 By Pepper Parr
January 23, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Sometime this evening, before 10:00 pm, city council will decide in a formal manner what the tax increase for 2017 is going to be.
Staff had originally put forward a budget that has an increase of 4.23% over last year which city council members, during a Committee of the Whole – Budget meeting, bumped up 4.56%.
The public has not taken to this very well.
Aldershot resident Tom Muir, in a communication to Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman set out his concerns and said that he: “appreciated that the tax details and requests are complex, but that misses a point that I made. You get lost in the details, as the arguments for and against any specific item are amplified greatly when the line item numbers get larger and larger.
“Each item can always be argued to be justified for some reason, and we apparently have limited or no means to assess what we actually got in return and concrete results benefiting the taxpayers who are paying for all of this.
“And like the hospital tab, these things just get built into the base budget in subsequent years, unless they are specified as one-off items.
“Of concern is the apparent continued absence of any Council expression of intent to work at reducing the endless increases projected over the years. This trend is telling us that the path we are on is not leading to a good place, and something must be wrong if we can’t even pay our way with the plan of the city.
 City manager James Ridge asks Council to come up with $500,000 for staff to handle Project Management. “The city can’t even deliver a management plan without an extra $500,000. What are we getting for that money?
City manager James Ridge asked for an amount of $500,000 each year to cover the cost of Project Management services. The Gazette will explain what it is Ridge wants the money for and the explanation he gave council members.
“There’s no indication that I see. What are the deliverables, and where and who is the accountability lead? This is an example of one of those soft money projects that are yet another head shrinking navel gazing exercise by managers who, in my opinion, have developed the plans that they now seem to need a half a million to figure out.
“Also, despite all I have heard for decades about the great growth plans of the city, these plans have not delivered, and while the assessment growth has fallen, the costs of running the city are not falling.
City treasurer did say that $1 million in costs were cut from the budget.
“The city is falling behind on infrastructure renewal, and this just continues unabated. And Development Charges have long been a source of ongoing costs of growth to taxpayers, taking, as you say, a chunk of the assessment revenue as a hidden cost offset.
 Aldershot resident Tom Muir making a point at a public meeting. “I am unable, in a reasonable time, to coherently analyze and discuss the complex details of the budget. But as a general rule, my work experience with managers is they can always come up with a spending plan that yet again tries to figure out what they are doing and why.
“That’s why I say that the only way to deal with complex situations, with thin rationales, and opaque deliverables and defined results, that entail fiscal consequences of arguable sustainability, is by simplification.
“That was my suggestion. Just tell the managers and finance that they only get a no frills target percent increase and they have to figure out how to meet the target. That’s what I thought we paid them for – to manage, not just to build empires bigger than needed. If something doesn’t get gone, so what, the world will not end.
“I didn’t note my pension increase to cry poor, but to show you what the reality is for many people who are paying the taxes you are imposing, but seemingly without any recognition of the cumulative effects over longer time periods. Many people do not get any inflation increase, making it worse. And all people more or less have to pay the same kinds of bills that you cite as impacting the city operating costs.
 Gayle Cruikshank, seated, then Executive Director of Food for Thought, and Kelly Stronach, Manager of Program Development. Gayle Kabbash, Community Relations Manager at Food4Kids and a former Fundraiser and Community Developer at Community Living Oakville and a former Food & Logistics Specialist at Student Nutrition and a former Executive Director at Halton Food for Thought, knows a little bit about food budgets. Said on her Facebook page – “Geez- just went to pick up a few groceries and it fit in 1 bag and the bill was $75. The only meat was chicken breasts and wings. The rest was eggs, peppers, a baguette, one brick of cheddar cheese, clementines, 2 small bags of nuts, and celery salt for caesars (a must). These were purchased at a low cost grocery store. Anyone else feeling the Pain?”
Muir continues: “As well, these tax increases also have to be paid for by businesses, and many have thin margins that these tax costs just nibble away at, and they have similar bills again.
“I see no plan, no mention in the portions of the budget debate I have watched that there is anything being done to get control of these inflation-inducing increases in the percent tax increases year after year. These increases often, as I said, come with no description of a project proposal, with work plans, deliverables, responsibilities, results, and accountability arrows.
“The discussion of fiscal sustainability is, like last year, now lost in the end of the budget-making process for the year. Where is the committee of staff and council to get a handle on this exponential climb of taxes?
“Finally, my lingering concern is that citizens are wasting their time trying to get you folks to see the error of your ways, and the path you are putting the city on, by not dealing with this in a serious and visible manner.”
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman is usually very direct, tends to want to see data that is verifiable and expects to get his way. In 2011 Councillor Sharman banged away at his fellow council members and got a 0% increase in taxes – so he did once know how to be fiscally responsible.
Councillor Sharman had earlier in the month written to Muir saying “we are aware that pension income does not increase at the same pace as either inflation or the overall architecture of city finances. The city is driven by long term fiscal sustainability objectives.
“That discussion is not over yet, but we are trying to figure it out.”
Indeed it is not!
 By Tom Muir
January 21st, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 6 of a series
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident, has been an active participant in civic affairs or more than 25 years. He has been described as “acerbic”, a fair term for Tom.
He has outlined, in considerable length, a large part of why the parents at Central and Pearson high schools are in the mess they are in as a result of the recommendation to close their schools. In this article, one of a series Muir suggest what he feels are obvious solutions to the problem the Board of Education believes it has. There is a lot of material; it gets dense at times. Living in a democracy means you have to accept the responsibility of citizenship and stay informed.
What does the city do?
This school closing issue and decision-making process is by definition political.
That makes it personal, so we are all involved, elected official or not.
 Is saving a school the same as saving a community? The City is involved regardless of opinions. Elected city officials and city staff are involved as our representatives. I want them to comment on what various options and issues mean for the city.
This is their job, and if they don’t want to do this for their own “political” motives then they have lost their way, and are not representing us.
And I have to wonder what the Mayor is thinking when he avoids involvement, saying it’s political, which is just a truism, and thus a disingenuous dodge, in my opinion. He’s playing politics himself.
City Manager Jim Ridge has been appointed to the PARC to represent the City, and I can only hope that he takes a full briefing to that table of the many City interests that are involved and at stake in this issue.
It’s not just Central and Pearson on the block – everything and every school, including elementary, are in there somehow, and in some way.
It is not just a school board issue, although they have the vote, and make the final decision.
I realize that the decision is for education trustees to make, but Councilors that claim they have no role whatsoever are abdicating their duty to politically represent residents and the city as a whole.
To say that the city has no interest in whether there are schools in the city or not is just out to lunch. The city has key interests, which are obvious.
 City manager James Ridge will represent the city on the Program Accommodation Review Committee. What is his mandate and is it public? These interests need to be outlined by the City and Council, and injected into the debate and dialogue.
Jim Ridge can take these to the table, but the Council and Mayor must take their public responsibilities in this matter seriously and not dodge the political reality they are elected and empowered to carry forward.
If the intensification development plan that the Mayor and city are pushing does not need a school in the downtown, where 70% of the new is supposed to go, then the plan is fundamentally flawed in its conception and contradiction with any closure plan.
There’s no “complete communities” in this plan, and never will be if it happens.
 Mayor Goldring decided he would have the city manager represent the citizens on the Program Accommodation Review Committee. It was a controversial decision. Let’s hear from the Mayor and Council on this. We need a motion to direct staff to provide a report on potential school closings and the strategies that can be developed to protect community assets for future generations.
I would start with the following investigation. I would like Jim Ridge to direct staff to examine what the City and communities will lose if schools close, considering at least the following.
We all know that schools have many uses and many values. They are not just for educating the young during the day. It shouldn’t matter that they are not completely full right now – the neighborhood needs them for the future, which will certainly change, and this change is evident now.
People come and go from our schools at many times of the day and week all year, and for many reasons. I ask that the City document all these comings and goings, all of the ways that people interact with the schools.
They belong to the residents that fully paid for them, and own them, and the school board holds them in trust, or is supposed to.
They are a bought and paid for part of the community fabric, the community capital stock, and an asset that has many uses and values, including recreation, sports, social clubs, adult education, clubs, green-space, heritage, school spirit, memories, diversity of city form and landscape, and the list can go on.
They contribute to property values and a sense of the familiar and well-being – the quality of life.
 Pearson was a purpose built school -intended to serve both students and a wider community. Are the Catholics going to be able to come to terms with the Board of education and acquire the property? Are not most schools considered to be community schools? These interactions are in fact part of the glue that ties neighborhoods and communities together.
This will include recreation, sports and athletics, adult education, day care, social and other clubs, public meetings, and any other activity that uses the school buildings and property.
Indeed, the Alton (Hayden) school construction and opening was delayed 2 years because of the partnership between the Board and the City of Burlington to augment the on-site facilities, with city funding, providing 8 gymnasiums, a library, and community meeting spaces.
So this city partnership shows there is a clear city interest in this matter and issues arising.
I also ask that you consider how the schools enter into the City parks and green-space plans, and into good municipal planning in general.
What about the loss of property values, since we all know that schools, and green-space in a neighborhood, add to the price of housing there.
Is the City prepared for assessment appeals and the loss of tax revenue, or is this something to be ignored, and denied when the time comes?
We need a certain irreducible level of schools capacity, and this includes an appropriately located capacity to have schools.
So my point is we need schools everywhere they were built. The extra capacity is money in the bank to buffer the changes that are certainly going to come from the growth and changes the city is facing, and that the province and Council are advocating.
I don’t think it can be said that we absolutely have too many schools, and especially too much and too many of the functions and products and factors that schools represent and deliver to people.
So the city has a big stake in this for all the things I listed, and Council has a responsibility to the residents they represent to pay attention to these things and account for them.
This is no time for silos, artificial divisions, and neglect of care and concern for these things.
 Is a Board of Education matter likely to become an election issue for city council? So let’s stop talking about closing schools right off the bat, as a starting opinion, and exhaust ourselves figuring out creative and adaptive ways to reconfigure how we make do and keep what we have.
We will surely need it sometime in the future.
Following this we need a City organized public debate on this threatened confiscation of community assets and the multi-faceted impacts on the city.
If Council can’t see their role in this important matter, that goes to the heart of everything the city is planning – strategic plan, growth, Official Plan, intensification, community, and so on – then, again I say, they have lost their way.
Tom Muir is a resident of Aldershot who has been a persistent critic of decisions made by city council. He turns his attention to the current school board mess. He recently suggested to Burlington city council that “If you are so tired of and frustrated by, listening to the views of the people that elected you, then maybe you have been doing this job too long and should quit.
Muir explains that the PARC will only get what people send in, what they come up with from their own efforts, and what they ask/demand from the board. They have to decide what they want and go after it ruthlessly. They will have to fight with tooth and claw and take no prisoners.
Previous articles in the series.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
 By Staff
January 20, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
If your practice is to log into the city’s web site early in the morning – you might want to take a pass on that next Monday.
The IT people will be doing a scheduled maintenance on Monday, Jan. 23, 2017 from 5 a.m. until 7 a.m.
