 By Staff
April 23rd, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton Regional Police Service’s Child Abuse and Sexual Assault Unit (CASA) and Halton Children’s Aid Society (Halton CAS) are urging residents to remain vigilant in reporting suspected child abuse.
The majority of suspected child abuse reports normally come from third-party sources, increased levels of isolation in the past weeks have resulted in a marked decrease in the number of reports of suspected child abuse/neglect.
 Children trust – learning not to trust takes their childhood away from them. “We normally receive concerns from schools, friends, other parents, coaches and daycare providers,” says Halton Regional Police Service Detective Sergeant Crystal Kelly. “With social distancing measures in place and increased stress on families, there is little opportunity for children to interact with or reach out to those they trust.”
The Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) has responded to eight (8) calls in April, 2020 regarding suspected child abuse, compared to 30 calls during the same time period in April, 2019, a 73 per cent decrease year over year.
Similarly, the Halton CAS has observed as 27 percent decrease in calls in April 2020 compared to 2019. Since the beginning of April, 2020, only 85 new cases have been opened by Halton CAS, compared to 169 during the same period in April, 2019, a 50 per cent decrease year over year.
“At Halton Children’s Aid Society, we are concerned about the increased risk of child abuse and neglect due to families being isolated from the community,” says Jennifer Binnington, Director of Protection Services at the Halton Children’s Aid Society.
“We understand this is a very stressful time for many families and we want you to know that we are an essential service and are open to assist and support children, youth and families 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Please call us if you have any concerns or worries about a child during this time.”
 The HRPS and Halton CAS are asking that everyone remains mindful of the welfare of their neighbours, their children’s friends and classmates, and their relatives. It is crucial that residents also speak to their children about what to do if a friend confides in them that they are not safe at home.
Victims or friends/family of victims are encouraged to contact the Halton Regional Police Service, Halton Children’s Aid Society or other community resources if child abuse or neglect is happening.
Help is available.
The following is a list of valuable support services and resources in Halton Region for victims of child abuse:
• Halton Regional Police Service Child Abuse and Sexual Assault Unit 905-825-4777
• Halton Children’s Aid Society 905-333-4441 or 1-866-607-5437
• Kid’s Help Phone 1-800-668-6868 (24-hour crisis line)
• Radius Child & Youth Services 905-825-3242 (Oakville) or 1-855-744-9001
• Halton Women’s Place 905-878-8555 (north) or 905-332-7892 (24-hour crisis line)
 By Pepper Parr
April 22nd, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
In a Statement published in the Mayor’s Newsletter – A Better Burlington – Mayor Meed Ward wrote:
City Council, at a Closed session accepted a proposed revised plan for a townhouse and semi-detached development at 2100 Brant Street. The proposal will be decided by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) at a hearing scheduled in July.
 It is a piece of land that was farmed for centuries. It was pristine – and good have been a model community. The plans do not include anything near the traditional back yard. The original proposal was for 12 townhouse blocks with a total of 83 units and three condominium townhouse blocks with 150 units, for a total development of 233 units. There was no parkland. Also included in the applications are a woodlot block as well as a natural heritage system block. The proposed development site has a total area of 11.1 hectares (27.2 acres). The developable area is 5.04 hectares.
The land is currently vacant and has been historically used for agricultural purposes.
The former City Council had approved a revised proposal in November 2018, before the new council was sworn in but after the election when 5 of 7 members of the previous council were not returning due to defeat or retirement.
Current City Council rescinded that plan in December 2018 in an effort to give residents, staff and the applicant additional time to improve the plan and come to a consensus on a revised development.
A group of citizens, primarily representing residents in the neighbourhood north of the development, formed Vision 2100 Brant Neighbours Association, an incorporated group that received Party status at the LPAT hearing to present evidence on behalf of residents.
Representatives of the townhouse condominium board immediately to the south of the project had earlier issued a letter of support for the November revised proposal, considering their issues (primarily around setbacks and drainage) to be settled.
City Council and Vision 2100 received a revised proposal in March 2020. This proposal was provided directly to the Vision 2100 citizen’s group at a meeting March 10 with the applicant and Ward Councillor. The proposal was further discussed April 2 via teleconference with Vision 2100 representatives and the Ward Councillor and Mayor, to seek citizen input on the proposal.
To date, Vision 2100 has not provided any suggested changes or feedback on the proposal, but did raise additional questions around parking, snow storage, traffic, and storm water management. These were answered by the applicant by email to the residents (see background below), and addressed in the revised proposal to the city’s satisfaction.
The new proposal improves on the original application as well as the November 2018 proposal with the following changes:
Reducing the unit count from 212 to 210 (down from 233 in the original proposal)
In the Northwest area of the development on both sides of the Almonte Drive extension, replacing six 2-storey townhouse units with 4 semi-detached 1.5 storey bungalofts
Increasing setbacks from the homes to the north, from 9 metres to 10 metres; in some areas the setback is 11 metres
Increasing the senior-friendly units with ground floor bedrooms to aid accessibility, from 7 to 16 units
Provision of a 0.3 hectare (0.76 acre) centrally located Public Park.
City council voted to accept the revised proposal at the council meeting of April 20, 2020.
The details of that March plan, and the planning justification for supporting it provided by city staff, are included in the planning staff analysis here: 2100 Brant Planning Analysis
 The orange is where the proposed 233 units were to go – that has been reduced to 210 Unlike the vast majority of municipalities, Burlington releases the planning analysis for matters which the municipality is supporting approval of by the LPAT, in advance of the hearing. This policy change was implemented by the new City Council to ensure maximum transparency with residents about the basis of our decision-making.
The final decision on the revised proposal will be made by the LPAT. The city and applicant will appear in support of the proposal.
Vision 2100 is a registered Party to the hearing which gives them the right at the hearing to call evidence (witnesses, studies or both) to refute or support the proposal, cross examine city or applicant witnesses, or suggest further modifications to the proposal. The City of Burlington, the applicant (National Homes) and the Region of Halton are the other registered Parties to the hearing. There are two registered Participants to the hearing who can provide feedback at the hearing as well.
Details on the original application submitted in 2017, revisions to the proposal, and details of the LPAT hearing are available on the project page for the development here created when the application was received: Current Development Applications, Ward 1, 2100 Brant St
Below is additional background, answers to some questions and a statement from the Mayor and Ward councillor.
Statement from Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith on 2100 Brant:
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward Resident input over several years, including the work of Vision 2100, has improved this application for the better, and we thank them for that.
Though the most recent proposal may not be exactly what residents or Councillors were hoping for, it does include more green space than the original proposal, including a new park, fewer units, less height and density, more variety and senior-friendly options, increased setbacks and better transition to the neighbourhoods to the north and south. The recent questions raised by residents around parking, traffic, snow storage and storm water management have been addressed.
 Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith – working part time as a DJ? In accepting the revised proposal, council considered a number of factors, including public input, the improvements made that addressed some of the concerns raised, the planning justification provided by staff, and advice from legal counsel.
Our decision also factored in some practical realities, including the inability to secure a planning witness that was of the opinion that the November 2018 proposal did not overall represent good planning, the likelihood that a hearing would not produce a different result, and the possibility that city taxpayers could be required to pay the entire costs of the applicant at a lengthy hearing. In addition, city staff who supported the November proposal would likely have been required to testify on behalf of the applicant, at city taxpayers expense.
We also considered that notwithstanding council accepting a revised proposal, there remain options for continued public input, especially for Vision 2100, which can provide feedback or modifications on the revised proposal, and/or proceed as a party to the hearing and call evidence and witnesses.
We believe we achieved the best outcome possible for residents in this case, and your input directly made that happen.
Background and Answers to Questions:
How has public input been gathered on this application?
This application has been under review since 2017, with multiple points of public input along the way. A citizen’s group, Vision 2100, was formed to represent the concerns of residents primarily north of the development site. A citizen’s group was formed to the south to represent the interests of the townhouse development to the south. They submitted a letter of support for the November 2018 revised proposal.
The applicant met with the public over 12 times in that period, in either organized public meetings or smaller resident meetings.
There was a neighbourhood meeting Oct. 12, 2017, a statutory public meeting April 3, 2018 where residents presented detailed feedback and suggested modifications to council. Some council members at the time remarked that they were the best and most comprehensive presentations they had heard. There was a further open house to discuss revised plans July 17, 2018.
Throughout 2019 there have been numerous additional consultations with the applicant, city staff and Vision 2100, individually or as a group, to address the remaining concerns of the community. They included general over development of the site with related issues, and the interface of the development to the single family neighbourhood to the north, at Almonte Drive/Belgrave Court/Havendale Blvd.
In February 2020 the applicant advised it was prepared to make changes to the plan to address the resident concerns. In March they submitted a revised proposal to Vision 2100, and city staff. City Council received the proposal in early April.
How is public input reflected in the final proposal?
Since the original application, there have been at least 11 major revisions as a result of public, staff and council input, including a reduction in units, increased parkland, increased setbacks from the neighbourhoods to the north and south, reduced height of some units and conversion from townhouses to semi-detached, and provision of accessible, senior friendly semi-detached bungalofts. There have been three different proposals including the most recent one.
