By Staff

June 12th, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Electric Vehicles (EV) fast chargers have been installed at all 20 renovated ONroute stations along the province’s busiest highways, the 400 and 401.

The new fast charging stations are part of the roll-out announced in December 2021 by the Ontario government, Ivy Charging Network, ONroute, Canadian Tire and Natural Resources Canada. All stations are now equipped with at least two EV chargers at each site, with busier areas equipped with more. The chargers are available to all drivers on a pay-per-use basis and serve all vehicle types.

As the EV population grows, more chargers may be added at each site. These critical infrastructure builds will further encourage the electrification of the transportation sector in Ontario by making EV charging more accessible and utilize the province’s world-class clean electricity supply by shifting away from gas-powered vehicles.

The government also launched a new Ultra-Low Overnight electricity price plan which will support EV adoption and reduce emissions. The new electricity pricing structure is a third option for electricity customers, in addition to the existing Time-of-Use (TOU) and Tiered plans. Customers who use more electricity at night, including shift workers and those who electrically heat their home or charge their electric vehicle, could save up to $90 per year by shifting demand to the ultra-low overnight rate period when province-wide electricity demand is lower.

Quick Facts
• As of May 2023, there are more than 118,000 EVs registered in Ontario, including both battery-electric vehicles (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV). By 2030, there are expected to be more than one million EVs on the road in Ontario.

• Three additional rest stops in Maple, Ingersoll and Newcastle will undergo planned renovations between 2023-2025 and will have EV fast chargers installed at that time.

• The Ivy Charging Network, a joint venture between Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation (OPG), is responsible for the installation, ownership, and operation of the fast chargers.

• Ivy’s fast chargers charge 40 cents a minute to charge an electric vehicle. With a fast charger most drivers can get a 150 km range of charge for as little as $7, depending on their vehicle.

 

June 11th, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

Our carton for the week.

Covers one of the biggest news stories this year.

And it probably isn’t over yet.

Our apologies to the Integrity Commissioner

The plan to publish a cartoon every week turned out to be easier said then done.

We will publish every second week and have the cartoon be the opening news item on the Sunday.

By Pepper Parr

June 9th, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

 

This is a good news story and an example of what can be done when people come forward with an idea and, despite some foot dragging within a department, they manage to give birth to a program that has grown.

It was back in 2012 when Michelle Bennett and Amy Schnurr delegated before council seeking support for a community for an idea. The two women had sourced some funds from the provincial government that was dependent on municipal support.

What was then the Parks and Recreation department didn’t have any money they could use and at the time didn’t appear to be all the excited about the idea.
Bennett and Schnurr convinced council that the municipal portion could be in kind and that worked.  The first community garden was up and running.

They have proven to be a success year after year.

Staff produced a report outlining where the program could go and what the costs would be.
Nothing was decided at the meeting on June 1st – it was filed and will come back when the next budget is crafted.

The challenge then will be to figure out how to keep the idea alive in a Burlington that is now becoming a very different city.
There are going to be thousands of people moving to the city and living in high rise buildings where there is very little in the way of plots of land that can be turned into community gardens.

Some very creative thinking is going to have to come out of Parks and Recreation that is now known as Recreation, Community and Culture which is now led by a Emilie Cote who has shown that she can get things done and has so far come up with some very creative ideas that appear to have motivated staff in that department.

In the Staff report we learned that “The benefits of any community garden provision are well documented in social, mental and physical health materials. The residents of Burlington also agree as we continue to see increased demand for the community garden program. Throughout the pandemic years, there was a substantial increase in those seeking a garden plot.”

What started as a two-year pilot project in 2012 with one 30-plot garden operated by Burlington Green Environmental Organization on City-owned land. At the conclusion of the pilot in 2013, operational management shifted to the City and two more gardens were added to the inventory.

There are now five gardens with a total of 231 rent-able plots and supported by one Community Garden Coordinator.

The city has pledged to create 29,000 new homes.  Most of those people will live in high rise buildings. Hopefully someone somewhere will find a way to make community garden space a part of every development that is approved.