During that time, there may be temporary service disruptions. As a result, we recommend you not use these forms during that time.
 Deep in the bowels of city hall the IT people will be doing maintenance work on the city’s web site. Those upgrades usually go smoothly. • Parking Exemption
• Parking Ticket payment
• Dog License
• Accessible Document Request
• Advertising Request
• Event Application
• Rec Express Information Changes to my Account
• Rental Request Form
• Corporate Complaint Form
• Request to Appear as a Delegate
Council meets Monday to put the stamp of approval on the 2017 budget – so get your delegation notice in before then.
By Staff
January 20th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Some of the budget goodies that you get for your tax dollars.
You will be able to get married at city hall – sometime this year.
It wasn’t clear in the budget deliberations whether this service is being offered by the Parks and Recreation department or the Clerk’s department.
No word on what the costs are going to be and if there is going to be a room spiffed up for the weddings.
 The Mayor could, if he chose to, perform wedding ceremonies, now that city hall has decided to allow them to take place at city hall. some people just might like the “bling”: the Mayor gets to wear. The Mayor is known as the Chief Magistrate of the city and would have the authority to perform a wedding ceremony – sort of like the Captain on a cruise ship. He will need to get a license from the province to make the ceremony legal.
Great photo op – and this Mayor did say sometime ago that he finally gets it – it is all about getting your picture taken.
Cam Jackson would have been all over this one.
A limited market but the sign of a progressive city; the LGBTQ community may find it convenient.
The other goody is one that will please many who use Lakeshore Road frequently.
 Traffic barriers in place on Lakeshore for a Car Free Sunday a number of years ago. Councillor Dennison wants all those right hand lanes to be forced to take a right hand turn. Wants to see the same thing done on Maple and Lakeshore Road as well. He is tired of watching cars rush up the right hand lane and then cut in to traffic. Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison who lives on Lakeshore Road complained of the people who move into the right hand lane and speed up past all the cars on the left and then cut into the traffic later on.
Dennison wants all those right hand lanes to be right hand turn lanes – forcing drivers to make the right hand turn.
That should make for much fun. All part of an Operating budget that came in at more than $152 million plus – representing a 4.56% increase over the tax rate last year.
By Tom Muir
January 20th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 5 of a series
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident, has been an active participant in civic affairs or more than 25 years. He has been described as “acerbic”, a fair term for Tom.
He has outlined, in considerable length, a large part of why the parents at Central and Pearson high schools are in the mess they are in as a result of the recommendation to close their schools. In this article, one of a series Muir suggest what he feels are obvious solutions to the problem the Board of Education believes it has. There is a lot of material; it gets dense at times. Living in a democracy means you have to accept the responsibility of citizenship and stay informed.
The Gazette published the results of the 25 questions put to residents at the public meeting held by the Board on December 8.
There has been some concern expressed that the responses may be biased because of the representation by school is not even.
This is because all of the schools are not explicitly named as the primary option for closures, so there is a selection bias built right into the sampling frame itself, used by the Board consultant.
This sample of the resident/parent/student populations reflects the selection of schools that are directly named for closure or other changes – Central, Pearson, and Hayden. It is expected that the population of these schools would self-select to participate.
The low turnout from the other schools is also expected on similar grounds as not being in the selected schools directly affected.
 These are the parents that answered the 25 questions put to them by the Ipsos facilitator the Board of education hired to collect and analyze the data. The vast majority of them were from Central high school. In my opinion, the selection of schools is biased, so the turnout population sample reflects this bias – in effect the net bias balances out.
This is my summary of the details of the responses. The opposite views and votes are found by subtraction from 100%.
When you consider these closely, you can see what parents think about what they were asked, and what they want.
We have set out all 25 questions and the responses to each question – they are shown in red.
The Questions and the responses:
Question 1: Which high school are your representing tonight? The number beside the school was the number people in the audience would key in. The screen displayed a number that indicated how many devices had been handed out and another number showing how many people had responded.
7. Aldershot 7
6. Dr. Frank J. Hayden 43
5. Lester B. Pearson 43
4. Nelson Public 6
3. Robert Bateman 5
2. Burlington Central 150
1. M.M. Robinson 2
Question 2: How important is the availability of mandatory / core courses for your child(ren) within your home school?
3. Very Important 187
3. Somewhat Important 58
2. Not Very Important 12
1. Not at all Important 3
Question 3: How acceptable is it to attend a school outside of a home school for mandatory / core programming for your child(ren)?
4. Very Acceptable 22
3. Somewhat Acceptable 42
2. Not Very Acceptable 64
1. Not at all Acceptable 135
Question 4: How important is the availability of optional / elective courses within your home school for your child(ren)?
4. Very Important 94
3. Somewhat Important 117
2. Not Very Important 38
1. Not at all Important 14
Question 5: How acceptable is it for your child(ren) to attend a school outside of a home school for optional/elective courses?
4. Very Acceptable 37
3. Somewhat Acceptable 92
2. Not Very Acceptable 70
1. Not at all Acceptable 62
Question 6: How willing are you to have your child(ren) take a mandatory/core course in an alternative method (e.g., summer school, night school, e-learning or attend another school?
4. Very Willing 55
3. Somewhat Willing 54
2. Not Very Willing 57
1. Not at all Willing 96
Question 7: How willing are you to have your child(ren) take a optional/elective course in an alternative method (e.g., summer school, night school, e-learning or attend another school?
4. Very Willing 90
3. Somewhat Willing 74
2. Not Very Willing 46
1. Not at all Willing 49
Question 8: How important is it for you high school to offer a full range of pathway programming (e.g., workplace, college, university)?
4. Very Important 120
3. Somewhat Important 89
2. Not Very Important 33
1. Not at all Important 15
Question 9: How concerned are you that your child(ren) has access to appropriate learning facilities (e.g., kitchens, science labs, gyms, libraries)?
4. Very Concerned 165
3. Somewhat Concerned 58
2. Not Very Concerned 16
1. Not at all Concerned 19
Question 10: How concerned are you that some high schools have large amounts of specialized learning spaces that remain underutilized?
4. Very Concerned 18
3. Somewhat Concerned 56
2. Not Very Concerned 92
1. Not at all Concerned 92
Question 11: How important is it for your home school to have a full range of extracurricular activities (e.g., drama, arts, athletics, clubs) for your child(ren)?
4. Very Important 121
3. Somewhat Important 92
2. Not Very Important 35
1. Not at all Important 13
Question 12: How likely are you to support your child(ren) participating in extracurricular activities at another school?
4. Very Likely 72
3. Somewhat Likely 69
2. Not Very Likely 49
1. Not at all Likely 68
Question 13: How important is it for your child to have access to the highest level of competition in athletics?
4. Very Important 19
3. Somewhat Important 30
2. Not Very Important 170
1. Not at all Important 141
Question 14: How important is the physical condition of your existing school to you (e.g., environmental sustainability, energy consumption, safety)?
4. Very Important 75
3. Somewhat Important 37
2. Not Very Important 32
1. Not at all Important 95
Question 15: How important is it to you that the board ensures schools have an up-to-date, fully-accessible learning environment (e.g., elevators, air conditioning)?
4. Very Important 56
3. Somewhat Important 38
2. Not Very Important 32
1. Not at all Important 116
Question 16: How important is it you to preserve existing community partnerships at your child(ren)’s current school (e.g., swimming pool, library, community centre)?
4. Very Important 97
3. Somewhat Important 36
2. Not Very Important 49
1. Not at all Important 69
Question 17: How important is it you to minimize the use of portable classrooms?
4. Very Important 159
3. Somewhat Important 27
2. Not Very Important 27
1. Not at all Important 39
Question 18: The Board’s current walk distance is a maximum of 3.2 km. How important is it that your child(ren) are within the Board mandated walking distance to reach school?
4. Very Important 198
3. Somewhat Important 22
2. Not Very Important 21
1. Not at all Important 12
Question 19: Which of the following is your child(ren)’s most common form of travel to school currently? (list methods)
6. School Bus 37
5. Car (drive or drop off) 32
4. Public Transit 0
3. Walk 176
2. Bike 17
1. Other 4
Question 20: How important is it to you that the Board be fiscally responsible by reducing transportation to reach school?
4. Very Important 151
3. Somewhat Important 44
2. Not Very Important 22
1. Not at all Important 30
Question 21: How important is it for your child(ren) to spend their secondary school years in one school community?
4. Very Important 238
3. Somewhat Important 14
2. Not Very Important 6
1. Not at all Important 0
Question 22: The Ministry does not fund empty pupil places. To what extent do you agree that the Board should reallocate its limited budget to fund these spaces?
4. Strongly Agree 122
3. Somewhat Agree 50
2. Somewhat Disagree 32
1. Strongly Disagree 28
Question 23: The Board’s MYP states it will maintain a minimum overall average of 90% building capacity. To what extent to do you agree with this goal around future sustainability of Burlington secondary schools?
4. Strongly Agree 20
3. Somewhat Agree 34
2. Somewhat Disagree 53
1. Strongly Disagree 134
Question 24: The goal in the current MYP is to use innovative approaches to student learning spaces (e.g., classrooms, gymnasiums). To what extent do you feel the current situation of Burlington high schools is sustainable?
4. Very Sustainable 91
3. Somewhat Sustainable 55
2. Not very Sustainable 20
1. Not at all Sustainable 25
At this point people began walking out. Answers for the 25th question were not collected.
Question 25: Of the four themes, which is most important to you?
4. Programming and enrollment 0
3. Physical state of existing schools 0
2. Geographical and transportation Issues 0
1. Fiscal responsibility and future planning 0
 Very little is known about the parents who are members of the Program Accommodation Review Committee other than that they have a tremendous amount of work ahead of them. There is no remuneration for the members of the committee. Tom Muir’s analysis of the answers that were given to the questions asked.
Readers are going to have to shift up and down the pages to read the question and all the responses Muir has analyzed. Awkward – but it was the only way to set the data out for readers.
1) It is apparently important there be no school closures:
– the Board allocate the budget to fund empty spaces (Q22, 74%);
– present empty spaces are sustainable (Q24, 76%) – question also said MYP goal is to use innovative approaches to learning space use;
– response disagrees with Board 90% utilization goal (Q23, 78%);
– response not concerned about empty spaces being underutilized (Q10, 71%).
2. The importance of the home schools for core/mandatory subjects, and even optional/elective, is quite emphatic (Q2, 94%; Q3, 76%; Q4 80%; Q6, 58%; Q5, 51%), and consistent;
– Q7 indicates some support (63%, but only 35% are very willing), for optional/elective in alternatives like summer school, night school, e-learning, another school.
– do not agree with the Board 90% utilization goal (Q23,78%);
– and again, want the Board to allocate the budget to fund empty spaces (Q22, 74%);
– see being within 3.2 km, or 2 mile, Board mandated walking distance to home schools as important (Q18, 86%) – 69% already walk, 14.5% ride bus (Q19);
– see reduction in bus transportation to each school as important (Q20, 79%);
– see spending secondary years in one school as important (Q21, 98%);
– are concerned that appropriate learning facilities be accessible (Q9, 86%);
– want a full range of pathway programs (Q8, 81.3%);
– feel current situation is sustainable – as above in 1. (Q24, 76%);
– see it as important to minimize the use of portables (Q17, 74%).