The proposal was provided directly to the Vision 2100 citizen’s group at a meeting March 10 with the applicant and Ward Councillor. The proposal was further discussed April 2 via teleconference with Vision 2100 representatives and the Ward Councillor and Mayor, to seek citizen input on the proposal.
To date, they have not provided feedback on the most recent proposal, but they did raise several outstanding questions via email related to traffic, parking, snow storage and storm water management. These questions were raised with the applicant by the Mayor and Ward Councillor on residents behalf, with the response as follows:
Traffic on Havendale, Fairchild and Brant St. Was a traffic study produced and taken into account? ANSWER: A traffic study was provided to Vision 2100 previously with the analysis describing the difference of a single family development and a townhouse development completed by a professional traffic engineer, outlining that a single family home development would generate more traffic. City staff reviewed and supported the findings of the study.
Parking, no street parking on private roads and limited visitors parking. Where do visitors park? ANSWER: Visitor parking is provided in the development on both public roads interior to the site and private roads as detailed in the attached site plan (also provided to Vision 2100).
The Zoning By-law requires 54 visitor parking spaces, whereas 59 are proposed. In addition 25 on-street parking spaces could be accommodated along the Almonte Drive extension.
Snow removal. There is no room to pile snow. Does the City have a plan to resolve that problem? ANSWER: The site plan attached to the revised proposal identifies areas where snow storage will be designated, in the bottom left and top right areas of the development.
Storm Water management. This has been a serious issue for the residents, based on actual flooding experiences where the empty lot at 2100 Brant served as a sink which helped to mitigate the flooding. Now there will be no sink because the area will be developed. The proposal is for an underground collection system with tanks which can be drained into the existing stormwater sewer at Brant Street. The question is, will there be enough capacity to accommodate two major rain storms in a row and will the system work properly? ANSWER: The design was prepared by a professional engineer based on their experience and history of developing many projects within the GTA with a similar design. Burlington City engineering staff had their professional engineers along with the Region of Halton’s professional engineers review the design of the system and both have been satisfied.
Why was this appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal?
Developers and residents have equal legal right in Ontario to appeal any decision of city council on a development matter to the LPAT, to seek a different decision.
Further, an applicant can appeal to the LPAT if the municipality exceeds the provincially mandated timelines to make a decision, which at the time of this application were 180 days.
The applicant, residents and staff agreed to continue to work together on the project beyond the 180 day time frame to try to come to a better outcome, thus setting aside the deadline. This application is now in its third year of review.
However, this changed when the previous provincial government announced it was making changes to the LPAT (then called the Ontario Municipal Board) to restrict what could be appealed and giving more priority to local council decisions. The current provincial government rolled back those changes so the LPAT functions essentially the same as the OMB did.
However in that transition period thousands of applications across the province, were preemptively made to preserve rights to a hearing under the old OMB rules, including this one which appealed using the tool of “non decision” within the deadline, because council had not made a decision within the 180 day time frame.
What happens now?
This application and the proposed revised plan will be heard by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) at a 12-day hearing scheduled to begin July 27. At that hearing, the applicant and city staff, based on City Council’s instructions, will jointly be requesting that the LPAT approve the revised application.
Due to COVID19, the province has cancelled all hearings till the end of June, but that does not apply to 2100 Brant Street as it is beyond that window of time. As such, all parties to the hearing, including Vision 2100, are required to produce evidence and experts to refute the application and revised proposal if they wish to challenge it.
To date, neither the city, nor Vision 2100, were able to find a planner to refute the proposal. This would leave the city without a witness at the hearing, compromising any ability to reach a different outcome at a hearing than the proposed application. In addition, city staff would most likely be called by the applicant to support the proposal, as they initially recommended approval of the November 2018 proposal. This factored into council’s decision to accept the third revised proposal as the best outcome possible, and an improvement on both the original and November proposals.
Entering a hearing without a witness could have also led to an award of costs against the city for the applicant’s expenses of the entire 12-day hearing, saddling taxpayers with a significant bill with no improvement in the outcome of the development. This also factored into council’s decision.
What are the opportunities for further public input on this application?
The next steps and opportunities for further public input at the hearing are detailed below, and were outlined via email to Vision 2100 from the Mayor and Ward Councillor April 10.
Vision 2100 has party status at the hearing. They can present evidence at the hearing regardless of whether any other party enters into a settlement. As such, they retain the opportunity (and obligation as a party) to call evidence against the revised proposal if they are opposed.
An issues list identified for the hearing outlines the issues raised by the various parties. The list is available on the project page on the city’s website. Issues list, attachment 3
There are four parties to the hearing: National Homes, City of Burlington, Vision 2100 and Region of Halton. On the issues list there are 16 issues cited by the city and Vision 2100 (Items 1-12, 14-17); 4 issues cited solely by Region of Halton (Items 13, 18, 19, 21), one issue cited by Region of Halton and Vision 2100 (Item 20), and 2 issues cited only by Vision 2100 (Items 22, 23).
We understand that Vision 2100 has wanted to see the city’s response to various issues and concerns to use in their own efforts at a hearing. Given that city staff previously approved the initial, and the modified (Nov 2018) application, and recommended approval of the March 2020 proposal, any concerns can assume to have been resolved to the city’s satisfaction.
The bulk of the issues raised by the city relate to planning justification matters. These were resolved to the city’s satisfaction, as outlined in the planning justification analysis
Any party can withdraw its issues or settle. Where issues are jointly raised, if one party withdraws from an issue, the remaining party to that issue can still raise it as an issue at a hearing.
Thus, regardless of the actions of the other parties, Vision 2100 retains the option in a hearing to call its own evidence on any of the issues they are listed under, as noted above.
According to the LPAT procedural order, where there are multiple parties listed beside a single issue, those parties have the option to call one single witness together to deal with that issue. This has led to some confusion that the city would call evidence and pay for it on behalf of Vision 2100. That is not the case, as each party remains separate. The City has been clear with Vision 2100 throughout the appeal process that each party, although having the same issues, was separate and should prepare to call its case separately in the event that one of the parties reached a settlement of the appeal.
If the city chose to call evidence on a particular issue, Vision 2100 could rely on that evidence themselves, rather than hire a second individual. If the city did not choose to call evidence, Vision 2100 would then be required to do so themselves. Each party retains independence, with the option to collaborate.
If one of the parties withdraws an item as an issue, or deems it settled and taken care of, the responsibility would be with the remaining party to call its own witness at the hearing, if that party believed that issue has not been resolved, based on their own expert review.
The format of the hearing is that each party must call its own witnesses to support their position of whether or not the application as presented should be approved; each party has the ability to cross-examine the witnesses provided by any other party. The documents in support of the application have been publicly available online since 2017, and residents can review this in advance of a hearing to plan their response. The planning analysis from the city is now also available to residents to plan their response.
A party to the hearing can produce their own evidence to refute the application, and would have opportunity at a hearing to ask questions of others. Regardless of whether there is a settlement, Vision 2100 has this opportunity to ask questions at a hearing, but also an obligation to produce its own evidence for any issues that Vision 2100 has identified on the Issues List.
Summary of options for continued public input:
1. Vision 2100 can undertake to hire their own experts to respond to the material that has been provided by the applicant and is publicly available online. This review may satisfy the concerns raised, or lead to suggested modifications which could in turn be requested of the applicant. Understandably, this is a significant financial undertaking, and may not be feasible.
2. As a resident’s group and as a party to the hearing, Vision 2100 has a unique opportunity to provide a direct public voice on the revised proposal, which they have not done yet. Vision 2100 has an opportunity to review the revised proposal, determine if it satisfies the concerns raised and if not suggest modifications.
3. If the proposed modifications are not accepted, Vision 2100 also has the option to proceed to a hearing, with the obligation to hire experts to refute the applicant’s material (which is publicly available online) and present new evidence in support of any additional proposed changes.
Did the city follow proper planning process on this application?
In dealing with this application, the city has followed the provincial planning process, which is not unique to Burlington but is required across Ontario. The process allows any party independently to determine whether or not its issues have been resolved.
The process allows any party to determine that its issues have not been resolved and proceed to a hearing, but in that case would need to present its own evidence to refute the application.
What is City Council’s role?
City council has an obligation to review and consider any revised proposal. In reviewing the proposal, we consider input from our planning and legal team, the applicant, as well as resident’s groups or individuals. The public is represented in this process in a variety of ways, including through your elected representatives and our voices carrying your input/questions forward, as well as any direct input you have provided to the city, applicant and elected representatives.
Your elected representatives also undertake to ensure that outstanding questions/issues have been addressed in making any decisions.
All means of public input described above have occurred throughout the processing of this application.
 Think traffic flow onto Brant – and pity those that want to make a left hand turn on Brant in the morning rush hour.
 By Staff
April 22nd, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Somewhere in Germany – food is put in a plastic bag and left for people who need it.
Simple, almost elegant.
 If you tried that in Burlington – it would probably be a bylaw infraction or Legal would find a way to say – that it can’t be done.
Nice idea though – eh! Makes you feel good
By Staff
April 22nd, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Proposed Development
A proposal has been submitted for the development of 12 townhouse blocks with a total of 83 units and three condominium townhouse blocks with 150 units. Also included in the application are a woodlot block as well as a natural heritage system (buffer) block. The proposed development has a total area of 11.1 hectares (27.2 acres). These lands are currently vacant and have been historically used for agricultural purposes.