Over the past few years, staff focused marketing the Neighbourhood Community Matching Fund to encourage community to lead small projects around gardens being built in housing complexes and private lands.

In 2021 staff updated the zoning by-law to allow food gardens on any property, private or public; thus removing any zoning barriers to residential, institutional, or commercial property where people would like to have a food garden.

Staff offered consultation services to develop new gardens with schools to establish school-based gardens, condo and apt buildings, faith land resulting in Glad Tidings community garden at Mount Nemo Farm. There was an expansion at St. Christopher’s and developer land on Brant that where Grow4Change is struggling to get that operational this year,

The current operating model is no longer sustainable with just one dedicated staff person. Roads, Parks and Forestry (RPF) staff maintains the infrastructure and delivers materials annually in the spring but does not have the capacity to play a role in the day-to-day maintenance operations. Any new expansion of community gardens would require additional funding for operating and capital support.

Also, there are now competing interests for the limited green space in City Parks. The Parks, Recreation and Culture Assets Master Plan (PRCAMP) update will assess the variety of community needs for green space and make the comparison on asset other municipalities to assess comparable service levels.

During the 2020 COVID Experience, the community garden service was the first to re- open by June with brand new COVID protocols. Four part-time Garden Assistant positions were created for four months when POA staff were redeployed to the community gardens. This experience highlighted the need for Garden Assistant positions as the maintenance of the garden areas and friendly customer service were much improved by their efforts.

The community garden operations got through the pandemic and service levels went back to pre-pandemic levels without additional staff assistance beyond the one dedicated Garden Coordinator.

In 2021, Park Ambassadors were instructed to add the community gardens to their routes to provide customer service.

In 2022, a summer student Sports Field Ambassador was co-opted to become a part-time Garden Assistant. The additional 15-20 hours per week was unfortunately insufficient even though the student was excellent.

The deteriorating maintenance situation created anxiety and stress for staff. The Recreation, Community and Culture (RCC) department sourced $8,500 unbudgeted funds to pay a local landscaping company to provide a one-time maintenance fix due to the complaints.

For 2023, service improvement efforts will be piloted to compensate for no approved increase in the operational or capital budget for the service:

A volunteer opportunity via Better Impact will be piloted. This may prove helpful if there is enough interest, however, any volunteers must be supervised by city staff so a coordinated schedule will be required between volunteers and the Garden Coordinator and depend on volunteer availability.

RCC staff are investigating offering camp staff the opportunity to work in May and June as Garden Assistants prior to the July/August camp season.  Staff have reallocated funds from other areas to make this possible; however, this model of reallocation is not sustainable long term.

Grant applications to Canada Summer Jobs and the Ontario Parks and Rec Association have been submitted for three Garden Assistant positions to help with short term need for current service. This is dependent on whether submissions are approved and sourcing and redirecting RCC funds to supplement wages.   A long term solution will still be needed for future years and any expansion.

There is a demonstrated desire to expand the community garden program. However, to do this, there needs to be additional funds added to the current operating dollars to maintain the current inventory for maintenance and staff and/or a change to the operating model with the alignment of the required budget to expand the garden service.

To maintain a sustainable community garden program options are being considered.

Option 1 – Community Group Based

The Community Group Based option is considered when there is an identified group willing to deliver a community gardens service – This was negotiated with BurlingtonGreen in 2013/14 which provided a proposal to act as a vendor to provide this service to the City. However, the negotiations were not successful, hence operation moved to City’s care and control ever since 2014.

Option 2 – Service Provider

The Service Provider option is considered when there is an identified vendor willing to provide some of the community gardens service – This model would split the responsibilities between City staff and a vendor with the maintenance expertise. City staff would manage the plot registration and assignment, customer experience and oversee community garden development. The service provider such as a landscape company would provide the necessary maintenance and upkeep the garden inventory.

Option 3 – Enhanced City Direct Operation

The Enhanced Model for Operation by adding in financial and HR resources and a mechanism for moving to a sustainable model for delivery – This model would be scalable and would manage the current demand and future growth of community garden service. It would consist of the following additions to the current model:

• A team of four Garden Assistants for summer student positions.
• Build a robust garden volunteer program.
• Bring current operating dollars to a sustainable value for the service with continually inflationary costs added to subsequent budgets.