4. Suggesting further support for retaining all schools are the following:
– a full range of extra-curricular activities (e.g., drama, arts, athletics, clubs) is important (Q11, 82%) – in my view, this implies more schools with more space for fewer students, means more opportunities;
– parental support to help students do extracurricular at another school is not at all likely, or not very likely, for 45% of respondents, compared to 55% at somewhat or very likely (Q12);
– the importance of the highest level of competition in athletics is not important (Q13, 81%) – in my view, this implies the larger top tier schools with large student populations are not important in this regard.
5. Other parent/resident views reflect a small majority percent expressing that:
– the physical condition of the school as not at all or very important (Q14, 53%);
– that the importance of the school as up-to-date and fully accessible, with elevators and air conditioning, is not at all or not very important (Q15, 61%);
– preserving existing community partnerships at current school (pools, libraries, community center) is very to somewhat important (Q16, 53%).
Again, the opposite views and percent support can be derived by subtraction with regard to response preference bracket.
I believe my analysis is accurate. It is unbiased and done in good faith.
Tom Muir is a resident of Aldershot who has been a persistent critic of decisions made by city council. He turns his attention to the current school board mess. He recently suggested to Burlington city council that “If you are so tired of and frustrated by, listening to the views of the people that elected you, then maybe you have been doing this job too long and should quit.
Muir explains that the PARC will only get what people send in, what they come up with from their own efforts, and what they ask/demand from the board. They have to decide what they want and go after it ruthlessly. They will have to fight with tooth and claw and take no prisoners.
Previous articles in this multi part series
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
 By Pepper Parr
January 19th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
It came as a surprise to the city.
An inquiry from a reporter, it wasn’t us, to the city manager, asking why the Museum revealed that the Brant Museum had been closed since the beginning of the year.
 Museum Board has plans for a major upgrade to the Brant Museum – they closed the museum until they know what is gong to happen to their grant application. The Museum Board recently appeared before city council seeking assurances that the city would provide a letter that was needed to advance the application for significant federal grants that would cover the cost of the transformation the museum has planned.
A number of people from the Museum Board appeared and delegated but not one of them advised the city that they had closed the Brant Museum when Lakeshore Road was being rebuilt and that they just didn’t reopen it.
 Barbara Teatero, Executive Director Museums Burlington So much for transparency – and it kind of shakes the confidence the city has in both the Executive Director and the Museum Foundation. Councillor Lancaster represents the city on the Burlington Museum Board – surely she would have known – did she lose her tongue?
The city spends about $600,000 on the museums – it was suggested that the budget be reduced given that there is now just the one museum and not two.
The city manager pointed out that the biggest expense is the cost of Barbara Teatero, the Executive Director. Fine – she has just half the work to do now – reduce her salary. Ms Teatero is due for retirement soon.
 New look for the Brant Museum – closed now – will it ever re-open? There is no word on just how long the Museum is going to be closed. Nor has the city learned anything about what they plan to do if the federal funding does not come through – the due day for that announcement is January 25th – that would mean the decision has been made – they just aren’t saying anything yet.
The Mayor is scheduled to give his State of the City address on the 25th – that will be quite early in the day – and the MP for the city is not going to let the Mayor steal the thunder behind that announcement.
By Pepper Parr
January 19th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
City council passed a budget that reflects an increase over last year of 4.42%
The budget decision was not unanimous – passed on a vote of 5-2.
Mayor Goldring said in his comments on the budget that this was the first time he recalls a budget coming out with a higher amount than they had when they started; in other words they increased the spending beyond wat staff had asked for.
Friends of Freeman got the $50,000 they needed; the seniors lucked out – no free transit for them.
More details to follow
By Pepper Parr
January 19th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
City council will be meeting as a Committee of the While (COW) today to go through the Operating Budget; they have already decided on what the Capital budget is going to be.
The number floating around city hall at this point is an increase of 4.6% which is resulting in serious heart burn on the part of those who pay taxes and pay attention to this kind of stuff.
One of those people is Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident who has been tracking the goings on at city hall for more than 25 years.
In a recent note he sent to the members of council, the city manager and the city clerk Muir had this to say:
“I’m not going to repeat myself too much from last year, but the percent increases for the city are still on track to double in about 19 years or less.
“I wrote Council last year and the response I got was that they were concerned about it too, and were going to work on it over the coming year. Well, here we have the results. You still don’t get it.
“The city assumed inflation rate is 2%, but my pension increase, based on the CPI, only went up 1.4%, as did my wife’s’.
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident who has been delegating to city council for more than 25 years – he is relentless. “In the Mayor’s December newsletter, he said that he thought the budget could be whittled down to something more like the 2%.
“I worked in government for 33 years, and went through a lot of budget cuts. The way it was done, if the guv was serious about it, was just to tell the managers and the finance people to cut the budget across the board to meet the target expenditure increase.
“No nonsense or sacred cows, except entitlements. Don’t get lost in every line item. Just do it at the high level.
“Then managers cut where you want, but just make the cuts.
“This is what is needed now. The idea that there is nothing left to cut is absurd.
“It’s all in the approach and the political will.”
Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman responded to Muir with the following:
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman was once a hard driving member of Council. He all but man-handled his fellow council members into a 0% increase in 2010. “You will appreciate that City operations and assets are quite complex. You also know from participating in DC (Development Charge) review committees that assessment growth has subsidized growth and Infrastructure renewal costs in the past, neither of which are reflected by inflation indicators.
“Of course Burlington assessment growth is quite low now, meanwhile we are trying to recover from decades of underfunding of future infrastructure repair and renewal, which is a substantial driver of cost.
 Councillor Sharman, with his back to the camera, going at it with Councillor Meed Ward at a 2011 Strategic Plan meeting. He was a different council member in those days. “Certainly, we are aware that pension income does not increase at the same pace as either inflation or the overall architecture of city finances. The city is driven by long term fiscal sustainability objectives. That discussion is not over yet, but we are trying to figure it out.
“I would suggest that we fully “get it”. I will be pleased to discuss the situation with you at any time.”
How much confidence do you want to take from those statements?
What is perplexing and at the same time interesting is that when Councillor Sharman was involved in budget deliberations in his first budget meeting during his first term of office he drove the budget increase down to 0%.
He was merciless. There were a couple of general managers at the time who were incensed with his approach – Sharman couldn’t have cared less. He wanted a 0% increase and he kept pushing until he go it.
That Councillor Sharman seems to have morphed into a different person.
 By Tom Muir
January 19th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 4 of a series:
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident, has been an active participant in civic affairs or more than 25 years. He has been described as “acerbic”, a fair term for Tom.
He has outlined, in considerable length, a large part of why the parents at Central and Pearson high schools are in the mess they are in as a result of the recommendation to close their schools. In this article, one of a series Muir suggest what he feels are obvious solutions to the problem the Board of Education believes it has. There is a lot of material; it gets dense at times. Living in a democracy means you have to accept the responsibility of citizenship and stay informed.
I have set out what I think is the background reason for the situation Burlington parents and their high school level students face with the possible closing of two high schools in the city and I have suggeted that the mess we asre in is one we created for ourselves.
How do we get out of the mess?
Where does the Board staff appear to sit?
The Board seems to be into closing schools. Almost all the options close schools. Some seem nonsensical. I was surprised by this very limited plan.
They say 1800 empty seats is not sustainable long term. And the Board staff data is said to be accurate now, and and has been accurate in the past.
Go back to the Board data for 2010 when there were 495 actual empty seats, and 92% space utilization, in the 6 then existing schools in Burlington.
They developed plans, with no evident justification, to build another school in Alton – add 1200 seats plus about 280 in portables.
 Empty classroom seats. Burlington has 1800 of them. These seat are in Hayden high school which some feel should not have been built. The recreation centre and the library made sense – the facts suggest the building of a high school in Alton created the problem that exists now south of the QEW. Build school, open in 2013, fill with about 1400 students by 2017, mostly from schools within the six existing high schools. These 1400 now become empty seats in the south Burlington six high schools.
This adds up to about the 1800-1900 now cited as unsustainable.
This is based on the past and forecast data that is said to be accurate.
So it can be said with accuracy that the Board created the 1800 empty seats that they now say are not sustainable. Why and how?
Building Hayden in Alton can be said with accuracy to be a blundered construction of most of the 1800 empty seats.
So they now want to close two schools of the original six that housed all these students, before Hayden, within the comfortable 90% utilization.
So the Board itself created this so-called unsustainable 1800 empty seats, and they did it with accuracy.
They have also gotten away with this unexplained blunder with no accountability for what is incompetent planning in my opinion, based on the face of the so-called accurate data.
 Director of Education Stuart Miller during an on-line Q&A which some parents thought was rigged. So how does this work that the Director isn’t sure now what the residents/public of the south Burlington six expect from him and the Board?
Well, what I expect is that the Director offer innovative and management solutions to clean up the mess you have created.
And don’t tell us that your forecast data are accurate. It’s seems to be a new age for housing costs and form, so families will likely have to more and more occupy higher density.
The historical pupil yield curves used may be too low in this new age. That’s what happened in the Alton community, and the Board data didn’t catch it.
Don’t make more mistakes and cost the community dearly by closing schools based on methods and attitudes that actually created the mess.
It is possible to use the toolbox to keep all the schools open. Go to that toolbox and show us how we can make the empty spaces of use.
Don’t impatiently make irreversible quick decisions that we will all have to live with in regret.
That’s what people expect, among other things, I think.
What about the efficiency and sustainability of 1800 empty seats?
But if we accept that 1800 empty seats are not sustainable, at face value, what does it imply about the strictly business end of producing student spaces?
In 2012 the utilization of SRA 100 Burlington spaces was 87%, so there was a minimal excess over the Board target of 90%. It was also projected to fall and is now at about 75%. But it only fell because Hayden was opened and students were transferred there, and this continues to date, filling up portables and a projected student surplus of about 600.
What the hell is going on here may I ask, with the Board sense of planning? And this just looks to continue in this PAR.
 Was Hayden high school needed? Depends on what you wanted. The high school seats may not have been needed but the Board of Education, the Library and the city’s recreation department had skin in the game. The idea was to create a structure that would become a community centre and when that was decided upon – an excess of students seats got forgotten – the bureaucrats were building and if that meant the death of two high schools so be it. Where were the trustees at the time? Did they not see this coming and did they not ask questions? The point being for our business model, is that there is no apparent rationale, no business case, to build Hayden, as there was no shortage of supply of student places. There was already some identifiable surplus.
With such an excess supply identified, and projected to worsen, on the basis of this issue definition, what reason existed to build additional supply of students spaces at Hayden? In fact, we still don’t need Hayden on this basis.
If most people made this kind of business decision, they would be in deep doo-doo, and in deeper when there are serious consequences, which there are, but not for those who made the decisions.
This decision by the Board had no justifying business case in terms of student spaces, but created an excess which is now being used to justify closing schools to make up for their mistake.
