By Pepper Parr

March 25^th, 2024

BURLINGTON, ON

Few people understand what a Development Charges is – they should – they substantially to the cost of buying a new home

The table sets out what the consultants predict population and the residential units will be for specific time periods.

Development charges are expenses developers have to pay the city to cover the cost of infrastructure needed to build new homes.

The city is embarking on determining what those development charges are going to be going forward.

This article s not going to be a deep dive into how these charges get determined other than to say they are based on data collected and then argued about

The City recently  released a 405 page document that we will work our way through.

At this point we can share with you a statement in the report.

The calculated increase in the charge for this type of development is $61.38/sq.m, or an increase in the charge of approximately 59%.

That is a whopping number that will work its way to the cost of a housing unit.

By Pepper Parr

March 25^th, 2024

BURLINGTON, ON

It is difficult for people to have an impact at an Ontario Land Tribunal hearing.

Getting status means raising a lot of money to hire the expert witnesses.

The current Millcroft community hearing on the golf course properties is underway. Last week  the City’s position on stormwater was heard.

Adding 98 homes to this community means making changes to the storm water infrastructure – no one is certain as to what the impact will be.

Millcroft Greenspace Alliance had emailed the Mayor in December 2023 expressing their concerns about the City’s position to be presented at the hearing.

The two issues that MGA encouraged the City to add to their case: the original design of the golf course for storm water mitigation purposes and the sensitive nature of the golf course lands that was evidenced during the 2014 flood, have been presented.

This information is important background that we believe the Tribunal needed to hear, said Daintry Klein, part of the MGA group.

The City’s water resource engineer also spoke to the fact that the City, and not Conservation Halton (CH) is required to respond to flooding issues.

MGA has been pressing the city to emphasize that decisions regarding the golf course lands were indicated in OPA 117 to be shared between CH and the City.

Mr. Malik, the City’s storm water engineer  confirmed for the Tribunal that the City, not Conservation Halton, provides flood response.

The people at MGA are continuing to play an important role in this hearing.

There are three groups involved in the hearing: Millcroft Against Development, Millcroft Greenspace Alliance and Millcroft Greens, the developer

.

The Gazette sent the following to the members of city council that supported a Motion asking the amayor to relinkquish some of the power that was given to her under the Strong Mayors Act.

Is there anything you can do to settle the frayed nerves of those who care about what happens at city hall.

Is there not something you can say to your constituents about the chaos that is taking place at city hall.

While we believe that you did the right thing when you put the Motion on the table and deserve kudos for getting it, first, on the agenda while the Mayor did everything possible to keep it off the agenda.  Secondly you all got a Special meeting called – give Angelo most of the credit for that win.

The firing of two of the best Executive Directors the city had was so unnecessary.

And not knowing who made the decision to remove the two woman from the payroll is disturbing.

Given that the four of you brought about the situation that has us in this mess – it is really incumbent upon you to make a statement.

Perhaps you could appoint one Councillor to speak for those who support the decision you made.

The Gazette published the attached earlier this morning:

https://burlingtongazette.ca/there-is-a-dangerous-information-vacuum-in-the-city-members-of-council-have-a-responsibility-to-communicate/

Pepper Parr,  Publisher, Burlington Gazette

By Pepper Parr

March 23^rd, 2024

BURLINGTON, ON

What a week!

On Tuesday, as part of a Council meeting, three members of Council put forward a motion to ask the Mayor to relinquish some of the powers given to her by the Strong Mayor legislation.

Mayor Meed Ward fought to keep that Motion off the Agenda.  When she failed at that effort she fought to prevent the calling of a Special Meeting of Council where the matter would be debated.  The Mayor failed at that as well.

Council members learned, from the City Solicitor, that the ability to enforce their request was limited.

Then on Thursday we learned that two senior staff members were no longer on the city payroll.

Members of Council have said very little publicly, which is unfortunate for the idea of open government and keeping the public informed is critical to the functioning of a truly democratic government.

The city is at a critical point and it is going to take the best that we have to ensure that the best interests of the citizens prevail.

There are more questions than answers at this point.

Who fired the two senior executives?  That would normally be a City Manager responsibility.  In the statement the City Manager released there is more than a suggestion that he didn’t do the firing.

Mayor Meed Ward presiding over a city council meeting.

The only other person who could fire people is the Mayor.  Assuming she made the decision there is an obligation to register that decision and make it public on the city web site.  At this point there is no statement.

Not to be too crass about it – but what is it going to cost the taxpayer in terms of severance packages?  Given the length of time the two have served it has been suggested that the sum might be as much as $ 1 million

Social mediate will record dozens of misguided statements.  This is a time when level heads are needed and for a public to be informed as to just what the issues are.

While the current Council is challenged when it comes to responding to the people who elected; make no mistake – they read every comment that is sent to them.  This is the time to flood the Mayor with what you think should be done.

The votes that are placed in ballot boxes are the transfer of power from the individual to those they choose to lead.  That power is vested in the seven elected members of council – not just the one member.

We are heading into a disruptive few days.

Let’s remember who we are and what we are – and demand that Council, not just one person make the decisions.