LPAT Appeal Update – April 22, 2020
Is this progress?
At its meeting of April, 20, 2020 Burlington City Council approved the recommendation of Confidential Legal Report L-10-20 to accept an offer to settle the issues in dispute between National Homes (Brant) Inc. (“National Homes”) and the City with respect to National Homes’ appeal currently before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”).
As part of this approval, Council approved the recommendation that the planning analysis attached as Appendix ‘B’ to L-10-20 be released publicly and posted on the City’s webpage under Planning and Development Applications for Ward 1, while retaining solicitor/client privilege over the balance of this matter in its entirety.
The settlement between the City and National Homes resolves the issues in dispute between the City and National Homes on the basis that National and the City will seek LPAT approval of a revised development proposal for the subject lands.
The revised development proposes 210 dwelling units in townhouse, street townhouse, and semi-detached dwelling forms abutting public and private roadways, surrounding a 0.31 hectare centrally located Park block.
In particular, the revised development plan makes changes to where the proposed development inferfaces with the existing residential neighbourhood to the north, reducing the unit count in the area and replacing proposed 2-storey townhouses with 1.5-storey semi-detached bungaloft units. The revised development plan also increases the minimum building setback for the proposed semi-detached units backing on to existing lots on Havendale Boulevard from 9 metres to a minimum of 10 metres.
A copy of the planning analysis is available on the development application webpage, along with a copy of the conceptual site plan and proposed plan of subdivision for the revised development.
How does this impact the hearing scheduled to commence on July 27, 2020?
While the City and National Homes have settled the City’s issues in the appeal, there are two other parties to the hearing- the Region of Halton and neighbourhood association Vision 2100 Brant. As a result, the appeal hearing will proceed on July 27, 2020 with the City and National Homes attending to seek LPAT’s approval of the revised development plan and to respond to the evidence called by one or both of the other parties in opposition to the revised development.
Should the remaining parties both individually reach a settlement with National Homes in the appeal, the parties could seek to have a settlement hearing scheduled in advance of July 27, 2020 in order to present the settled plan to LPAT for approval. If that were to occur, the hearing scheduled to commence on July 27, 2020 would not be held.
The City’s development application webpage for 2100 Brant Street will be further updated to advise of any additional settlements between the other parties and National Homes or the rescheduling of LPAT hearing dates.
If the LPAT hearing proceeds, the good people in the Havendale community are going to find themselves city at a table with the city on the other side opposing what they want.
The Vision 2100 document and the delegations that were part of the protest against the development was one of the very best the Gazette has seen in the past ten years. A new city council was elected to oppose this kind of over-intensification.
It would be nice to know just how each Councillor voted on this matter in that Closed Session of Council.
By Pepper Parr
April 22nd, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Anita Cassidy, Executive Director of the Burlington Economic Development Corporation gave city council and very thorough briefing on just what the commercial sector was up against.
The focus was on the hospitality and tourism sectors.
It was not a pretty picture.
 Anita Cassidy, Executive Director of the Economic Development Corporation. Cassidy reviewed just how that wave that has engulfed us got here. It all started in China last November. We have all heard the rate at which this spread and the impact it has had – what’s important at this point is to realize that this pandemic is going to change the way we do business – quite what that shape the change takes is something we will be determining.
November 2019 – First Case Wuhan China
March 14, 2020 – Burlington Parks & Rec Facilities and Agencies closed to public.
March 16 – All City Facilities closed to public,
March 17 – Ontario declared emergency and closed
• All bars and restaurants to take out only
• Schools and Childcare
• Recreation facilities, libraries and theatres
March 21 – Federal Government Closed Border to non-essential travel
March 21 – Mayor Meed Ward Declared an Emergency in City of Burlington
March 24 – Province mandated closure all non- essential businesses for 14 days.
March 30 – Province extended mandated closure all non-essential businesses until April 13.
April 3 – Province reduced list of essential businesses.
Less than three weeks and the world as we knew it had been turned upside down.
The Premier moved into overdrive and has been transparent in making information available.
Cassidy, relying heavily on Toronto Board of Trade, set out what we know and what some people expect.
 Well over half don’t think they can last more than three months.
Speaking for what is being called Team Burlington – representing the Chamber of Commerce, the Burlington Downtown Business Association, the Restaurant and Hospitality group and the Economic Development Corporation Cassidy pointed to the Team Burlington COVID-19 Virtual Business Support Forum Series, a video conference series to provide businesses of all sizes with an opportunity to ask questions and hear from subject matter experts, as well as key leaders and decision-makers from all levels of government.
Business Strategy & Planning with DeGroote School of Business – April 28.
 Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna Angelo Bentivega, a small business operator and the Councillor for ward 6 asked Cassidy how council could help. “I realize,” he said “that for many of the small business owners that this is not only their business that is at risk – their major investment is also at risk.”
Everyone realizes that some operations that locked their doors three weeks ago may never get to open those doors again.
Moral support is about all the city can offer – the province and the federal government have programs – they all seem to ave strings attached to them.
By Staff
April 22nd, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Senior City staff provided an update on the financial impacts of COVID-19 to a city council that was meeting virtually. The Mayor, the City Clerk and a third person in the audio visual room were in the Council Chamber.
Council was asked to endorse a three-month strategy that prioritizes City services to be provided through to the end of June 2020 to maintain critical and essential services for the city.
Council also approved the recommendation that Committee of the Whole meetings be scheduled to help City business continue and moving forward, virtual delegations will now be allowed for members of the public at City Council meetings.
In addition, Council also approved adding an increased penalty of $250 to specific parking infractions that violate COVID-19 bylaws and orders.
Financial impacts of COVID-19
The strategic management of the City budget and finances continues to be a priority. City Council and staff remain committed to fiscal responsibility and accountability and are focused on offsetting all of the COVID-19 related City revenue losses to June 30, 2020 and are looking ahead past July 2020 to mitigate a shortfall at 2020 year-end. The City is closely monitoring and carefully managing the financial impacts of the COVID-19 emergency while at the same time ensuring taxpayers receive good value for City services that continue, as outlined in the three-month work plan.
The city expects to spend less due to facility closures, not having to pay part time workers plus a significant amount on discretionary spending. They will incur costs of $300,000 on COVID-19 costs
That story is best told in chart form.
 These are funds the city will not be getting due to the shut down of city hall and the closing of many of the services.
 These are funds the city will also not get but for which there are reserves that can be drawn upon.  These are operational savings. Gapping is money budgeted for a job that is vacant.  This suggests the city is short just $200,000
 Projections are just that – projections. There are all kinds of things that can happen between now and July. Canada Day has been cancelled. Keep in mind – these numbers get us to end of June – early July.
Will the curve be flattened by then or will the virus make a return when people are permitted to congregate?
Municipalities are required to approve a budget that is balanced, however, the City can have a shortfall or surplus in a given year. A shortfall can be offset by:
• using reserve funds
• increasing taxes in the next year; or
• reducing expenditures during the year of the anticipated shortfall. This is what Burlington is attempting to do to mitigate a shortfall at year-end.
Three-month work plan for COVID-19 Emergency Response Strategy
The City of Burlington COVID-19 emergency response strategy defines the City’s resource needs over the next three-month operating period, to June 30, 2020, to deal with the effects and impacts of the virus on our community and staff. The COVID-19 emergency response strategy and the three-month work plan will be reviewed on a regular cycle to ensure relevancy for operations given the situation and circumstances of this dynamic environment.
Increased parking fines
Council also approved adding an increased penalty of $250 to specific parking infractions that violate COVID-19 bylaws and orders. Current parking penalties related to public health and safety issues such as blocking fire routes, accessible parking, idling and blocking snow operations range from $120 -$400. The add-on $250 penalty is in line with this range and is meant to act as a deterrent to parking in areas that are closed under the City’s COVID-19 State of Emergency. Enforcement officers have been given authority to decide when to apply the additional fee with the goal being education and compliance.
Virtual delegations
At the April 20 meeting, City Council also approved a recommendation to allow virtual delegations from members of the public at Council meetings, beginning in May 2020. For future council meetings, delegates can make a request to delegate to council using the online form or send an email to clerks@burlington.ca. Delegate speaking notes will need to be submitted to Clerks before the meeting in case there are connectivity issues. Delegates will speak to council virtually via phone or internet connection.
To prevent the spread of COVID-19, City Council meetings will continue to be held virtually. During this Council meeting, Mayor Meed Ward was the only member of Council present in Council Chambers along with the City Clerk/designate and an information technology technician. All members of Council participated in the meeting remotely and no members of the public were in attendance.
 By Ray Rivers
April 22, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
 Peter Mackay – at full bore. Peter MacKay had a point – that the Conservatives needed to get a real leader to head their party. Though he may not have put it that way exactly. And he was adamant the Tory leadership convention should proceed, coronavirus or not.
That would have been foolhardy and the party wasn’t having any of it. You just don’t assemble a thousand or more party members for that kind of passionate event in the midst of a deadly epidemic.