Everyone knows this has just made things much worse and created a divisive mess for which no one is being held accountable.
Regarding the provision of student opportunities as a reason for the PAR, there was never any evidence provided to show that Hayden provided any opportunities that didn’t already exist. And there is still no evidence provided that closing other schools will provide any additional opportunities that also don’t already exist.
In fact, closing schools will require that 500 to 600 additional students are provided, rather “necessitated”, the “opportunity” to ride the bus to school instead of walk, which most of the would be displaced do at present. Some opportunity this is.
Hopefully, you can see the thinness of putting the issue as just about excess student spaces. The Board itself created the excess. It didn’t exist before Hayden.
Why was Hayden built? Where’s the cost-benefit analysis of what has been created?
The only thing I have even remotely heard, is that the people in the north of Burlington, in Alton, were entitled to, or “needed” schools in their neighborhood.
Which begs the question, what about the rest of Burlington, now under the gun because of the Board building a Hayden not needed for student spaces.
And here is where the real issue mess lies, the part left out of your issue definition.
Because the students were transferred in ever greater numbers, even overflowing into portables, exceeding the Hayden built supply of places, from the existing schools, and then their feeders, thus creating the excess in those schools.
 It is the trustees that are accountable. But the trustees who made the decision to build the Hayden high school aren’t there anymore. Of the 11 in office now eight are serving their first term of office. Burlington’s ward 5 trustee Amy Collard is serving her second term – both by acclamation, Trustees Kelly Amos from Burlington and trustee Donna Danielli from Milton were on the board at the time the Hayden high school decision was made. So that’s where this logic of this issue definition takes us. Based on this definition, Hayden should not have been built. Is anyone going to be held accountable for this?
If Hayden neighborhood residents and parents and students “needed” their own school, whatever happened to the rest of us down here in the south? Do we not count in this?
This is the real mess that this issue definition is too thin to manage. It is much more than excess student places, which is a red herring.
What have parents, residents and students to say about their concerns and what they want?
A perusal of the Gazette archive will get at least some sense of what some people are saying and/or want. As I noted earlier, one key thing that is missing on the accessible website are enough years of the LTAPs and reports to go back to the time that Hayden SS in Alton was being rationalized and justified. I described this situation in detail above.
So if the Trustees know that set of facts, and others do as well, what do they think resident feelings and concerns are?
Tom Muir is a resident of Aldershot who has been a persistent critic of decisions made by city council. He turns his attention to the current school board mess. He recently suggested to Burlington city council that “If you are so tired of and frustrated by, listening to the views of the people that elected you, then maybe you have been doing this job too long and should quit.
Muir explains that the PARC will only get what people send in, what they come up with from their own efforts, and what they ask/demand from the board. They have to decide what they want and go after it ruthlessly. They will have to fight with tooth and claw and take no prisoners.
Previous articles:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
 By Pepper Parr
January 18th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Building community happens when groups partner and create a situation when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
The Burlington Foundation has partnered with the Community Fund for Canada’s 150th to help make a major investment in Burlington.
 The Foundation announced a record $120,000 in Community Fund grants to be invested in 14 local projects. This represents the largest amount of Community Fund grants the Foundation has distributed in a single year since its inception in 1999.
In 2017, the Foundation’s community funds and field of interest funds are granting $60,000 and the Community Fund for Canada’s 150th is providing $60,000 in matching dollars. This initiative is made possible by the Community Fund for Canada’s 150th, a collaboration between Burlington Foundation, Community Foundations of Canada, the Government of Canada, and extraordinary leaders from coast to coast to coast.
 Ron Foxcroft, Chair of the Burlington Foundation; he gets most of them into the hoop. Foundation Board Chair and legendary community supporter Ron Foxcroft notes, “Burlington Foundation has a long history of making change happen. Our annual Community Fund grants help address Burlington’s highest priority needs, as outlined in our Vital Signs reports, as well as several field of interest focus areas. In just 18 short years, Burlington Foundation has provided more than $4.1 million in grants to charities.”
“We’re thrilled to partner with Community Foundations of Canada and the Community Fund for Canada’s 150th to help make a major investment in Burlington. Thanks to this historic collaboration, we’re bringing Burlingtonians together, fostering a greater sense of belonging and creating a lasting legacy of 2017 community initiatives for future generations,” says Colleen Mulholland, president of the Foundation. “We’re proud to help unite the generous gifts of local community members with federal funds to create a positive and lasting ripple effect across our great city.”
Burlington Foundation’s 2016-17 Community Fund Larger Grant Program is providing 14 grants ranging from $5,000 to $13,000. For example, Burlington Public Library will use the grant to support Honouring the Truth, an initiative that builds upon the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action.
 Maureen Barry, CEO of the Burlington Public Library Maureen Barry, Library Chief Executive Officer notes, “Honouring the Truth celebrates Indigenous historical legacy and ceremony within Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Public initiatives that pay tribute to the native lands and stories of First Nations peoples will help build a deeper understanding and awareness of reconciliation as a collective, ongoing process.”
ArtHouse will use the grant to support Mending Fences, a collaborative public arts project for vulnerable youth. More than 650 local youth will help transform 40 designated sites across Halton Region into ”creative spaces”, all in vibrant celebration of Canada’s 150th. Don Pangman, ArtHouse Founder and Executive Director explains, “Mending fences will allow us to hear the voices of our youth through the arts by providing a safe place for them to express themselves and to unleash their creativity.”
 Grant to provide Ontario farm fresh food through the summer months. As well, Food4Kids Hamilton Halton, Foodland Ontario, Feeding Halton and Food for Life will collaborate and use the grant to supply 100 children living in low-income homes with Ontario farm fresh food through the summer months, ensuring access while also engaging them to grow, cook and enjoy healthy food.
Additionally, the Foundation awarded 12 grants of $500 to $2,000 in November 2016. The Foundation’s local Seed Grant Program features a simplified application process and supports smaller-scale initiatives.
About Burlington Foundation
Since 1999, individuals, agencies and corporate donors have partnered with us to make change happen. We understand the difference we make is greater when people work together. Burlington Foundation collaborates with donors to build endowments, give grants and connect leadership. We help people give brilliantly, build legacies, address vital community needs and support areas of personal interest.
About Community Fund for Canada’s 150th
The Community Fund for Canada’s 150th (CFC150) is a collaborative effort, seeded by the Government of Canada and extraordinary leaders from coast-to-coast-to-coast. The Fund is matched and delivered locally by Canada’s 191 community foundations.
CFC150 projects are building community and inspiring a deeper understanding of Canada throughout the sesquicentennial
2016-2017 Larger & Seed Community Fund Grants
 Trevor Copp of the Tottering Bipeod Theatre Acclaim Health – $2,000 (Seed Grant)
Art Gallery of Burlington – $6,500 (Larger Grant)
ArtHouse for Children and Youth – $10,000 (Larger Grant)
Burlington Baptist Church – $12,462 (Larger Grant)
Burlington Public Library – $5,000 (Larger Grant)
Calvary Baptist Church Burlington – $5,480 (Larger Grant)
CameronHelps (2006) Inc. – $6,575 (Larger Grant)
Carpenter Hospice – $2,000 (Seed Grant)
Community Living Burlington – $2,000 (Seed Grant)
Food4Kids Hamilton Halton – $13,000 (Larger Grant)
Halton Catholic Children’s Education Foundation (HCCEF) – $1,400 (Seed Grant)
Halton District School Board (Aldershot School) – $2,000 (Seed Grant)
Halton District School Board (Burlington Central High School) – $1,000 (Seed Grant)
Halton Learning Foundation – $6,000 (Larger Grant)
Holy Rosary School – $2,000 (Seed Grant)
Literacy South Halton – $1,100 (Seed Grant)
Muscular Dystrophy Canada – $2,000 (Seed Grant)
Shakespearience Performing Arts – $500 (Seed Grant)
Shifra Homes Inc. – $8,183 (Larger Grant)
St. Christopher’s Anglican Church – $13,000 (Larger Grant)
Summit Housing and Outreach Programs – $8,500 (Larger Grant)
Support & Housing – Halton – $2,000 (Seed Grant)
Symphony on the Bay (Greater Hamilton Symphony Association) – $12,500 (Larger Grant)
Tetra Society of North America – $4,800 (Larger Grant)
The Bridge From Prison to Community (Hamilton) – $2,000 (Seed Grant)
Tottering Biped Theatre – $8,000 (Larger Grant)
 By Staff
January 18th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton Regional Police report that from October 1st to December 31st 2016, the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) arrested 185 people for violent behavior. The focus on the Provincial Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (PAVIS) is a multi-agency program run through the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.
 Halton Regional Police Chief Tanner This year HRPS applied principles of Community Safety and Well-Being Planning as part of PAVIS efforts. This was achieved through enforcement of violent offenders, risk intervention, crime prevention and collaboration with community partners in social development.
HRPS partnered with stakeholders to increase organizational and community capacity to prevent and address recidivism through risk-based interventions. Strategies included increasing resources during weekends and evenings, compliance checks of individuals who failed to abide by court-imposed conditions; collaboration with external partners on sentencing matters of offenders and dedicating resources to pursue arrest warrants.
As a result of the PAVIS initiative from October 1st to December 1st 2016, a total of 185 arrests were made and 243 criminal charges were laid across the Region. Emphasis was placed on proactive collaboration between the Police, Probation and Parole, the Crown Attorney’s Office and other community partners.
 As part of a Crime Stoppers event Deputy Chief Nishan Duraiappah pleads his innocence to the charge of Grand Theft Donuts, looking on is Halton Regional Police Detective Constable Paul Proteau. Deputy Chief Nishan Duraiappah takes a positive view: “Repeat offenders, high risk individuals and those bound by court orders have an opportunity to change their behaviour and lives. Unfortunately, in some instances these individuals pose a continued risk to community safety. Police enforcement in conjunction with emergency response, risk intervention, prevention and social development has made this unique initiative a success.”
PAVIS initiatives in the area of Emergency Response included officers responding to calls for service involving known violent offenders in our community. PAVIS related patrols were strategically deployed throughout the Region. Officers were able to safely engage and diffuse potentially violent situations. Numerous offenders were arrested prior to or during the commission of a criminal offence.
PAVIS initiatives in the area of Risk Intervention involved specific follow-up with recidivists who were actively breaching court imposed conditions. In many cases this resulted in arrests and charges being laid, but also the recovery of stolen property, weapons, illegal drugs and other prohibited items. Halton Police also collaborated with other police agencies to arrest recidivists who were breaching their probation outside of Halton Region.
Individuals were apprehended at Pearson International Airport as well as in other jurisdictions. Criminal Code search warrants were executed in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, with the accused being returned to Ontario. An exchange program between the Montreal Police and the HRPS was developed, which facilitated in locating 19 offenders (10 in Ontario and 9 in Montreal).
 Police trying to apprehend a violent offender. Prevention and Social Development initiatives focused heavily on the collaboration between Probation and Parole and the Crown Attorney’s Office to review new offenders in the Region and develop strategies to address recidivism from the time an offender is released into the community. Proactive checks were conducted to ensure compliance with court imposed conditions.