Staff are looking to move to an enhanced model of regular operation for summer 2024 and beyond as the most sustainable model for operating community gardens in current state.

For any capital garden projects, develop a capital planning process for expansion with the appropriate operating dollars for supplies, equipment and staff also factored into the project.

Council makes both capital and operating investments in the community garden program. The section below is a high-level overview of the investment per garden, the overall annual operating cost and annual revenues.

Annual operating costs include the Community Garden Coordinator, operating costs to cover supplies costs provided by the Roads, Parks and Forestry department (RPF) and revenues from the plot rental. For 2023, the total net impact is $78,822.

Capital Investment
Capital renewal of the asset happens every 5 years with a budget of $30,000 per site.

For any capital expansion such as a new garden, capital costs include the total project budget consisting of design, construction and associated project costs. For example,
$170,000 is the planned project budget for a new garden at Nelson Park with 37 plots forecasted in 2024.

Proposed Estimation for Business Case
In order to maintain the existing service level, an estimation for additional funding would be $25,000 – $40,000 for items to support daily operations, to include:

• 4 PT seasonal staff ($25,000 – $36,000)
• Inflationary increases for supplies and equipment ($4,000)

For 2025, any additional funds required to cover operating costs (staff, supplies and equipment) will be requested for the Nelson Garden expansion. Any further garden builds will be pending the outcome of the PRCAMP strategy to guide any expansion requirements and site selection. As mentioned, any new capital investments will include operating budget dollars for equipment, supplies and PT staffing dollars.

Other Resource Impacts
Staff from RPF, part-time summer day camps staff from recreation and customer service from recreation support the community garden’s ongoing operations in addition to the full-time Community Garden Coordinator. In addition, the community garden also uses the support of the RCC marketing team and corporate communications to assist in getting information out about the gardens and program for resident awareness. In addition, the water cost is covered within the park maintenance budget.

Staff will be putting forward a business case through the 2024 RCC and RPF operational budgets.

Could all that space on the outskirts of the Bateman site that be turned into community gardens – better than using it for parking spaces.

RCC and RPF staff will review the most economical option to improve the service maintenance level by increasing staff complement for the community garden service in the 2024 operating budget. This would be in alignment with for the next needed community garden at Nelson Park in ward four in the 2024 capital forecast. This next garden would take demand pressure off the Central Park community garden and expand the service into the south-east area. With the current five gardens and potential for a sixth community garden additional staff are needed to properly maintain these assets.

The Community Gardens initiative came from the community – not city hall.  Hopefully city council will turn to the community for input on how this very successful program should evolve.

By Staff

June 8^th, 2023

BURLINGTON. ON

 

An attentive reader sent us an example of the stuff the scan scum use to try and steal your money.

Until better security is created it is up to each person to be careful when they respond to an email.

Always look at the address the email came from and if it looks suspicious it probably is/

Here is what our reader got.

 

Can you see the mistakes?

Look closely at the address:

By Staff

June 7th, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Jim Thompson delegates frequently – he is currently focused on the Bateman project.

Last week he had a list of things that were not working out all that well

At the April council meeting the mayor stated that the project was on time and on budget. She was only half right. The schedule presented in December had Phase 1 occupancy at September 2024, not September 2025. The schedule slipped by a year. I’m surprised that none of you asked any questions about the slippage in the schedule and how this affects the project cash flow. I assume the tenants won’t start paying rent until they move in. Counselor worries about $20,000 for a city wide mailing but ignores the cost of the years delay in occupancy. I also note that the December schedule had already slipped by a year from the initial schedule that showed everything being done by September 2023. That schedule slipped due to the time taken to negotiate the purchases. So I guess that’s okay.

Both the initial schedule and the December schedule were presented as Gantt charts – those useful charts were dropped from the April report. I guess it would have made it too obvious that the project schedule had slipped.

