vast majority of other fees collected across the city are used solely to offset departmental operating costs and do not contribute to facility renewal. Should the city choose to rely more heavily on this source of funding, a review of current revenue policies would need to be conducted to establish where facility renewal costs could be recovered from rates and fees.
The city has recently been successful in the sale of naming rights at the new Haber Community Centre. Annual revenues from this sponsorship arrangement will be deposited in the facility’s reserve fund to be used towards future capital renewal. Additional private sector sponsorship arrangements such as these could be used to address facility renewal at other locations within the city. It should be noted that these options only address the city’s facility infrastructure needs and do not assist with the funding gap for other asset categories.
 Lori Jivan, Acting coordinator of budget and policy patiently leads people through an explanation of the budget and the workbook the city created. Debt financing is beneficial as it can be used to address immediate needs faster than waiting for cash reserves to be built up. However it comes with an additional interest expense. Debt follows the principle of “intergeneration equity”, as it spreads the costs over the taxpayers consuming the asset and the benefit of the capital project over a longer period.
The city has a current debt policy which restricts total debt charges to 12.5% of net revenues.
The city’s long term reliance on debt as a funding source for asset renewal should be phased out as asset renewal is a continual expense requiring a sustainable funding source. However, it may be necessary to incur debt financing in early years in order to include several critical life-cycle projects for which sufficient funds have not been fully set aside. It is also important to keep in mind that when considering the use of debt as a funding source, the city should ensure that it is being used in a fiscally responsible manner and should follow the recommendations of the City’s Long Term Financial Plan.
Other options are:
Divesting of underutilized assets – This option would include the review of assets owned by the city (land and buildings) with the objective of maximizing the value of these assets through sale, partnering on development or optimizing net lease costs received/paid by the city.
Development of other revenue sources. There is a potential to develop other revenue sources through the establishment of city owned development or service corporations.
 Transferring of assets to senior levels of government, for example roads rationalization with the Region.
Burlington is not bringing in the new employment development. Commercial properties pay more in the way of taxes and cost the city less to service. Residential housing is a loss operation for the city: it costs more to provide the services home owners need than the city is able to collect in taxes.
 Can the city manage its debt and the cost of the infrastructure by pushing some of it forward and having the next generation pay for some of what we need to fix in the next ten years? Could the city use a conversation that would look seriously at the options in front of us? There is one more graph that offers some hope. We continually hear about the baby boomers that are going to retire and cost the city more to provide services for.
The chart above shows where the hope is. While there are millions of baby boomers there are even more millions of Millennials – young people who will want to live and work in Burlington. We need to ensure that there are jobs in the city for them and that Burlington is a city they will want to live in. But that`s 20 years down the road.
 By Pepper Parr
January 30, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The public got their first chance to see real detail on the proposed 2014 budget. It wasn’t that they didn’t like what they saw – they said they didn’t see enough data and they wanted a chance to talk about the budget before numbers were put out.
A packed room of about 70 people went through a workbook and talked about what they liked and didn’t like. On balance they were prepared to live with the proposed budget – there were the usual few who didn’t want the city taking another dime out of their pockets.
The LaSalle Park Marina Association tried to tilt the scales and had one of their advocates at each of the discussion tables.
Vanessa Warren of the Rural Coalition went to the front of the room and asked the “special interests” refrain from that practice.
In her summation she pointed out that none of the remarks made at the only public meeting being held on the budget would be available before delegations were made. The sense seemed to be that they wanted more information and they wanted it sooner so they could have a real impact.
|
|