A Post-Conviction Sentencing Committee was formed between HRPS, Probation and the Crown to improve communication in regards to conditions placed on offenders during sentencing. A community services guide was provided to every prisoner in HRPS custody prior to their release.
A database has been created to identify wanted individuals and those on street enforceable conditions, to be made available to officers after the PAVIS funding has concluded. Officers also developed a resource guide to be distributed to parents or guardians of young persons in conflict with the law.
The Project was been made possible by a grant from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.
By Tom Muir
January 18th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 3 of a series:
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident, has been an active participant in civic affairs or more than 25 years. He has been described as “acerbic”, a fair term for Tom.
He has outlined, in considerable length, a large part of why the parents at Central and Pearson high schools are in the mess they are in as a result of the recommendation to close their schools. In this article, one of a series Muir suggest what he feels are obvious solutions to the problem the Board of Education believes it has. There is a lot of material; it gets dense at times. Living in a democracy means you have to accept the responsibility of citizenship and stay informed.
The Board of Education advised its trustees that there were 1800 empty seats in Burlington’s seven high schools. The Director of Education, Stuart Miller, brought forward a number of recommendations. The trustees decided to create a Program Accommodation Review Committee (PARC). That committee will begin its meeting later this month.
 Director of Education Stuart Miller, on the right engaging a parent at Central high school. The PARC will review the data – there is tonnes of it, and send a recommendation to the Director of Education who will then make his recommendation to the trustees who will make a final decision as to whether or not any high schools should be closed. The schedule calls for this to be done by May of this year.
Other ideas are suggested by residents in the on-line conversations in the Gazette. There are other more inclusive lists of such ideas elsewhere. Surely, the Board staff and consultants, and education researchers, have a cornucopia of ideas that just need to be unleashed. As Rudyard Kipling said, “there are 99 and 9 ways to make tribal lays.”
This, I think, is a way to go to get to a plan fitting with the times, changing demographics and adaptability to such changes, fairness, and the patterns of the Growth Plan for Halton.
 A new community was created when Hwy 407 was built. The Alton Village underwent significant growth requiring public and high schools. Some are not sure the high school was such a good idea.. It is just not right that existing residents are required to give up their schools, in order to build new schools in areas where the high growth in population is being directed under the force of the provinces’ orders in the Growth Plan.
Why should this be a forced confiscation in service of the province’s growth orders? Why should we pay for another part of the growth with our schools?
As I said, things are being taken too far in this insensitive and unlimited logic of efficiency, narrowly defined, leading to fewer and fewer schools in existing neighborhoods.
Once these school sites are gone, they are gone – there are no other places to site new schools. What kind of municipal and community planning is that?
And for those seeming to be okay with the closure of two high schools, as inefficient, and needing to be eliminated, I have to ask if they have ever considered what might be the limits of their criterion or their logic?
 Burlington Central high school – the oldest in the city located in a neighborhood with intense loyalty to the place. There are some fourth generation students at the high school. Do they propose to applaud this process year after year until “most efficient” and “biggest” become synonymous with “only”?
Do these schools have any value not subsumed under the heading of “efficiency”? And who benefits by their closure?
Is “any” degree of “efficiency” worth any cost in our schools?
Can progressively closing more and more schools be treated with such regardlessness, by merely asserting a justification that leaves out all the cultural and community values that they embody?
The point being that there must be limits imposed to this process before our cultural institutions of education have been corrupted to calamity.
This process is leading to no good, and is rotten politics.
 Halton District School Board trustees sit at the back of the room during a December public meeting. From the left: Papin, Reynolds, Ehl Harrinson and Grebenc. Some things the Trustees can do.
Hayden has 500 to 600 pupils too many in the LTAP forecast. The Board moved 600 to 900 from the area of concern, such as Pearson, Nelson, Bateman, and Robinson. You can see this in the capacity utilization rates in the Board reports and reproduced in the Gazette.
They can simply move some number like the 600 back, as they have the power to do that, just like before, when they moved them out. We need to know what the numbers by school were that were moved to Hayden.
They can even shuffle students from Hayden around the Board SRA 100, which is also in the plan but only at a low scale. Shifting students and programs around all of Burlington, including SRA 100, can be considered.
 Secondary Review Area where all the high school are concentrated. Closing portables and using the bricks and mortar OTG capacity for students fits into using excess spaces, and is something that parents and students have expressed the desire to see. It will certainly be better for students.
Closing the 2 schools mentioned is reported to mean almost 600 more students from them need to be bused, increasing the number from 1000 to 1600.
So no closures, and moving students from Hayden back to the other schools – some of which is in the Option 19 for French Immersion at least – is a perfectly logical thing to do.
It will also save significant busing dollars (not specified in the reports I saw), that won’t need to be added to the already $15 million transportation bill of the Board as a whole, and will avoid big disruptions to students lives.
At least one or two SRA 100 schools are close enough that busing of students is not needed.
Again, shuffling the excess around, and changing the catchments accordingly are all possible and will facilitate the adjustments.
 The Lester B. Pearson high school was “purpose built” with an extra gymnasium and a Day Care Centre. The Halton Board has many programs scattered around, and these can be expanded perhaps by shifting some to schools with surplus space.
The Community Partnerships and Hubs outreach, partly funded and touted by the Province on their website as involving schools, can be tapped to expand uses of space.
The existing daycare at Pearson is exactly what the province mentions as one of the possibilities. What happens to that with a closure of Pearson and Central?
Where are these options in the plan? These things are obvious solutions.
I’m confident that the PARC members also have a great number of ideas, and they are much more intimate with the schools and what they want than I am.
 Tom Muir; an acerbic community advocate. Tom Muir is a resident of Aldershot who has been a persistent critic of decisions made by city council. He turns his attention to the current school board mess. He recently suggested to Burlington city council that “If you are so tired of and frustrated by, listening to the views of the people that elected you, then maybe you have been doing this job too long and should quit.
Muir explains that the PARC will only get what people send in, what they come up with from their own efforts, and what they ask/demand from the board. They have to decide what they want and go after it ruthlessly. They will have to fight with tooth and claw and take no prisoners.
Previous articles in this series:
Part 1
Part 2
By Staff
January 17th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
These thieves apparently thought there was going to be all kinds of snow.
On December 11th 2016 between 9:15 PM and 9:29 PM, an unknown culprit stole a pickup truck with an attached trailer that contained three snowmobiles from a business on Industrial Street in Burlington.
 On January 12th 2017, members of the Burlington Criminal Investigations Bureau – Commercial Crime Team executed a search warrant at an address on Twenty Road East in Hamilton where the stolen trailer and two of the snowmobiles were recovered and one male arrested for possession of property obtained by crime. The value of the recovered property is approximately $15,000.00.
Police are still looking for a dark blue 2002 GMC Sierra pick-up truck with Ontario licence plates 8608KY and a red 2007 Yamaha RST snowmobile with Ontario licence plate 985115
Scott David BOYD (48-yrs) of Hamilton was charged with possession of property obtained by crime over $5000. He was released on a Promise to Appear in Milton Court of February 15th 2017.
Investigators are seeking information that will lead them to the remaining stolen property and the persons responsible for the theft.
Anyone with information is asked to call D/Cst. Colin MacLeod of the Burlington Criminal Investigations Bureau at 905-825-4747 ext. 2357 or Crime Stoppers “See something, Hear something, Say something” at 1-800-222-8477(TIPS) or through the internet at www.haltoncrimestoppers.com or by texting “Tip201” with your message to 274637 (CRIMES)
By Tom Muir
January 17th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident, has been an active participant in civic affairs. Our colleague, Joan Little described Muir as “acerbic”, a fair term for Tom.
He has outlined, in considerable length, a large part of why the parents at Central and Pearson high schools are in the mess they are in as a result of the recommendation to close their schools. There is a lot of material; it gets dense at times. Living in a democracy mans you have to accept the responsibility of citizenship and stay informed. This is a multi part story.
The Board keeps repeating the phrase – “we have too many empty seat” and that is true.
If you are asking the question “whodunnit” to us, the answer is, “the Board dunnit”. They created this awful mess and our trustees have just been sleepy collaborators in this doing.
And the Board just lets this pass by the trustees with no emphatic warning to parents, residents and city Council, of what was coming?
In my opinion, no one was in charge to see this coming and head it off, or at least give a lot of early warning, underlined and publicized.
 A message that might have been a little on the late side. Why you would build a new school, with projected enrollment of 1600, when the surplus of available places in the existing schools were projected to increase to 2500, and nobody says anything about this disconnection, is beyond me. Or anyone else I know who has talked about the problem, and how the Board operates.
Where is this problem going, and where might it go?
I can tell, more broadly from my study of this, that there is a lot more of this issue still underwater, and coming, but it’s understated there in the LTAP reports.
Burlington SRA 100 catchments (which can be changed, and were changed for Hayden) are in mature communities, and with the transfers to Hayden, are not projected to grow enough students to fill schools built in another era. This Burlington area is also not taking on the endless high growth of other parts of Halton.
There are new high, and elementary, schools in the pipe for this growth and the Board will be sooner or later coming for more closures to get the available place capacity down to some level to get grants for the new schools for the growth. But these new schools will be put somewhere else.
This will only cause more trouble in the future, and the suggested closures at present foretell more in the future. The elementary schools are linked, and next for PARs – stated in the current LTAP – and will be domino-ed if there are closures.
My general impression is that new schools are planned for, and built in the growth areas when grants are available. If there is too much excess students spaces elsewhere, the Board goes there, does a PAR, and takes back – closes – schools in areas with available spaces, which are in the elsewhere.
That’s like what’s being done here now, but parents and residents aren’t really being told about that part. But hints are in the LTAP reports.
Was Hayden high school needed? Was there a business case for the construction of the school. When originally planned it grew from a high school – that had a public library and a Recreation Centre added to it. There came a point when it all looked just too good. And the growing Alton community needed a high school. There seems to be no limit to this, just the timing. It’s outrageous, and a rip-off, as we paid for the schools in the first place, and now have to pay twice for new ones – the province funds new schools with our money, then takes back some old schools, so we pay again, but with an added insult.
This is what I fought back in 1998-2000. This time, it has been hidden. You see it coming in the LTAPs, but it’s subtle.
What can Trustees do?
The Trustees of course work within the provincial rule book, but they definitely DO NOT have to choose to close schools.
 Of the 19 options – this is the one the Board of Education staff recommended. Why? They have a tool kit that they can pick and choose from so as to spread the student numbers around, together with the dollars, and innovate to keep the schools open.
However, the Board staff has chosen to make pretty much all the options presented as mostly about closures. As far as I’m concerned this is the bureaucrat in them defending their past decisions that led to this messy situation.
The Trustees have the authority to change this, and to give the Board marching orders to come up with another plan that uses all of the tool kit.
Will the 11 school board trustees hang together as a group and really think the issue through or will they leave it to the Program Accommodation Review Committee to come up with an answer they can live with. One problem that is foreseeable is that the Trustees are played off against each other depending on the part of Halton they represent. Milton is projected to grow a great deal in population, and Oakville is next in numbers.