But if MacKay didn’t get the memo neither did Andrew Scheer. For him parliament was just another day’s work – and everyone should be there daily – business as usual. Perhaps he could be excused for his devotion to the highest political temple in the country. Working for government was the only real job he’d ever had.
 Andrew Scheer But hello, Mr. Scheer – there is a contagion raging throughout the land. Canada’s chief medical officer has told us that everyone’s health is important and MPs like everyone else need to exercise social distancing. As Britain’s PM, Boris Johnson, demonstrated, just because you’re an MP doesn’t mean you are immune from COVID-19.
But it’s pretty clear Scheer has trouble understanding what social distancing means. For example, when the government sent a nine person plane to pick up Scheer and two other MP’s, he insisted on bringing his whole family including all five of his children. Unmasked, they flew together sharing the same breathing space, and were packed-in like sardines in a can.
Unlike Scheer, the other three party leaders do get it. Green MP Elizabeth May believes they can hold the government to account without showing up in Ottawa. MPs from some provinces are required to quarantine after leaving their home province, making it difficult for them to attend. Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet said the average person doesn’t care much about what MPs are up to in Ottawa [anyway].
So, stapled onto the first of a number of emergency funding bills was a request by the Liberals that they be given emergency authority to approve money bills without full parliamentary approval. That, they argued, would expedite the upcoming tranches of emergency funding bills to follow. Trudeau got royally hammered for trying that on.
 The House of Commons Chamber that the members work in while the Centre Block undergoes a ten year re-build.
To be fair the government probably was just trying to be expeditious and avoid having MPs co-mingle as a group greater than five persons. In a minority situation the opposition could always work together to defeat the Liberals should they feel it necessary. And besides, as we all expected, the funding bills went through pretty much unchanged – so the debate was essentially a rubber stamp. But that was a war measure and this is not war – or is it?
And the funding did take longer to get in place as a result of having to follow due process – something Scheer later complained about, ironically. Though, in fairness, he wasn’t the only one to hold up the emergency response.
 Erin O’Toole MacKay has been adamant that the Tories need a new leader. Of course he is currently the odds-on favourite, even though there is a rising tide for Erin O’Toole in western Canada. There are a lot of things wrong about Scheer but it was probably the mean spirited and miserable campaign last election that wrote his ticket.
Even though he had won the most seats in the House, everyone knew it was only because of western alienation. Some people prefer not to face the truth, even if it is in their best long term interest. Another pipeline or two are of no value if nobody is buying oil. And when the price of even West Texas oil falls so low that the oil companies are paying people to take the oil, it’s time to get out of Dodge…and your gas guzzling Dodge too. The future is clear.
Knowing Scheer had to go, the Tories must have been hopeful to pick amongst the wealth of potential candidates at their pleasure. But it didn’t turn out that way. Rona for personal reasons, Lisa because her neck wasn’t red enough. And Michael because he was just a nice guy – and we know where they finished.
And even Kevin was up to his ears after he and his wife got up to that nasty business with their yacht. Oh, if only Maxime was back in the game. Jason Kenny has his hands full at the moment. And Doug Ford… well….
So it’s Scheer for the interim and that’s a pity for all of us. He’s actually relented now and agreed to a new consensus plan, including virtual meetings. Still you’d think he’d get it. The only reason he’s still in that job is because COVID-19 postponed the Conservative leadership contest. But he still doesn’t take social distancing seriously. I wonder what Peter MacKay thinks about all that.
Leadership – it means walking the talk. That is another reason why the Tories need a new leader.
 Ray Rivers writes regularly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Scheer on COVID 19 – COVID Emergency Bill – Scheer Flight –
Economic Response Plan – Who Held Up Government –
By Staff
April 20, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton Public Health Unit releases data on a regular basis. This is the data up to end of day on April 19, 2020
Cases over time
37 COVID-19 cases reported to Halton Region Public Health since the last update (27 confirmed + 10 probable)
439 COVID-19 cases reported to Halton Region Public Health to date (383 confirmed + 56 probable)
Figures above show the 439 COVID-19 cases that had been reported to Halton Region Public Health by end of the day on April 19. All cases have been graphed according to the date they were reported, which is often several days after the onset of symptoms. Top shows the number of new cases per day, while bottom shows the cumulative cases over time. Among the cases in these figures, 37 were reported since the last update (meaning they were reported between April 16 and April 19, 2020).
Individuals who are lab-confirmed cases are shown in green. Individuals who are probable cases are shown in orange. Probable cases are epi-linked cases, which means they are presumed to have COVID-19 because they are symptomatic close contacts of cases or returning travelers who have COVID-19 symptoms.
Case demographics
70 cases were residents or patients of an institution experiencing an outbreak (16% of all cases)
62 cases work in health care (14% of all cases)
 Figure shows that by end of the day on April 19, the most COVID-19 cases were among Halton residents aged 40-59 (with 160 cases, or 36%). 256 of the 439 cases (58%) were female. 
 Covid cases by municipality Figure shows that by end of the day on April 19, the greatest number of COVID-19 cases were among residents of Oakville (with 144 cases, or 33%). Please note this figure shows counts, and therefore does not take into account the different population sizes or age structures of the four municipalities. Counts in municipalities can also be inflated by outbreaks that have occurred within institutions in their boundaries.
Case exposure source
Figure shows that by end of the day on April 19, 188 of Halton Region’s COVID-19 cases (43%) had no known travel or contact history, and therefore were believed to have acquired the virus within Ontario, making them community cases. 146 cases (33%) had contact with a confirmed case that was believed to be the source of their infection. 90 cases (21%) had a history of travel that was believed to have been the source of their infection. Information on exposure source was pending for the remaining 15 cases (3%).
Case outcomes
57 cases who have ever been hospitalized to date (29 listed as currently in hospital)
188 cases who have recovered to date
16 cases who have died to date (9 of the deceased were residents or patients of an institution experiencing an outbreak)
Institutional outbreaks
9 confirmed institutional outbreaks of COVID-19 are currently ongoing in Halton
10 confirmed institutional outbreaks of COVID-19 reported to Halton Region Public Health to date
Among the ten confirmed institutional outbreaks reported to date, five (50%) have been in retirement homes, three (30%) have been in long-term care homes, and one each have been in a hospital and a group home. Nine of the outbreaks remain ongoing. Please note these counts do not include any suspected outbreaks that remain under investigation.
Lab testing
>6,000 Halton residents are known to have been tested for COVID-19 to date
Comparison to Ontario
11,184 total confirmed COVID-19 cases reported in Ontario to date
 Figure shows age-specific rates of COVID-19 for Halton and Ontario. Rates take into account the population size of each age group to make it possible to compare between different areas. Halton’s age-specific rates are similar to the provincial rates for all age groups (for example, while Halton has 29.8 cases per 10,000 residents aged 80+, this is not statistically significantly different from the 34.0 cases per 10,000 residents aged 80+ in Ontario). It is important to note that these rates will fluctuate as numbers increase throughout the pandemic, and that differences between age groups may reflect differences in the likelihood of developing symptoms and being tested.
There are people who are concerned about the validity of some of the Regional data. One resident wrote the Public Health Unit and got the following response:
Confirmed cases are posted frequently to Halton.ca. Confirmed institutional outbreaks including facility names and date outbreaks declared can be found listed below the “Current Cases in Halton” section of our webpage. Having said that the confirmed cases there are a reflection of the residents/patients within each facility. It does not reflect the staff affected in those numbers at this time. Confirmed cases are reported by municipality of their residence. Of which, there is no reporting structure that reports this without breaching privacy and confidentially mandates in protecting an individuals identity. The reporting structure now used on the Halton.ca webpages reflects changes to reporting made at the Provincial level.
Rest assured, our case numbers in Halton Region are updated daily as we conduct a risk assessment for every COVID-19 case. Based on the risk assessment, high-risk exposures are followed up on according to Ministry and Public Health Ontario guidance. Any individuals deemed close contacts of COVID-19 positive cases will be notified directly. If an outbreak is declared at the long-term care home, there are specific measures must be taken. Positive clients and their close contacts are being case managed and monitored closely by Public Health.
Your concerns are valid and I would direct you to share your ideas at the Provincial level. The government of Ontario is welcoming ideas from businesses, organizations, and individuals to help address the spread and impact of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) on our communities. Click this link to submit a proposal for ideas, other products or services to help Ontarians:https://www.ontario.ca/form/submit-your-ideas-to-help-fight-coronavirus
The demands on staff at the Public Health Unit are extreme. They are doing the best they can with what they have. A little more transparency on what is really happening at the long term care facilities would help people feel more assured.
Data limitations & data sources
Halton case data: integrated Public Health Information System (iPHIS), extracted at 7:00 AM on April 20, 2020, to reflect data entered by the end of the day on April 19, 2020
Halton lab data: COVID Data Information System, extracted on April 20, 2020.
Ontario case data: Public Health Ontario, Epidemiologic Summary, COVID-19 in Ontario: January 15, 2020 to April 19, 2020, posted on April 20, 2020 to https://www.ontario.ca/page/2019-novel-coronavirus
Denominators for Halton and Ontario age-specific rates: Population projections [2020], IntelliHEALTH Ontario, extracted on April 8, 2020.