When Counsellor Kearns asked for a timeline for the milestones and decision points for the balance of the project, I would have expected this to be presented as a Gantt chart rather than a bunch of dates and a table. I don’t actually see any decision points listed in the table.

At the public meeting last year it was stated that traffic studies would be done in Phase 2. I don’t see any reference to traffic studies at all. How does the number of extra users impact congestion on New Street and Appleby Line?

I’m disappointed in this draft plan. I expected to see a complete plan that gave dates for the two public information sessions that council directed to take place in Q3. The only date is the Food for Feedback event which isn’t actually looking for feedback is just to inform the public of engagement opportunities. No actual feedback is expected.

There’s no consult in the engagement. The document states that the engagement began in spring 2022 with the creation of a project site, a survey was started and quickly paused and never restarted. How’s that for engagement?

I guess the initial results of the survey weren’t what the city hoped for. Okay, the project page has a Q&A section that is filled with non answers. When I looked at it in preparation for this meeting, I was struck by the number of questions regarding the green space that were posed five and six months ago. The reply to all of them was that council has directed staff to review the parking issue. That direction only came in March. So basically the question went unanswered for two to three months. That’s engagement ?.

I found this to be typical of the current situation at City Hall.

Last year, it took six months for someone to get around to answering a question I posted through Service Burlington. I’m currently waiting two months for a case number to be assigned to the question I posed through Service Burlington. And that’s after complaining that I didn’t get a case number. I was told I’d get a response soon.

Okay, with regards to the policies and factors that cannot be influenced. Option 2 states due to expanded use of the facility anticipated additional parking will be required and that may result in the loss of green space. If that’s a given, then the staff direction regarding parking is a farce. . The decision has already been made and the staff direction is just window dressing. The key parking space message is that you’re going to communicate more parking as needed. Why? You’re supposed to be looking at the future and transit and moving people away from cars, building parking just encourages commuting. So I guess the communication tactic is to stress the need for more parking. So to make it palatable to the public when the cost comes due when staff reports.

I’m going to suggest that you need to add paid parking as one of the issues to be put in place. When I go to courses at Mohawk College I had to pay for parking; when I use the Engineering Library at McMaster – I have to pay for parking. When I come here to delegate I have to pay for parking. When I go to Joseph Brant Hospital, I have to pay for parking. So there’s a revenue stream – paid parking at Bateman.

In the key messages for the outdoor green space planning residents are asked to provide their thoughts on what should be done with the space available within the limits of budget and services. What are the limits?

Who’s making those decisions? And if this is really about engagement, why will there be a walking walking path through the green space? Who decided? Isn’t that what the public consultation is for?
Those are my comments. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Jim. I don’t see that you have any questions at this time. So thank you for your delegation.

Council was prepared to tolerate Thomson and let it go at that.

 

By Pepper Parr

June 7th, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

 

A reader has suggested, quite vociferously, that the article that was flagged as news should have been identified as opinion

Councillor Paul Sharman understands how business works. He knows both sides of a balance sheet and is quick to point out where the flaws are in a business case. No one else on Council has the depth and breadth of business he has. Councillor Galbraith has a solid business understanding at the small business and development levels but nowhere near that of Sharman.

The rest of Council flop around on the financial stuff except for Kearns – she is very smart, has a quick wit but when push comes to shove – she folds.

When discussions were focused on who was going to use which space at the former Bateman High School site Sharman said: “I have never actually understood how Tech Place jumped the queue. So when I start hearing that spaces will be revenue generators and that there will be two sides to the balance sheet I ask what “would the use of the space be other than revenue generating”adding that “ when I don’t know how that is being measured in terms of an allocation of the space” I have questions..

“How did they get in on premium space at grade, excellent floor space before we even had the ability to gauge community interest for that space.?”

Sharman is quite right. Tech Place just appeared on a floor plan but there was a solid reason for that.

Tech Place is in a location paying rent that is way beyond the capacity of its revenue stream. The lease was low rent at the front end to give them time to get the operation off the ground.  The launch was impressive but it doesn’t look all that good at this point.

He might well have added: Does anyone know what Tech Place does and its relevance to the city?

Chair Stolte asked if the City Manager wanted to jump in ?