Milton and Oakville each have 2 elementary schools in the planning pipe for 2018 to 2021, and these are not yet funded. Each also has a high school in the planning pipe for the 2019 to 2021 period and these are not yet funded either.
These proposed schools are all for students and parents that are not even born yet, but are projected from the future growth driven by provincial orders.
This is the rub. Will the Milton and Oakville Trustees put these possible future students that are not even here yet, before existing students, already living here but in schools somewhere else – in Burlington?
Will these trustees turn against their colleagues and neighbors and vote to close their schools, so they can have some new ones for people who aren’t here yet?
People who obviously do not vote here yet, and certainly didn’t elect any of the Trustees.
 This large poster hangs on the wall of the school board meeting room The Trustees don’t have to vote that way, but who knows? People are strange.
However, they do have the power to unite and stick together. They can put together better ideas, and order the Board staff to make another plan that keeps schools open.
This will be a testing time for these trustees. Burlington Central high school is putting up quit a fight – they raised $14,000 at a Silent Auction. These people are not going to go quietly into the night.
Such a plan may contain innovative elements – which just happens to be in the latest Board Multi Year Plan goal to use innovative approaches to using learning spaces.
Part 1 of a multiple part series
By Pepper Parr
January 17th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
While city council works through the operational budget for 2017 – they will be doing the heavy lifting on Thursday and settle on what the taxes will be at a city council meeting on the 23rd.
The Finance department has done all its prep work – it is now in the hands of city council
Director of Finance Joan Ford did say that while the proposed tax increase is above the 4% level – they have managed to whittle away more than $1 million on the spending side.
 Joan Ford, the city’s Director of Finance knows where every dollar comes from and where every dollar gets spent. The struggle for the city is upgrading the infrastructure which needs millions more. This is the result of tax increases that were at the 0% level during the late 90’s. Ford pointed out that if tax increases had been as little as 1% a year for those ten years the city would not be in the uncomfortable situation it is in today.
When the province told the city that it was going to have to come up with $60 million to pay for part of the hospital renovation/redevelopment program and that the hospital foundation would also have to come up with an additional $60 million a special levy was placed on the tax bill.
That levy was supposed to end in 2019 but it has been “repositioned” infrastructure. City council, on the advice of the finance department decided that they would just change the original reason for a tax – give it a new name and continue to collect the money.
There was never an explanation. That one has election issue potential written all over it.
A decision made in November of 2012 approved Long Term Financial Plan which included the following key strategic objectives for the city:
1. Competitive Property Taxes
2. Responsible Debt Management
3. Improved Reserves and Reserve Funds
4. Predictable Infrastructure Investment
5. Recognized Value for Services
The Director of Finance presented a 2017–2036 operating forecast. It is not a pretty picture through to 2019 – after that is gets digestible.
 The purple line is the one that matters. It represents spending the city does. The bar chart is the tax increase when you add in the school tax, which the city has no impact on and the Region budget which we are part of but we don’t make that decision – we do influence it. The forecast is based on estimated budget drivers using the 2017 budget numbers as a starting point.
Ford pointed out that the simulation forecast has greatest precision in the first year and added that it is imperative that the results are simply used as an information tool regarding major budget drivers and future projected tax impacts.
Not only does it provide an analysis of what the future financial picture for the City of Burlington might look like, but it also helps assess financial risks and the affordability of existing and new services, existing and future capital investments, as well as provides an opportunity to analyze sensitivities to assumptions.
Looking into the future means considering:
• Changes in economic conditions and market demands
• Fluctuations in customer expectations
• Legislative changes
• Reassessment impacts
• Operating impacts from approved capital initiatives
• Joint venture and other business agreements
• Business process improvements
Assessment growth has been a bug bear for the finance department. Expecting assessment growth of 1.6% was projected for one year – it came in at 0.15%.
Staff have shown a realistic scenario where assessment growth is maintained at 0.6% per annum; no new legacy projects are forecasted; and infrastructure renewal funding is addressed over the 20-year time horizon, as per the Asset Management Financing Plan. These components provided the basis for estimating budget drivers and include the following assumptions within each item:
Maintaining Current Service Levels – Base Budget
Inflationary Impacts and User Fees
• With the exception of human resources and commodities (hydro, water, fuel etc.), 2.0% inflation per year has been applied to all other expense categories (materials and supplies, purchased services and contributions to local boards and committees)
 Taxpayers would prefer a different % in that tax increase. • The increases to User Rates and Fees assumed a 2.0% increase per annum, which is dependent on the nature of the revenues and external market conditions
• An annual increase of 3% to the Vehicle Depreciation Reserve Fund to sustain the City’s fleet and equipment inventory
Corporate Expenditures/Revenues
• An annual increase to the provisions for Insurance and Contingency Reserves of $100,000 each.
• An increase in Investment Income of $100,000 per year in 2019 and beyond given the current low interest rate environment.
• Reversal of one-time revenue of $220,000 for assessment growth stabilization in 2018.
Other Expenditures
Infrastructure Renewal Funding and Joseph Brant Hospital
• An annual increase of 1.25% for Dedicated Infrastructure Renewal Funding from 2017-2022, reduced to 1.0% for 2023-2033 and 0.5% for 2034 and 2036. This provides funding for capital renewal, as per the Asset Management Financing Plan (approved 20-year scenario).
 That special tax levy for the hospital is apparently with us forever – money will go into infrastructure starting in 2019. • An annual increase of $200,000 (2020-2024) in order to phase in required increase for debt charges.
• Includes the repositioning of the hospital levy to infrastructure renewal in 2019 ($1.5 million), 2026 ($800,000) and 2027 ($2.5 million)
Business Cases
• Details from the 2017 Capital Budget and Forecast as well as growth related operating impacts in the future
• In order to address Service enhancements, similar to the one included in the 2017 Proposed Budget for Tree Service ($254K), $600,000 have been included in the 2018 Forecast for Playfield Service levels, reducing to $400,000 annually from 2019 and beyond for other Service enhancements.
Allowance for Unknown Factors
As with all forecasts, it is imperative to recognize that there are a vast number of unknown factors that will likely occur in the future that could impact the model. In order to address these unpredictable factors, an amount of $100,000 has been included in the 2019 forecast, increasing by $50,000 per year until 2027, and maintained at $500,000 beyond that.
Assessment Growth
The weighted assessment growth for the 2017 budget is 0.15%. Assessment growth is estimated to be 0.6% in 2018 and maintained unchanged for the remainder of the 20- years. Over the last 5 years, weighted assessment growth has ranged from a low of 0.15% to 1.16%. The five year average is 0.75%.
The proposed 2017 Budget reflects a city tax impact of 4.23%.
 An increase for 2017, which is greater than the increase in 2016, which was greater – you’re getting the picture aren’t you? The simulation forecasts the city tax impact from 2018 to 2036 to begin at 4.96% reducing to 2.90%.
While staff will look for ways to smooth out the timing of operating impact from prior approved capital projects, it is important for council to recognize the significant pressures in 2018. One way to stabilize significant spikes would be to partially advance a known 2018 budget pressure. While this would increase the 2017 budget, it could assist in mitigating the 2018 forecasted impact.
Keep in mind that 2018 is an election year; some of the members of council might want to get re-elected.
Councillors Taylor and Dennison were on council when those 0% tax increases were boasted about. They might choose to take their pensions and move on before the proverbial hits the fan.
There is a young candidate with significant potential looking closely at Taylor’s ward 3 seat.
By Tom Muir
January 16th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident, has been an active participant in civic affairs. Our colleague, Joan Little described Muir as “acerbic”, a fair term for Tom.
He has outlined, in considerable length, a large part of why the parents at Central and Pearson high schools are in the mess they are in as a result of the recommendation to close their schools.
There is a lot of material; it gets dense at times. Living in a democracy mans you have to accept the responsibility of citizenship and stay informed. This is a multi part story.
1. How was this problem created and why is it a mess?
Everyone needs to appreciate that there is a lot of Long Term Accommodation Plans (LTAP) and other reports and information on the Board website, but knowing how to find them, and have the time to read and comprehend it all, are daunting for people not used to this kind of analysis. And if they have both jobs along with their kids and home responsibilities, this just gets much worse.
The Board writes these long LTAP reports but the trustees I think seem to be snowed under by them, over time. There are plenty of warnings and facts presented about what is going on, but somehow it doesn’t fizz on them, and parents and residents are not given any warning of what lies ahead on the path the Board is on. That’s the case I found here, and it’s not hard to find if you know how to look and take the time.
One thing that is missing on the accessible website are enough years of the LTAPs and reports to go back to the time that Hayden SS in Alton was being rationalized and justified and a new SRA 101 was created..
 This Secondary Review Area contains one school. Dr. Frank J. Hayden SS opened with grades 9 and 10 in September 2013, and grew one grade each year. Enrolment currently exceeds OTG capacity, resulting in the placement of 6 portables on site. A high percentage (30%+) of grade 8 students from Orchard Park PS and Alexander’s PS enrolled in a secondary school other than Dr. Frank Hayden SS in 2015. More than 90% of grade eight students from the following elementary schools attend Dr. Frank J. Hayden SS: Charles R. Beaudoin PS FI program, John William Boich PS FI program Alton Village PS Dr. Frank J. Hayden SS is projected to be over-utilized. Enrolment is approaching Total Capacity by 2016. Boundaries may need to be re-evaluated as part of a future Program and Accommodation Review. To Be Determined Area, students are projected in this area within the next five years. Consideration should be given to establishing school catchments for this area as development approvals move forward. Data is avalable for as far back as 2010-2011 where toy can already see the troubles looming. But there is no hint of how Hayden was justified on pupil place needs – there weren’t any – when it was already known that building the school would drain all the students from the existing high schools and create large and growing surplus places there, while overfilling Hayden, even with Portables, right from the start.
 Secondary Review area 100 shows the high schools south of the QEW where the population was concentrated. The creation of the Halton community when the 407 highway was built suggested the need for an additional high school. For example, in 2010-2011 LTAP report, we see the following.
The Board data for 2010 indicates there were 495 actual empty seats, and 92% space utilization, in the 6 then existing schools in Burlington. There was obviously no problem with surplus places and the trends stayed in a 90 to 80% bracket to 2020.
With the projected opening of the Alton school, the transfer of students from the other schools to the Alton school began, and the steep increase in available places in the existing 6 Burlington schools began.
From the 2010-2011 LTAP commentary:
– New subdivision development in SRA 101 contributes to the high utilization of Lester B. Pearson H.S., M.M. Robinson H.S., Nelson H.S. and Robert Bateman HS
– Opening of the proposed Alton community high school (2011) will cause enrollment to drop in most schools.
– A boundary review for the proposed Alton community high school has been initiated.
– There is potential for a PARC (Program and Accommodation Review Committee) Process to be initiated.
The plans were to build another school in Alton – add 1200 seats plus about 280 in portables.