Data notes
All cases of diseases of public health significance diagnosed in Ontario are entered into iPHIS by local public health units. iPHIS is the Integrated Public Health Information System. It is a dynamic disease reporting system which allows ongoing updates to data previously entered. As a result, data extracted from iPHIS represent a snapshot at the time of extraction and may differ from previous or subsequent reports as data are updated.
The data only represent cases reported to public health and recorded in iPHIS. As a result, all counts will be subject to varying degrees of underreporting due to a variety of factors, such as disease awareness and medical care seeking behaviours, which may depend on severity of illness, clinical practice, changes in laboratory testing, and reporting behaviours.
Cases are included if their “diagnosing health unit” in iPHIS is Halton Region, which means counts include only individuals whose primary residence is in Halton Region. The case may not necessarily have been managed by Halton Region, if they were temporarily residing elsewhere during their case management period. Cases managed by Halton Region who normally live elsewhere but who were managed by Halton Region staff because they were temporarily residing in Halton during their case management period have not been included.
Cases for which the Disposition Status in iPHIS was reported as ENTERED IN ERROR, DOES NOT MEET DEFINITION, DUPLICATE-DO NOT USE, or any variation on these values have been excluded.
Figure 1 distinguishes between lab-confirmed and probable cases. Since April 7, probable cases are defined as epi-linked cases, meaning they are symptomatic close contacts of cases or returning travelers who have COVID-19 symptoms and therefore are presumed to have COVID-19. All other figures and numbers include both confirmed and probable cases combined.
In subsequent reports, counts in Figure 1 may increase as cases are added from past dates due to delayed data entry or new arrival of lab results. To minimize such retrospective changes, cases have been graphed according to case reported date, which does not reflect onset of illness.
Cases are considered to live in an institution if the name of a facility (e.g. a long-term care home, retirement home, prison) has been entered for their address in iPHIS.
Cases are considered to work in health care if they are known to have an occupation that involves caring for patients, e.g. physician, nurse, occupational therapist, recreational therapist, chiropractor, paramedic, midwife, orderly, etc.
Exposure type is determined by examining the MISSING
 By Pepper Parr
April 20, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The City has put out an update on what it expects of its citizens.
The parks are closed and are going to remain closed.
City staff are focused on delivering essential services.
With the arrival of warmer weather, residents will start to see City of Burlington staff begin spring maintenance work in City parks and roads:
 Expect to see equipment like this on the streets • Street sweeping has begun on arterial roads and crosswalks with residential roads scheduled to begin mid-May
• Park and roadside litter clean up where needed prior to grass cutting
• Grass cutting will begin but will not include the usual trimming around trees and other objects
• Repair work for grass that has been damaged by sidewalk snow plows will begin the week of April 27with a contractor visiting the sites to fill areas with soil and grass seed
 City wants to keep pedestrian traffic to a minimum. Staff are only doing essential work to maintain City parks, facilities and assets until further notice. Wood chips at the Operations Centre on Harvester Road are not available for pick up during the pandemic and community gardens will remain closed as they have been deemed non-essential by the Provincial government. The City has delayed Community Garden openings until further notice.
To help keep everyone safe during the provincial emergency order, Spencer Smith Park is only available for walk-in traffic. The parking lots are closed and only walking is permitted in Spencer Smith Park, including the Promenade and the Brant Street Pier.
Visitors must keep a two-metre distance from other walkers. No other activities are permitted until further notice: no running, no rollerblading and no biking through Spencer Smith Park. This is to reduce the volume of people in Spencer Smith Park and to help walkers maintain physical distancing.
Physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most important steps everyone needs to take. The COVID-19 virus doesn’t move on its own; it needs people to move it.
Remember to:
• Keep two metres away from others – about the length of a hockey stick
• Move to the right on pathways to make room for others to pass safely
• Carry out your garbage whenever possible
Respect the caution tape and keep off playgrounds, sports fields, skateboard areas, tennis and basketball courts. The City has signage and barricades in the entrances of parking lots to block vehicles from parking. Vehicles left in parking lots will be towed at the owner’s expense.
Residents who see groups of five or more people gathering or individuals using outdoor recreational facilities can call the Halton Regional Police Service COVID hotline to file a report at 905-825-4722.
Local enforceable orders include:
• Closure of places of non-essential businesses
• Prohibiting events and gatherings of more than five people
• Closure of public places and establishments
• Closure of all outdoor recreational amenities and parks
Burlington Transit
As an essential service, Burlington Transit continues to operate on a modified schedule for essential trips only. Essential trips include going to medical appointments and picking up medication or groceries. Extra buses will be added if needed to help protect drivers and allow passengers to practice physical distancing from other riders. Please use the back doors to enter and exit the bus, keep behind the marked area and follow the recommendations of public health professionals. For more information on Burlington Transit, visit www.burlingtontransit.ca
 Not much work for the parking control people. Parking
Parking enforcement is currently limited to safety-related issues such as fire routes, accessible parking, no parking/stopping areas and blocked areas, including parking lots at Spencer Smith Park, Lowville Park and all other City parks. Time limit restrictions have been relaxed to help those working from home or self-isolating. Parking permits and exemptions are not required until further notice. For more information on parking, visit www.burlington.ca/parking.
Service Burlington
Customer Service staff are available by phone and email for residents’ questions. Online forms can also be submitted via our website. Only in-person services, such as marriage licences, are not available during the pandemic.
 Not going to tie that know this month – maybe not in June either. The City of Burlington is not issuing marriage licences while City Hall is closed. Residents needing a marriage licence can call Service Burlington two weeks before their intended marriage date and if City Hall has re-opened, will be accommodated as close to their wedding date as possible.
Municipalities issue marriage licenses on behalf of the Province of Ontario. Current legislation requires original signatures and documentation. City staff have asked the Province to review this legislation and make some interim amendments to allow for electronic signatures and documentation. Staff is also asking the Province to extend the licenses that were issued prior to the COVID-19 shutdown beyond the normal 90-day expiry dates.
In-Home Activities
The best thing residents can do to protect themselves and the community, is stay home. The City of Burlington and its partners have put together a list of activities people of any age can do while staying home at burlington.ca/programming. The list includes:
• Virtual fitness
• Free music
• Ebooks, emagazines and online resources from Burlington Public Library at bpl.on.ca
• Videos for recreation programming such as games, activities and crafts.
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward cautions people. “As the weather gets warmer we know it will be harder to follow the provincial emergency orders, and the directives from Burlington City Hall. But we must continue to stay apart, and stay in our own neighbourhoods, so we can get through this sooner. Please resist the urge to congregate in groups, stay 6 ft. away from anyone you don’t live with and please stay in your own neighbourhood and local parks for your walks.
“Walk, don’t stop, and stay off playgrounds, benches and other park amenities. In particular, please do not come downtown to the waterfront where there has been some crowding in Spencer Smith Park and Beachway Park. We have taken extra measures to restrict the use of these areas.
“We know how difficult this has been so far for our residents, but it will only get more difficult the longer we have to keep these directives in effect. The longer we stay apart now, the sooner we can safely come together.”
By Pepper Parr
April 19th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
City Manager Tim Commisso’s life has been boiled down to a single word – Risk!
 City manager Tim Commisso Everything he looks at is seen through a single lens; it is as if he is wearing a monocle.
Every decision is – what is the risk of doing something or the risk of not doing something.
His one job is to ensure the city provides the services needed to keep people safe and that staff provide the services needed to keep the city operating. It is a challenge.
Few have much in the way of an idea as to just how complex this is.
Commisso runs the show. His word is the final word. He listens and takes advice but at some point he has to make a decision and be held responsible.
He doesn’t always get it right. He had to learn to open up and ensure that members of Council were kept in the loop – aware of what was being done and why.
He is now giving Councillors a report each week.
He has the best people on the city payroll available to him at that virtual table – they communicate as a group twice a day – all by telephone.
The Mayor is reported to be the backup and takes turns chairing the Emergency Coordinating Group (ECG)
The two charts below show the ECG organizational chart that was created March 17th. The detail quality is poor – we have asked the city for a graphic with a higher resolution.
Commisso has set out the timeline he plans to follow in reporting to Council.
CSSRA is the acronym for the Corporate Services, Strategy, Risk and Accountability Standing Committee that is chaired by Rory Nisan with Paul Sharman as the vice chair.
By Staff
April 20th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
This is not what we wanted to hear at the start of a new week.
“Humanity will have to live with the threat of coronavirus “for the foreseeable future” and adapt accordingly because there is no guarantee that a vaccine can be successfully developed, one of the world’s leading experts on the disease has warned.”
 David Nabarro In an interview with The Observer, David Nabarro, professor of global health at Imperial College, London, and an envoy for the World Health Organization, said the public should not assume that a vaccine would definitely be developed soon – and would have to adapt to the ongoing threat.
“You don’t necessarily develop a vaccine that is safe and effective against every virus. Some viruses are very, very difficult when it comes to vaccine development – so for the foreseeable future, we are going to have to find ways to go about our lives with this virus as a constant threat.
 Imperial College, London “That means isolating those who show signs of the disease and also their contacts. Older people will have to be protected. In addition hospital capacity for dealing with cases will have to be ensured. That is going to be the new normal for us all.”