He did and said: “So going back, I think the original concept involved five organizations that we saw as coming together and creating a synergy around sort of learning and obviously active living. I mean, it’s essentially a component of economic development.

Commisso didn’t fully understand the history of Tech Place and the beating they were taking on the rent structure former Goldring Chief of Staff Frank McKeowan put in place.

It was Councillor Bentivegna who spotted the problem during a budget discussion in, I think 2018.

Rent for the final year of the lease was going to be $330,000 for an entity that didn’t have very much in the way of a revenue stream.

Tech Place served a purpose but Sharman is right – it doesn’t qualify as the user of the space that has been allocated to it.

The issue will come up at the next Council meeting later in June.   It is going to be interesting how Commisso finesses this one.

Commisso noted that the lease for the space on the North Service Road expires soon it may have already had an extension. Commisso saw the hub as an opportunity to integrate a relatively small space – I think it’s 1000 square feet. He didn’t think it was an independent, separate organization. “It was part of our relationship and our support for economic development” he said. “I would say they were seen as synergy with an opportunity to move forward in a much lower cost environment.”

“I’m going to support that organization which does really a lot of business development work. You know that is really in line with what I think councils were focusing on.” Commisso offered to report to Council with a more specific response.

Sharman came back with: “Maybe we do need something back to council because from a governance perspective, if we are in essence tendering community space, it would make a lot more sense.”

Sharman added: “I’m hearing about an urban indigenous space. We haven’t even touched on the entire theme of inclusivity and I’m just wondering, this will be my second question, has staff planned to address that inclusivity piece for folks that may or may not have the appropriate levels of funding. If this is going to be an ROI or a revenue generating opportunity.”

Denise Beard, Manager of Community Development said: “I think that will come out; we’ve already been in tonnes of discussion with various groups who have stated an interest; many of them fit some of the criteria.

“We will work with them to make sure they understand what the expectations are. And then we will come back to committee and report on what we heard. We’ve talked a lot about dollars and cents here, but pending committee and councils wish that’s a decision we have to make. Right? Are we looking to generate revenue through these spaces?”

“Are we looking for a mix? What does that look like? I don’t have the answer to that. But we’re open to all of it and we’re open to coming back to you with some options for a follow up discussion.”

Councillor Sharman wanted to go a little further. “I’m going to continue on with my two questions. I’m going to start with a continuation of this space question. I’d like to know what the history is of how we design our community centers. Is it commonplace and is it our practice that we look to fill the space with potential revenue generating organizations before we have the conversation about how the community would like to use the space ?”

Alan Magi,  Executive Director of Environment, Infrastructure and Community Services  started with:”I will start with this observation that Bateman is different than a new build. We would start and decide how much square footage the community needed; whether you need a pool there or a gym or community rooms. This one as everyone was aware was an existing high school so we had a given square footage we had the former owner, the school board, indicating that one of the conditions of sale was to retain a certain amount of space in a long term lease arrangements which helped with the purchase.

“We’re kind of working through the space a little bit backwards and coming up with a residual amount in it; as opposed to starting from the ground up and asking do we need a gym Do we need a community room and then sort of building that.”

“We bought a building and now we’re renovating and determining the best uses, looking at sustainability in the long term. We’ve got our partners – recreation and culture on as well.”

Sharman comes back with: “I certainly know that working backwards is a little bit different, but perhaps I should have phrased my question to be specific. There are 30,000 square feet leftover after we have dealt with our partners.

“I don’t believe that we looked at Tansley Woods and designed it asking how many dedicated spaces do we want in there and then what’s going to be left over for community rooms? I’m pretty sure we did the opposite. And that’s what I’m asking is why is this one being done differently?

“That was the purpose of the simultaneous engagement so that we can ask the public, how much organic community space do you want available, and then whatever is left over is how we engage with dedicated space organizations.”

What is uncomfortably evident is that while the concept of buying a high school that had been closed was a good idea – the problem is that there is no clear vision, no input from the public and a lot of pressure to get the place to the point where it is operational.

What will it all cost?  Don’t ask.

Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.