The Board set out to build the new high school and decided to make it both a public library, a recreation centre and a high school and opened it in 2013 (at first it was 2011/2012), filled it with about 1400 students by 2017 from schools within the six existing high schools. These 1400 now become empty seats in the south Burlington six schools.
Together with the 495 cited above, this adds up to about the 1800-1900 empty seats now cited as unsustainable.
So this was basically already known before 2010, but the possible consequences were never made public or explained to anyone, from all appearances.
As well, in this 2010-2011 LTAP, there is no business case, or any other rationalization, based on a deficit in pupil places, for building a new school in Alton. This may have been done in earlier years, but there is no visible evidence of the need anywhere, and it is not available or provided for public information right now.
This rationale needs to be provided.
2. How did we stay on this path to problems?
The path Burlington was put on by these Board decisions continued unabated, but the consequences continued to be unexplained to the public, and seemingly were not appreciated or were ignored by Trustees.
I went back to the LTAP for 2012-2013. It quite clearly states that opening Hayden was going to cause problems.
Here’s something I copied out of that report (my underlining). SRA 100 contains the 6 Burlington High schools, besides Hayden the new one.
BURLINGTON – Secondary Review Areas
With the development of the new Secondary Review Areas (SRA) 101 Burlington NE High School (1200 pupil places) in the Alton Community, a school boundary review process was undertaken and completed in June 2012.
The opening of the new high school would result in students being redirected from SRA 100 to this new school. The additional capacity meant a reduction in the number of students in classroom seats. The Board appears to have convinced itself that Alton needed a high school and built one – at a time when the high school population wasn’t growing.
 Enrollment projections indicate the utilization of space in SRA 100 secondary schools is currently at 87% in 2012, which will decline to 60% in 2022. Moreover, given the capacity of the schools, it is projected once the new high school opens there will be 2503 secondary pupil places available in 2022 within SRA 100.
In reviewing SRA101, it is projected that the new school will continue to grow in enrollment to the point that by
2019, On the Ground (OTG) building and portable capacity could be exceeded, with a utilization rate of 131% by 2022.
Overall for Burlington, by 2022 the OTG utilization is projected to be 72%, with approximately 2129 empty
pupil places. It would appear that within the next few years, consideration should be given to undertaking a
PAR for all secondary schools in Burlington.
So you can see again, that the building of Hayden, the lack of a rationale, and the plan for filling it, was a root cause of the current problem.
 A number of years ago Bateman students demonstrated to keep their football team – parents may find themselves demonstrating to keep their high schools open. Looking at another Table shows that the actual student numbers in SRA 100 was 5530 in 2012 and was projected, by opening Hayden in 2013, to decline down to 4913 in 2013.
So in that time period, the Board moved about 600 Grade 9 and 10 students from the SRA 100 to Hayden, and then in time would drain other grades and feeder students greatly to get to the overshoot of capacity that they are at now.
The student numbers in Hayden went to 860 in 2014; 1250 in 2015; 1350 in 2016; about 1400 in 2017; and is projected to grow to about 1600 in 2020.
The students could have remained in, and new ones put into, other schools of the 6 existing, and Hayden was not really needed given the pupil places already available at the time as indicated. Further, the school is already overfull, with portables, and this will continue with the present catchment and policy.
From another section of the LTAP 2012-2013 I copied this. I had to take the format from a Table, so that’s why it is what it is.
SRA 100, includes Aldershot, Burlington Central, Lester B. Pearson, MM Robinson, Nelson and Robert Bateman where school enrollments are below OTG capacity and will continue to decline from 87% in 2012 to 60% of OTG
capacity in 2022.
This is a result of the opening of the new school in the Alton High School.
By 2022 there will be approximately 2500 available pupil places in this review area and all schools will be operating below their OTG capacity.
Hayden is already overcapacity in 2016. This is just getting worse and will continue unless policy changes are made.
All these decisions and descriptions are made by the Board, and then rubber-stamped by the Trustees, who I think didn’t really comprehend what was happening.
The near total turn over of trustees in Burlington in the 2014 election didn’t help.
Tom Muir is a resident of Aldershot who has been a persistent critic of decisions made by city council. He turns his attention to the current school board mess. He recently suggested to Burlington city council that “If you are so tired of and frustrated by, listening to the views of the people that elected you, then maybe you have been doing this job too long and should quit.
Muir explains that the PARC will only get what people send in, what they come up with from their own efforts, and what they ask/demand from the board. They have to decide what they want and go after it ruthlessly. They will have to fight with tooth and claw and take no prisoners.
 By Pepper Parr
July 15th, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
There were two meetings – both took place at the same time, in the same room.
Many people were not fully aware of the meeting that mattered to Mike Wallace.
The scheduled meeting was the Burlington provincial Progressive Conservative Annual General Meeting at which a new board was installed. The other meeting, taking place at the same time was former Member of Parliament Mike Wallace creating the campaign team he will need in 2018.
Wallace is going to take a shot at getting the job as Mayor of Burlington.
Here is the time line he is working within.
The next provincial election is “scheduled” for June of 2018.
The next municipal election will take place in October of 2018.
At the Burlington Provincial Progressive Conservative riding association Saturday forenoon the new board was put in place.
 Nominee Jane McKenna at the Progressive Conservative AGM last Saturday? And it was announced that Mike Wallace as going to run Jane McKenna’s election campaign whenever the provincial election is called.
The municipal election date is cast in stone – the provincial election can take place whenever Kathleen Wynne decides to call it. The Burlington provincial Progressive Conservatives believe they are ready.
They appear to have the money in the bank and they now have a Board and an Executive that will do what Wallace needs them to do.
McKenna’s chances of getting returned to Queen’s Park are slim unless the Premier really screws up – and that may well happen.
For Mike it doesn’t matter all that much. He will put together a campaign team and do the best he can with what he has. Running Jane McKenna against Liberal Eleanor McMahon is an uphill battle – too early to attempt to call that one – except for the fact that McMahon is the much better campaigner. She has a genuine touch for people that McKenna is never going to be able to match.
 Can former MP Mike Wallace keep all those Tory blue votes when he runs for the office of Mayor in 2018? That too doesn’t matter – Wallace will do the best he can with what he has. He will put together a superb team; there are some very accomplished Tory political operatives in Burlington and the party still believes that the heart of this city is still conservative. I think Karina Gould has proven that may no longer be the case
This city has more than enough in the way of Tory party faithful who will heed the call and turn out and pull in the vote.
 The night of the last federal election, which Mike Wallace lost to Karina Gould. Mayor Goldring went to the Wallace campaign offices first and then went to the Gould campaign offices later to congratulate the winner. Did Goldring misread the tea leaves? What Mike Wallace gets out of this is a well-oiled campaign machine that he will use to propel him into city hall where he will get to wear the chain of office.
Wallace served as a city Councillor for a number of years and was the Member of Parliament for Burlington until Gould defeated him.
The race for Mayor of Burlington in 2018 looks like it will be between Rick Goldring, Mike Wallace and Marianne Meed Ward.
Wallace will eat into the Goldring voters – the Meed Ward voters will remain firm.
 By Pepper Parr
January 15th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
There were no fireworks – but it was a bigger Annual General Meeting of the Burlington Progressive Conservative Association than they expected. Additional tables had to be set up to accommodate everyone.
Jane McKenna at the Progressive Conservative AGM last Saturday. Jane McKenna, now the candidate, worked the room but studiously avoided the table at which Jane Michael and her colleagues were sitting. Michael was the candidate that lost the nomination to McKenna.
McKenna was the Member of the provincial legislature for one term, elected in YEAR and lost to Eleanor McMahon in 2014 – putting an end to 70 years of provincial Tory rule in Burlington.
While there were ten tables set up there were just two that mattered,
The one with the defeated candidate and the other that is best described as the “power” table. This is where the heavy weights in the PC party in Burlington sat. Keith Strong, Mike Wallace, Paul Sharman – others we were not able to identify but certainly people who have been part of the organization for some time.
The agenda was the standard AGM deal.
 Mike Wallace – flipping burgers at a Chamber of Commerce event when he was the Member of Parliament for Burlington.  Keith Strong, one of the most powerful people in the room; doesn’t sit on the board but will have a lot to say about policy and strategy. Once he has decided to do something – it is going to get done. Brook Dyson asked that we not take pictures – we complied. Quite why they wouldn’t want photographs of a very full room was beyond this reporter.
The members were told that in the past membership had been around 250 – and was always pretty steady at that number.
Because there was a contested nomination campaign membership had shot up to more than 900 – the trick is going to be to keep them all and to get them out on the streets knocking on doors.
Jane Michael is reported to have brought in 350 new members; with the hard feelings that came out of the way the vote count during the nomination was handled there is little chance that the bulk of those members will be active.
Mention was made a number of times that there were youth groups being set up – but there weren’t any young people at the tables – other than the daughter of the nominated candidate.
A couple of odd things – there was a sheet of paper with a list of the people whose names were being put forward to serve on the riding association board.
An executive of five and 14 directors. The past president sits on the board but he was reported to no longer be involved.
Colin Pye, the lawyer who wrote the appeal against the nomination vote count asking that the results of the nomination vote be set aside (that appeal was denied) chose not to run for the board again.
The Jane Michael crowd felt they were robbed and attended the meeting partly in protest and to sit by helplessly as a new organization was put in place.
The slate of candidates Mike Wallace put forward was not opposed and there were no nominations from the floor.
At the top of the list of names was the letterhead of Mike Wallace’s new real estate operation. When asked why his name was at the top of the page Wallace said “it was the only paper I had”
It became very clear that this was the Mike Wallace slate – they were the people he wanted to go forward with when the election is called
Wallace is going to run the McKenna campaign.
Colin Gray, the financial officer gave a short report on how much money there was in the bank and what the new political donations rules are – donations from corporations and unions are out; individual donations are limited to $3600 during an election year and $2400 in a non-election year.
 Expect to see signs like this when the provincial election is called. The organization believes it has more than enough money in the bank now to fight a 28 day campaign – which they pointed out could take place at any time. They want to be on a war footing as soon as possible.
Expect to see a lot of Jane McKenna in the next six months but don’t expect to see her at fund raisers – the new funding rules say the candidate cannot attend. Who wrote that rule?
Many people at the Saturday AGM felt that in the past the riding had been directed and controlled by the Toronto headquarters of the provincial Progressive Conservative party – they wanted to see that end.
Of the 19 member board 12 were new. No one from the Jane Michael team are on the board,
The board is now made up of:
Brook Dyson, president; Rene Papin, vice president election organization; Mike Clouse, VP membership; Archie Jollymore, treasurer; Bill Brown,secretary; Hugh Loomans, Kris Kowalchuk, Taylor McKensie, Alice Sterling, Paul Scherer, Sukhdev Takher, Rajpal Sidhu, David Stabkiewicz, Ann Curran, John Krasevec, Riley Thompson, Brenda Stewart, Mike Wallace and Larry Pedlar.
Ruth Roberts, who has been an active Tory for longer than she might want to admit asked some very probing questions at the close of the meeting: What has happened to us she asked. “We have fences to mend she said and added that there is a tough fight in 2018 and we are going to need young people to help us win it.