When it comes to credibility the Observer, a British newspaper, is as good as it gets and the Imperial College, London has a sterling reputation in these matters
 By Staff
April 18th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
On a Saturday afternoon when the news world is usually quiet the Region of Halton advised that the Mountainview Retirement Residence had:
63 residents and 18 staff confirmed as COVID-19 cases, with some lab results still pending.
8 deaths
The Public Health unit became aware of problems at Mountainview on March 31st – 16 days ago.
 The Mountainview Retirement residence in Georgetown – 8 Covid19 related deaths.  Data made public on the 15th did not indicate what was behind the Halton Hills number.
 By Pepper Parr
April 18th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The height of a building, the architecture and design are both important and for the people of Burlington they are, at this point, a major focus.
 But more important than the two is the street.
Streets are where we live – yes, your home is on a street but a lousy street ruins the most impressive home.
Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte will be putting a motion before Council on Monday – she wants to change the way streets are used during this COVID-19.
Stolte wants to direct the Director of Transportation Services to assess, create and implement as soon as possible, and with input from other city departments and members of the Cycling and ITAC Committees, a “Shared Streets Burlington” Pilot Project with the goal of temporarily closing portions of roadways to allow for safer physical distancing for pedestrians and cyclists for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 Under normal conditions – this is more then enough sidewalk – but these are not normal times The residents of Burlington, along with City Council and City Staff, are all committed to the goal of stopping the spread of COVID-19 in our community.
Stolte accepts that the role of City Council and staff, is to amplify the message of medical experts in regard to adhering to physical distancing requirements while also considering a longer term plan that acknowledges residents need for physical exercise and fresh air in order to effectively manage their mental health and well-being.
She points to recent Angus Reid Poll that asked, “if there is anything residents are doing more of than normal since being isolated” and 53% reported “going for more walks” and 26% reported “taking up extra exercise”.
City streets and sidewalks are places residents are permitted to travel outside their homes but sidewalks are simply not wide enough to ensure the physical distancing requirements recommended by medical experts and the informal use of grass boulevards does not provide a safe nor viable alternative for wheelchairs, strollers or bicycles.
 Is shutting down a street and opening it up to people who can just walk and ride bikes a solution? These sidewalks and multi-use paths are becoming more congested as the seasons change, temperatures are rising, and residents seek outlets to support their mental health and well-being.
The space to expand outdoor physical distancing is available.
Roadways are underutilized due to reduced traffic volumes and represent a clear and simple alternative to “expand the sidewalk”.
There are many resources already available, as well as an established work group comprised of dedicated residents from the ITAC and Cycling Committee who have been meeting to research strategies and suggestions for implementation.
Some suggestions are as follows:
- begin with a Pilot Project to measure, monitor and learn as well as to assess the willingness of the community to participate in a safe manner;
- consider a phased approach that can adapt/expand as needed;
 Community walks like this are not on – the Beachway Trail can’t handle the traffic – can part of the roadway be opened to pedestrians?
- offer multiple, local, widespread, “very ordinary” locations to create the opposite of a destination to avoid gathering crowds
- to network streets and coordinate with park locations;
- ensure strong signage and communication;
- consider a variety of options such as closing off curb lanes on thoroughfares (ex. Maple, Palladium Way, Prospect -east of Guelph) or installing strong “Shared Streets” signage on key neighbourhood streets (ex. Spruce, Townsend, Palmer, Millcroft Park)
 Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte has put a good idea on the table – now the community has to join in and flesh this out. The bureaucrats need to lighten up a little and get creative as well. Stolte points out that the “motion is intended to encourage a realistic, longer term plan that will ensure safe “physical distancing” as well as strive for the balance that is needed to support physical exercise and mental health initiatives, by literally creating more space for people to get outside and breathe.
It’s an interesting idea – Stolte has done her part. Now it is up to the people who live on those streets to think about how they would change their streets.
Talk to your neighbours – write up your ideas and send them to the Councillor – at ward4@burlington.ca
Let’s see if this idea has any traction.
And let’s see how creative the folks in the Transportation Department can be.
 By Pepper Parr
April 17th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
City Council will learn from city staff what they expect the financial impacts of COVID-19 will be and seek Council’s endorsement of a three-month strategy that prioritizes which City services will be provided through to the end of June 2020.
Out of those deliberations will come a three-month work plan for the strategic management of the City budget and finances.
A statement from the administration seeks to assure City Council that staff remain committed to fiscal responsibility and accountability and are focused on offsetting all of the COVID-19 related City revenue losses to June 30, 2020 and are looking ahead past July 2020 to mitigate a shortfall at 2020 year-end.
A report detailing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the City’s budget will be presented. This report will include:
• estimated revenue impacts of $7.6 million to June 30, 2020
• estimated expenditure savings of $5.2 million to June 30, 2020
• cash flow projections to June 30, 2020
• future financial modelling to identify pressures, dependent on the length of the pandemic, and recovery scenarios.
Municipalities are required to approve a budget that is balanced, however, the City can have a shortfall or surplus in a given year. A shortfall can be offset by:
• using reserve funds
• increasing taxes in the next year; or
• reducing expenditures during the year of the anticipated shortfall.
Burlington is attempting to mitigate a shortfall at year-end.
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said: “Our City is currently in a good position thanks to savings we’ve acquired through our winter maintenance budget, the result of a light winter, and major tenders that came in under budget.
 Joan Ford, Chief Financial Officer Joan Ford, Chief Financial Officer is the one who has to do the numbers juggling. Ms Ford and her team have always been conservative and cautious. She explains that: “In recognition of significant revenue losses such as transit fares, recreation programming and property tax deferrals, an expenditure restraint program was immediately implemented across the City to assist in mitigating the financial impacts.”
Will council listen or will they scour the reserve funds and look for ways to make up the shortfall from that source?
Monday is going to be a long day for city council – how deep their hands go into your pockets in the years ahead will be determined then.
By Pepper Parr
April 17th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The April 20 City Council meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. instead of 6:30 p.m.
The media release said the early start was to provide residents with the opportunity to watch a live stream of the meeting at a more convenient time.
The agenda is very heavy – they couldn’t possibly get through it all during an evening session.
The public can view virtual Council meetings remotely using the City’s existing web streaming tool at www.burlington.ca/calendar.
 It will be the Mayor, the Clerk and the audio/visual technician only in the Council Chamber – the rest will be at home wearing headsets and participating virtually. While no delegations are currently permitted, written comments may be submitted to the City Clerk by email at clerks@burlington.ca.
Received written submissions will form part of the public record and will be distributed to members of Burlington City Council.
Will they be read?
Live delegation presentations give Councillors an opportunity to ask questions and to follow up – that vital part of the delegater being in the room is lost.
Council will consider a recommendation to allow virtual delegations from members of the public at Council meetings, beginning in May 2020.
 By Ray Rivers
April 17th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It’s a mess.
Long term care homes are host to about half of all of Canada’s COVID-19 fatalities. Ontario has 626 nursing homes, a little over half are privately operated, a quarter non-profit, and the rest municipal. There are close to 80,000 beds in use and there is a waiting list almost half as long again.
The costs of long term care are co-funded between the province and the patient. In 2018 provincial funding totalled $4.28 billion, less that a tenth of the provincial health budget, which amounts to about $150 per resident a day. That is board, room, cleaning and care for a little over $50,000 per patient per year plus the patient’s co-fund.
There was this idea once that for that kind of money, one could book a year-long ocean cruise, and get everything except the medical care. But nobody ever thought that they might also get stuck, like the 4000 Canadians on some 70 cruise ships, as of late March this year, who can’t get off because of COVID 19.
 Quebec has called on the federal government to bring in the army’s medical corps to help with their lack of health care at long term facilities But Ontario is putting an ‘iron ring’ around its institutions according to its premier, who has promised to leave no stone unturned, spare no expense.…
Next week he finally will ban support staff from working in more than one long term facility, thereby eliminating a potential source of spread. But B.C. had brought in a similar regulation almost a month ago and Ontario had enacted a similar rule back during the SARS crisis. So why has it taken this long for Ford to act? Perhaps he empathized with the long term support staff, having to take on extra employment to make up for their miserable pay levels.
It’s not Ford’s fault that COVID 19 came to Canada and Ontario. The virus arrived here with travellers arriving first from China, then from other places. As the contagion got a foothold and spread, we remained calm on the advice of Canada’s chief medical officer.
 Dr. Teresa Tam: Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Tam told us that the risk to Canadians was minimal and there was no need for travel restrictions, quarantine or protective masks to reduce the risk of exposure. So today Ontario has had over 500 deaths and over half of those are in long term care.
But Ford’s record in this is anything but spotty clean. Jurisdictions, like South Korea, which have minimized the coronavirus casualties, have used extensive testing to identify, isolate and treat the infected. Ontario has the lowest record of testing in Canada, and that may explain why its infection numbers appear lower than they actually are – and why our death rate is so high.
Following the SARS crisis masks and other personal protection equipment (PPE) were stockpiled, but they got stale dated and eventually junked. But nobody, even in the previous administration, thought to rebuild the stockpile. So now Ford and his health minister are promising to fix this, even if late and too little.
Ford changed the labour laws in the province reducing sick leave days for employees and allowing employers to demand a medical certificate. In the early days of the epidemic this may have contributed to the virus spread, since sick employees would need to still go to their jobs to get paid, and those who didn’t needed to visit their doctor’s crowded offices for their medical certificate.
 A nursing home in Bobcaygen where 29 patients in a 65 bed facility died of COVID19 But perhaps worst of all, when it comes to long term care the Ford government had stopped inspecting health and safety conditions in nursing homes as a matter of policy. These annual inspections are the only way the province had to ensure that a nursing establishment was meeting it’s health, safety and licensing requirements.
Inspections went from 100% in 2017, under the previous Liberal government, to almost zero last year. Is it any wonder infection has spread so rapidly?
Instead of an annual snap Inspection for all homes conducted during the previous government only 9 of 626 were inspected in 2019.
Unfortunately this brings back memories of another Conservative premier who rolled the dice, deregulating water safety. That ended up with 7 people dying and half of a town’s people sickened. That policy, like Ford’s decision on inspections, was ideological, about cost cutting, eliminating red tape and promoting deregulation.
Australia has a different take on long term care. Their system is national and publicly run under strict rules and inspections. Australians saw where this virus might be heading before anyone called it a pandemic and responded much faster and more effectively than Canada, even though their first case arrived two days after ours.
And their long term deaths have been low, making them a model for us to emulate in this country. In fact there have been twice as many COVID 19 deaths in Ontario’s long term care homes than among Australia’s entire population of 25 million. Clearly they are doing something right.
 The government of the day – Mike \Harries Tory’s failed the people of Walkerton. Doug Ford has told us that his wife’s mother is a patient at a Toronto nursing home. One has to wonder what she thinks. After all, his is the kind of subtle negligence which eventually came back to haunt former PC premier Mike Harris. We’ll see eventually if this is really an iron ring or just Mr. Ford’s Walkerton.
Nobody wants to criticize a political leader during a time of an unprecedented health crisis. Doug Ford rose up in everyone’s expectations with his early daily briefings, closing the schools, declaring a state of emergency and gradually locking down the province’s economy. It was comforting to see someone in charge.
He could have moved faster and shut down more non-essential workplaces earlier, like construction. And public transit across the province should have been shut down as it has been in other places where social distancing is impossible. Ford’s people should have embraced masks earlier, instead of simply regurgitating the mis-truths from the World Health Organization and Canada’s own Dr. Tam.
And he could have left the provincial parks open. After a month of lockdown people need to get out for some exercise and fresh air. It would be easier to social distance on a park trail or open field than a crowded sidewalk, wouldn’t it?
Lately Ford has pretty much run out of ‘breaking news’ for his daily press conferences. They’ve started to morph into poorly staged political rallies, as the Premier and his beleaguer health minister tell us how they are there for us and doing all they can. And watching the two of them in action confirms for me that the PC’s did the right thing in nominating Ford for the top job.
 Ontario Premier Doug Ford Ford recently got angry complaining about Ontario’s pathetic rate of COVID 19 testing. But then seriously, isn’t he the premier? We want Ford to succeed in fighting this epidemic. It’s in all of our interests regardless of any political stripe.
But we need to have faith and believe in our premier. And that means some straight talk instead of hype and empty promises. Ford could begin by recognizing what has gone wrong and assuring us that he has learned from his mistakes.
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
Background links:
Long Term Care in Ontario – Ford Didn’t Protect Them – COVID 19 Spread in Ontario Nursing Homes –
Masks Destroyed – Long Term in Australia –
By Staff
April 17th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The Regional Public Health Unit releases updates on COVID-19 crisis up to and including Wednesday end of day on April 15, 2020:
Cases over time
34 COVID-19 cases reported to Halton Region Public Health since the last update (24 confirmed + 10 probable)
393 COVID-19 cases reported to Halton Region Public Health to date (350 confirmed + 43 probable)
 COVID-19 cases, by reported date, Halton Region, Mar. 1-Apr. 15, 2020
Figure shows the 393 COVID-19 cases that had been reported to Halton Region Public Health by end of the day on April 15. All cases have been graphed according to the date they were reported, which is often several days after the onset of symptoms. Among the cases in this figure, 34 were reported since the last update (meaning they were reported between April 13 and April 15, 2020).
Individuals who are lab-confirmed cases are shown in green. Individuals who are probable cases are shown in orange. Probable cases are epi-linked cases, which means they are presumed to have COVID-19 because they are symptomatic close contacts of cases or returning travelers who have COVID-19 symptoms.
Case demographics
67 cases live in an institution (17% of all cases)
55 cases work in health care (14% of all cases)
 COVID-19 cases, by age and sex, Halton Region, 2020 Figure shows that by end of the day on April 15, the most COVID-19 cases were among Halton residents aged 40-59 (with 136 cases, or 35%). 232 of the 393 cases (59%) were female.
 COVID-19 cases, by municipality of residence, Halton Region, 2020 Figure shows that by end of the day on April 15, the greatest number of COVID-19 cases were among residents of Oakville (with 131 cases, or 33%). Please note this figure shows counts, and therefore does not take into account the different population sizes or age structures of the four municipalities. Counts in municipalities can also be inflated by outbreaks that have occurred within institutions in their boundaries.
Case exposure source
 Percentage of COVID-19 cases, by exposure source, Halton Region, 2020 Figure shows that by end of the day on April 15, 175 of Halton Region’s COVID-19 cases (45%) had no known travel or contact history, and therefore were believed to have acquired the virus within Ontario, making them community cases. 118 cases (30%) had contact with a confirmed case that was believed to be the source of their infection. 88 cases (22%) had a history of travel that was believed to have been the source of their infection. Information on exposure source was pending for the remaining 12 cases (3%).
Case outcomes
52 cases who have ever been hospitalized to date (27 listed as currently in hospital)
146 cases who have recovered to date
12 cases who have died to date (7 of the deceased were institutional residents)
Institutional outbreaks
0 confirmed institutional outbreaks of COVID-19 reported to Halton Region Public Health since the last update
7 confirmed institutional outbreaks of COVID-19 reported to Halton Region Public Health to date
Among the seven confirmed institutional outbreaks reported to date, four (57%) have been in retirement homes, while two occurred in long-term care homes and one occurred in a hospital. None of the confirmed outbreaks were reported since the last update. None of the confirmed outbreaks have yet been declared over. Please note these counts do not include any suspected outbreaks that remain under investigation.
Lab testing
6,000 Halton residents are known to have been tested for COVID-19 to date
Comparison to Ontario
8,961 total confirmed COVID-19 cases reported in Ontario to date
 Age-specific rates of COVID-19 (per 10,000 population), Halton Region and Ontario, 2020 Figure 5 shows age-specific rates of COVID-19 for Halton and Ontario. Rates take into account the population size of each age group to make it possible to compare between different areas. Halton’s age-specific rates are similar to the provincial rates for all age groups (for example, while Halton has 27.4 cases per 10,000 residents aged 80+, this is not statistically significantly different from the 24.1 cases per 10,000 residents aged 80+ in Ontario). It is important to note that these rates will fluctuate as numbers increase throughout the pandemic, and that differences between age groups may reflect differences in the likelihood of developing symptoms and being tested.
Data limitations and data sources
Halton case data: integrated Public Health Information System (iPHIS), extracted at 7:00 AM on April 16, 2020, to reflect data entered by the end of the day on April 15, 2020
Halton lab data: COVID Data Information System, extracted on April 16, 2020.
Ontario case data: Public Health Ontario, Epidemiologic Summary, COVID-19 in Ontario: January 15, 2020 to April 15, 2020, posted on April 16, 2020 to https://www.ontario.ca/page/2019-novel-coronavirus
Denominators for Halton and Ontario age-specific rates: Population projections [2020], IntelliHEALTH Ontario, extracted on April 8, 2020.
Data notes
All cases of diseases of public health significance diagnosed in Ontario are entered into iPHIS by local public health units. iPHIS is the Integrated Public Health Information System. It is a dynamic disease reporting system which allows ongoing updates to data previously entered. As a result, data extracted from iPHIS represent a snapshot at the time of extraction and may differ from previous or subsequent reports as data are updated.
The data only represent cases reported to public health and recorded in iPHIS. As a result, all counts will be subject to varying degrees of underreporting due to a variety of factors, such as disease awareness and medical care seeking behaviours, which may depend on severity of illness, clinical practice, changes in laboratory testing, and reporting behaviours.
Cases are included if their “diagnosing health unit” in iPHIS is Halton Region, which means counts include only individuals whose primary residence is in Halton Region. The case may not necessarily have been managed by Halton Region, if they were temporarily residing elsewhere during their case management period. Cases managed by Halton Region who normally live elsewhere but who were managed by Halton Region staff because they were temporarily residing in Halton during their case management period have not been included.
Cases for which the Disposition Status in iPHIS was reported as ENTERED IN ERROR, DOES NOT MEET DEFINITION, DUPLICATE-DO NOT USE, or any variation on these values have been excluded.