The problem was there were very few young people in the room that Saturday morning.
Those that were there left on a high note. They have their candidate; they have the money they need to run a campaign – all they feel they need is the date on which the campaign will start – and they expect to be ready for it.
Ruth Roberts had the most positive words – but she isn’t on the board.
Related editorial comment.
By Pepper Parr
January 15th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The development that council voted not to go forward with in the Alton Village got punted to the Ontario Municipal Board faster than the lawyers could lick the envelope and get the postage on it.
The city now has to go looking for legal talent to represent them on what is going to be a difficult case.
The city planner did her job – she asked council for specific direction – got it and set out working with the developer.
The project gets brought back, the community delegates against the project and council votes it down
The developer says he is “shocked” and notes that he never did like the Mayor; we now have personalities introduced to a sticky legal case.
 Planning department and council talked past each other on this project. Did the city manager not see the disconnection? Apparently not. How did this mess happen?
A regular reader, who is not identified for good reasons, wrote some comments that are strong enough to be passed along.
The writer is well qualified to make the comments:
“It’s obvious the city has a monumental challenge at the OMB, having to hire outside planners against the staff recommendation.
“I found watching the meetings on video revealing and alarming at how decisions are made at city hall. What struck me is how the planning department and council talked past each other, not understanding what the other was saying and what they were agreeing to. The planning department was presenting a new approach to handle the application – yet no one seems to have a hand on the tiller, guiding the process so ensure good decision making and mitigate the city’s risk.
 Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner “Back at the July 11, 2016 meeting, the Planning Director was clear what she was asking for. Her focus was on seven design principles she identified and pointed out that she did not yet have agreement with Adi because two of these principles were not yet met:
Principle 5 – Implement tall building best practices. The modified design recommendations from staff (below) achieve this principle.
Principle 6 – Provide appropriate transitions between buildings. This is achieved with the modified design recommendations.
“She was asking council members to endorse the design approach and recommendations and direct staff to prepare an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment subject to these design recommendations (i.e. the remaining two principles) being met.
“When the majority of council voted in favour of the Planning Director’s requests, she thought she had their support to negotiate with ADI to make these design changes and develop recommendations based on the outcome of these negotiations.
Lots of talking; not enough listening.
“Back at the July 11, 2016 meeting, a few council members, including the Ward 6 councillor, expressed concern about the tower height. However, the report they approved never committed to reviewing the number of storeys, only “to optimize building placement and ensure an appropriate fit and transition in scale.”
 Is this city council so deeply into a group think that they no longer know ho to listen? “People were talking around the horseshoe, but seems like there was not enough listening. With no amendments to the report, it’s surprising that council would be surprised that the December report contained no changes to the number of storeys.
“Most of council didn’t seem to know what they were voting for, given the comments that this was just “going forward for discussion”. It wasn’t – the planning director was asking for approval to negotiate several design changes – but nothing to do with height – and in fact she did just that and brought back the file for approval. Their approval set off the chain of events that directly lead to Adi appealing to the OMB. We’re now in the soup we’re in because of that ill-considered decision and poorly thought through process.
“The director of planning never corrected the statements that this report was “just to continue discussions:” She should have been very clear about what she was asking. That lulled everyone, including the public, into thinking substantive changes were coming when clearly they were not – only the two design tweaks staff mentioned in the report. So the public didn’t show up in force till the 11th hour, and then council flips because as Tom Muir said, “it’s politics stupid”.
“Meanwhile, the public was ignored for months – with many council members waking up to their firm opposition only at the December meeting.
The lesson here is to:
a) know what you’re voting on;
b) get the public involved EARLY not at the end. I suspect (hope) this is the first and last time this process will be followed on a planning file given the mess it has created.
Chasing the shiny new object:
“The Planning Director’s recommendations were based on the Tall Building Guidelines – not the Official Plan or public input.
“The influence of outside consultants like Brent Toderian are obvious. From a professional perspective, city planners are captivated by the Vancouverism urban form, which they regard as the exciting, fresh approach to planning. They’re keen to import his thinking to Burlington.
“The Planning Director rushed through these guidelines earlier in the year, with most of council supporting her request, with only an “interim” proviso slapped on it.
“However, no effort was expended to get public input. Planning staff calls them “best practices”, but the guidelines have never been evaluated or debated to determine if Vancouver’s urban form is right for Burlington neighborhoods.
“An honest discussion on intensification desperately needed. This slipshod decision-making process is in the context of never having a healthy public discussion and getting broader buy-in on the right kind of intensification for Burlington.
 Consultant Brent Toderian – the chief evangelist for the tall narrow buildings on a podium-planning model. “The mayor had a “rah-rah” presentation at his Inspire Series – leaning heavily on Brent Toderian – the chief evangelist for the tall narrow buildings on a podium-planning model.
“We should be asking if intensification is the city’s highest ambition, or is it simply a means to a higher goal. Instead all we get are the empty “Grow Bold” platitudes.
“The lack of clarity on the meaning and limits of intensification, the disregard for the Official Plan and the embrace of the Tall Building Guidelines, coupled with the public being bypassed raises concerns about the nature of the relationship between the city’s planning department and the development industry.
“These factors breed uncertainty in our community for who decides what gets developed where.
“Once again, I wonder whose city is it?”
Indeed!
By Staff
January 15th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Sometime Monday forenoon Jim Young will take to the podium at city hall and brief members of Council on the 28 page document he prepared on what the Senior’s Advisory Council would like to see done with transit.
Jim Young has been advocating for better transit for some time. He came close to getting a change during the budget debates in 2016 when he wanted the city to make transit free for seniors on Monday’s.
 Mayor Rick Goldring voted for the transit pilot program in the 2016 budget.  Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster voted for the pilot transit program in the 2016 budget  Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward voted for the transit pilot program during the 2016 budget. The Mayor, Councillor Meed Ward and Councillor Lancaster voted for what was to be a pilot program. The Director of Transit at the time wasn’t for the idea. He has since left the city.
Councillor Craven is reported to have told an Aldershot resident that he liked the program – but he did not vote for it – that may have been because almost anything Councillor Meed Ward puts forward, Craven opposes. He didn’t speak at any length on the matter during the debate.
Councillor Paul Sharman voted no – he wanted more data. Councillor Sharman always wants more data before he makes a decision – there does come a point when a decision has to be made based on experience and wisdom. There was the sense that the asking for additional data was punting the ball off the field.
Councillor John Taylor voted no – saw free transit as social welfare which most people didn’t need. Councillor Taylor couldn’t help but see free transit as some form of social welfare; his mind is still stuck in that old style thinking.
 Councillor Taylor saw free transit as part of the social welfare system – a Regional responsibility. One wonders why Taylor does not label the $225,000 that is forgone in terms of parking fees for the free parking members of staff get every year. With that kind of money the city could make the transit service free to everyone.
Councillor Dennison voted against the proposal.
Young personifies persistence and so he will be at it again on Monday asking council to put more money into transit.
The paper he has presented was adopted by the Burlington Seniors’ Advisory Committee: November 14, 2016.
The chances that every member of council will actually read all 28 pages is slim.
Here is a short summary of what Jim Young wants your city council to do to improve transit.
Improving Transit for Seniors Improves Transit for All
Improved Frequency and Reliability of Transit Service
Synchronize Smaller Community Buses to Larger Bus Hub to Hub Routes
Routing community bus services through satellite Seniors Centres
Restoring Service Stops in Major Malls
A Return to 70/30 Division of Transit/Roads Gasoline Tax Funding
Filling the City’s Buses During Off-Peak Hours
 At busy holiday shopping periods buses get trapped in Maple View Mall – killing schedules. The Major Objectives of the BSAC Paper are:
To improve service and increase ridership of Burlington Transit.
To get more people out of cars and on to transit.
To move the city towards achievement of its 25 year Strategic Plan.
Contribute to growth in our city.
Reduce traffic congestion and improve road safety in Burlington.
Reduce CO2 emissions and help limit global warming.
Provide a safe, dignified means of transport for many who suffer restricted mobility.
Address the paradox that those most in need of public transit are those least able to afford it.
“Public transit is one of the most complex issues facing cities and indeed nations today. It poses a series of problems that are complicated and difficult to solve. Every city, every politician wants successful transit systems.
They move people, contribute to growth, reduce congestion, improve road safety, reduce CO2 emissions, help limit global warming, provide a safe means of transport for many who would otherwise suffer restricted employment and social mobility.
The paradox is that those most in need of public transit are those least able to afford it. The elderly, the young, the working poor, students, single parents, physically and intellectually challenged citizens and, returning to the elderly, those who have had driver’s licenses rescinded due to age related health issues.
Putting aside any notion of “seniors entitlement”, Burlington Senior Advisory Committee (BSAC) wants to add the voice of seniors’ experience, knowledge and love of our city to the transit debate. Of course we recommend improvements in transit that benefit seniors, but we do so very firmly from the perspective that: “Whatever Improves Transit for Senior’s, Improves Transit for Everybody”. This philosophical principle improves transit for our children and grandchildren, improves transit for Burlington and improves Burlington as: A City that Grows, A City that Moves, A Healthy and Greener City, An Engaging City, achieving all of the elements of our city’s 25 year strategic plan.
 Burlington Transit getting new buses – to deliver less service. Among politicians there is an almost universal love affair with the benefits of public transit. This is logically offset by concerns about how cities will finance the level of public transit required to achieve all of our lofty goals. The dichotomy has always been whether to wait for increased ridership to justify the cost of improving transit or, to invest in improved transit and trust that the ridership will follow.
This BSAC position paper hopes to point a way that allows Burlington to take some simple, relatively inexpensive actions that will increase ridership, contribute towards some of the social and environmental issues facing every city, and offer medium and longer term improvements that might make Burlington Transit a model for other medium sized city transit systems which becomes a showcase for the city worldwide.
A number of weeks ago Young upbraided city council for forgetting just why they were eleted. At that time he said:
When you deny constituents the reasonable opportunity to advise you during council term at meetings such as this, you leave them no other option but to voice their frustrations through the ballot box at election time.
Look at recent election results, where voters vented their frustration at the perception that politicians are not listening, do not provide the opportunity for citizens to be heard, a perception that has given voice to the Fords, the Trumps and the Brexiteers who, bereft of policy or vision or even civil discourse, at least pretend to listen, pretend they will be the voice of the people.
Then proceed to undo all the good that has been done, the community that has been built by that slow and frustrating democratic process.
I will finish by challenging each of you who wish to limit the participation of citizens in the affairs of our city:
Will you please explain to this gathering tonight how limiting delegations to 5 minutes is good for our democracy, good for our city?
Will you then publish that explanation in your Newsletter for all your constituents to see and to judge for themselves?
Will you stand at your regular town hall gatherings and tell the people of your wards why you want to silence their voice?
Because you will stand before them in 2018 and they will demand to know.
The motion to reduce delegation time at Standing Committee from ten minutes to five was defeated – in some measure due to the comments Young made.
Will he manage to convince council to re-think the way they fund transit?
|
|