Figure 1 distinguishes between lab-confirmed and probable cases. Since April 7, probable cases are defined as epi-linked cases, meaning they are symptomatic close contacts of cases or returning travelers who have COVID-19 symptoms and therefore are presumed to have COVID-19. All other figures and numbers include both confirmed and probable cases combined.
In subsequent reports, counts in Figure 1 may increase as cases are added from past dates due to delayed data entry or new arrival of lab results. To minimize such retrospective changes, cases have been graphed according to case reported date, which does not reflect onset of illness.
Cases are considered to live in an institution if the name of a facility (e.g. a long-term care home, retirement home, prison) has been entered for their address in iPHIS.
Cases are considered to work in health care if they are known to have an occupation that involves caring for patients, e.g. physician, nurse, occupational therapist, recreational therapist, chiropractor, paramedic, midwife, orderly, etc.
Exposure type is determined by examining the exposure and risk factor fields from iPHIS to determine whether a case travelled, was a contact of a case or neither. A hierarchy has been applied as follows: Travel-related > Close contact of a confirmed case > Neither (indicating community acquisition) > Information pending.
Case outcomes (hospitalizations, recovery, deaths) reflect the latest available information reported to Halton Region Public Health and recorded in iPHIS by the extraction time.
Institutional outbreaks include outbreaks of COVID-19 in settings such as long-term care homes, retirement homes, hospitals, and prisons.
Lab testing data reflects only lab tests that have been reported to Halton Region Public Health and entered into CDIS. There may be more residents who have been tested but not reported to Public Health.
Related Regional Health reports
April 9th data
April 12th data
 By Jim Young
April 16, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
I have lived on Silwell Court, which backs on to the controversial 2100 Brant Street Development, for 28 years. I know the neighbourhood and the people involved, they were my neighbours. I also know John Calvert; a quiet, capable former Mississauga city planner. He and I share notes on planning issues and I am always the wiser for his thoughts.
Like John, I worked for change at the last municipal election, hopeful that those changes would bring greater local resident input on city plans. Also, like John, while happy with much of our new council’s work on Transit, Climate Change and the recent Covid-19 crisis response, I am equally disappointed in their approach to land planning issues. His Op-ed piece on 2100 Brant Street and the Gazette picture juxtaposing the proposed 233 units with the 236 surrounding homes says all that needs to be said about over-intensification, poor planning and design.
 The blue area denotes the Havendale community with 236 homes. The orange area is the proposed National Homes development where 233 homes would be built. But greater than any objection to that development is my fear that the process to approve it indicates how future planning applications will be handled and resolved by the city. A process that not only limits the public input electors demanded in the 2018 council rout, but leaves us wondering whether it is an unfortunate confluence of conflicting provincial / municipal planning ideologies or intentional city planning policy; forsaking local input for expediency.
First it is only fair to point out that, even with the best of intentions, municipal planners are severely limited by The Ontario Planning Act. Developer amendments to zoning bylaws and official plans, are assessed, not necessarily on the local impact or wishes but more on how they comply with provincial planning legislation and guidelines. Also, the time for city planners to assess those amendments is severely limited by the Planning Act. Even the much debated Official Plan, still in the works after so many years, must comply with The Act and subsequent provincial guidelines on density, transit and mobility.
The land use planning, amendment and appeals process was already complex and changes by two successive provincial governments and an ongoing Official Plan review by the city have made the whole process so complex as to be un-navigable by planners and unintelligible to us mere citizens.
The old process was: The city’s Official Plan regulates what may be built. Developers who wanted to deviate from that submitted amendment applications to the city are approved or disapproved. Prior to submitting the application, developers held a statutory public meeting to inform residents of the proposed changes. Cities had 120 days to respond to applications. Developers could appeal unfavourable planning decisions to the OMB (Ontario Municipal Board). Failure by the city to respond in time was also grounds for an appeal by the developer.
The first change, in early 2018, saw the OMB replaced by LPAT (Local Planning Appeals Tribunal), a supposedly more municipal and resident friendly body. It allowed 180 to 210 days for cities to respond to amendment applications and made it, theoretically, easier for local residents to contest developer proposals. Before any of this could be tested, the Provincial election that year changed the government.
 Burlington MPP Jane McKenna at the ground breaking of The Gallery, the 23 storey tower going up opposite city hall. The provincial government delivered regulatory changes that kept developers smiling. With that change, a more development friendly government cut amendment application response times to 90 or 110 days and changed much of the amending criteria in favour of development. In a city which still had no official plan in place and a large number of pending applications, this was an impossibly tight deadline to meet. Throwing further confusion into this was the Review of the Official Plan, demanded by the electorate and concentrating on the downtown.
In a bid to allow planners time to develop the new official plan free from ongoing amendment applications the city froze the planning process using an Interim Control Bylaw. (ICBL)
We can argue whether this was undertaken properly, if the (ICBL) was successful? If the Downtown Transit Hub should have been addressed first? If the revised downtown plan is any better? But those are arguments for another column.
The outcome has been that on top of all the in-process amendments, frozen by the ICBL, developers lodged a further thirty one appeals to LPAT opposing the new plan and the ICBL. Add to this a city and a province beset by a Covid 19 lockdown and the whole process has simply seized up. Applications are frozen again, LPAT appeals are suspended and there seems to be confusion about whether the application deadline clock is still ticking or not. An email from Heather MacDonald, Executive Director, Community Planning Regulation and Mobility suggests to me the clock is frozen too, an article in the Gazette, April 14 suggests the issue is being debated at the province but there is no decision as yet.
The debate now becomes: Is the city a victim of powerful and shifting provincial planning whims? Or is the city happy to hide behind a land planning regime it cannot win against and capitulates to quietly while still disingenuously proclaiming its defence of resident interests?
I am beginning to believe the latter. Reading John Calvert’s plea to our mayor, one might reasonably conclude that the city’s new approach to planning amendments is: Receive the application. Sit on it until the response time runs out. Let the developer appeal to LPAT, then negotiate a settlement agreement with the developer with almost no input from local residents.
I worry that, with the city’s planning in an unresolvable mess and aware that municipalities are virtually powerless anyway, our elected council has found a way to live with a pro developer provincial planning regime while shrugging off responsibility for the outcomes.
I further worry that in a “Covid Shutdown” political environment, what little resident or municipal input exists in the planning process will be further eroded by meetings in camera, with no traditional citizen delegation.
Related news articles:
Calvert letter to the Mayor on trust
The pain Calvert carries
Marianne Meed Ward on trust.
 Jim Young is an Aldershot resident who delegates at city council on transit and local development. He is consistent in his mission to ensure local government is transparent and accountable to the people who elected them.
By Pepper Parr
April 16th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The City Council meeting on Monday will be a much different presentation.
First – it will be delivered via Zoom which should take out a lot of the glitches that were encountered during the two previous virtual city council meetings.
The Clerk’s office still does not appear to have come up with a way to permit delegations – and given the agenda we have been led to believe they will be working from – it is going to be a whopper of an event.
Each of the departments is reported to have prepared a report on what they have been up against and what the closure of many programs is going to do to their budgets.
The reports are said to be lengthy.
The decision to use Zoom apparently didn’t come from the city’s techy people – a Councillor who had experience with Zoom during her time on the Library Board managed to convince the city manager that it was worth a try.
There is nothing all that elegant about Zoom – but it is functional. Councillor Galbraith reports that they have been given headsets which should make it easier to communicate to each other.
The most important part of the COVID-19 crisis is sound communication with a central point where the decisions are made.
Burlington is basically run today by the Emergency Control Group that is made up of every level of bureaucracy, the police, fire, ambulance – and the people who deliver the essential services.
They meet at least twice a day every day and manage the issues that crop up.
The bylaw they work under has the Mayor representing the voice of city council. The Mayor seems to have interpreted that to mean she is THE voice of council and much of her behaviour leaves the impression that she is not only leading the parade – but IS the parade.
There is thought to be some turmoil between the 7th and 8th floors of city hall. The Councillors are all on the 7th floor with the Mayor and her team on the 8th.
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward in front of the hospital convey the public’s gratitude for the service they are giving and the risks they are taking. The Mayor has taken to holding Front Line Claps to support the people who are not ill but put themselves at considerable risk taking care of those who need care.
Last Friday, instead of clapping from the veranda of her house the Mayor took to her car and was part of a caravan of vehicles that drove down Maple and onto the hospital grounds where she lead at least 15 first responder vehicles.
They pulled up in front of the hospital where the Mayor hopped out with a megaphone in her hand and addressed whoever in the hospital could hear her. The Mayor was alone – no members of council with her. It would have been a very simple matter to invite the other members of council to take part.
Didn’t happen.
By Pepper Parr
April 16th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It’s a bit of a numbers game – with each level of government using their own data.
The public would love to see a single point where all the data resides. Not likely to see that any day soon.
The Region provides the local data. This afternoon they released the following:
It is pretty clear now that the danger point is the long term care centres and the nursing homes – where in Halton Region 17% of the cases are from those locales.
Based on what we are getting from the Regional Public Health people – there have not been any deaths in the homes.
Hopefully that is due to the quality of the care being given and the very strict adherence to the rules and not luck. The Long term care facilities are run by the Region where staff would be full time.
The data indicates that the really high at risk demographic is not taking the hit that other parts of the province are experiencing.
|
|