By Ray Rivers

March 22nd, 2024

BURLINGTON, ON

Despite all the noise from the official opposition on Parliament Hill, the truth is that carbon pricing contributes only a tiny fraction to the cost of inflation.   Analysis shows that even when inflation peaked above eight per cent last year, carbon pricing might have accounted for a tiny one-54th of it.

Carbon pricing does raise the cost of fossil fuels – that part is true.   But even the latest round of scheduled progressive increases will have little impact on Canada’s declining inflation rate.  And the carbon tax rebates are the great equalizer for Canadians facing higher food and other costs.

80% of Canadians are better off with the tax and the rebate than if the tax were axed, as Canada’s Conservatives would do were they to win the next election.   In fact axing the tax would do almost nothing to lower inflation but everything to make the average Canadian worse off.

Alberta premier Smith and Saskatchewan premier Moe also support ‘axing the tax’ despite the fact that residents of those provinces receive the greatest annual carbon rebates ($1800 and $1500) while still paying some of the lowest energy prices in the country.  Clearly partisanship and ideology trump economics in those prairie provinces.

Mr. Poilievre believes he’s riding a winner with his ‘axe the tax’ campaign, a catchy though well-worn and somewhat dated slogan.  His misrepresentations have started the Liberals calling him out as the liar he becomes when he speaks to the issue.  But then again, his political party does not even recognize the reality of climate change, so he may just be carrying their water.

Affordability is the watch word these days.  Initially Poilievre hung his hat on the mostly false claim that the federal deficit was the major cause of inflation  But now he has resorted to another falsehood and set his gun sights on carbon pricing.  He introduced a non-confidence motion in Parliament this past week, which could have forced an early election.  But every other political party stood with the Trudeau crowd to defend carbon pricing.

Yet it is unfortunate that we are not having an election over how to mitigate Canada’s embarrassingly high carbon footprint.   The politicians from every party except the one leading in the public opinion polls understand that this is the most cost-effective way to deal with one of the greatest existential threats to our planet.   They get it.

As we remember Brian Mulroney this week, we should also consider how he tried to resolve fractious public policy issues.  The Charlestown referendum ultimately settled the matter of constitutional change once and for all, despite Mulroney losing.  Canadians were informed on the issue and they told the PM that they preferred the status quo and a stronger federal government.

The 1988 election was largely about free trade with the US and Mulroney won that debate.  There would be winners and losers but, despite the pain of adjusting to change, an informed Canadian public elected the party which supported freer trade with the Americans.

Trudeau may claim that he won the last two elections over the issue of his carbon tax – it was his signature policy after all.  But not everyone agrees, including Mr. Poilievre and a significant number of provincial leaders.  The sentiment among pundits is that Trudeau has failed to fully inform, sell and convince the public on the merits of carbon pricing.  Even the Globe and Mail, long a strong supporter of carbon pricing, is getting ready to write off this entire experience as a failure.

So, what better way to bring the public up to speed than to put the choice directly in their hands.  Mr. Trudeau should make the next election about climate change, or conduct a referendum to shut up the critics.  Trudeau’s is currently light years behind in the polls.  If that trend continues and the Tories win the next election climate policy including carbon pricing will all be history.

Does the PM’s miserable poll numbers mean that Canadians also disapprove of carbon pricing?  Or does the Tory party’s staggering lead in public opinion polls say more about a fickle and bored public wanting to change the channel, as they did a few years ago in Ontario?  That was a move which ended Ontario’s role as one of three provinces leading the fight against climate change.

Successful politicians are often those who aren’t afraid to show courage – Mulroney was one of those.  Unfortunately the new leader of the provincial Liberals is playing footsie on this issue, afraid to take a stand in case she says the wrong thing before the dust has settled.  She is currently the leader of a third party and sitting on the fence will rightly ensure that she stays exactly where she is.

To end this on-going axe the tax partisan campaign Trudeau needs to answer the challenge and call the bluff.   He needs to borrow a page from Mr. Mulroney’s book and make the next election a ‘climate change election’, if not now, certainly in 2025.

Following your own convictions and doing what you believe to be the right thing is not enough in a democracy.  You need to have the public behind you. Trudeau needs to call Poilievre’s bluff and let an informed public finally decide on whether we need to continue with carbon pricing and the ultimate phase-out of fossil fuels in this country.

Trudeau needs to put an end to the prattling half-truths and outright lies pouring from the mouths of the opposition leader and his cabal of climate denying premiers once and for all.  He needs to put the decision to fight for our future directly into the hands of an informed voting public.

Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly 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 content

Non-Confidence –     Carbon Price Baloney –   Inflation and Carbon Pricing    Carbon Pricing –

By Pepper Parr

March 22^nd, 2024

BURLINGTON, ON

Remember the day when you could use these things for a dime?

Would the Gazette reader who called us from a pay phone (we didn’t think there any pay phones left in the city) with information on certain senior staff at city hall  – please get in touch?

If what you left on voice mail is anywhere near true – we would like to inform the citizens of the city.

We will keep an eye on the city web site page where the Mayor is required to publish any decisions she makes with the Strong Mayor powers she wants to keep.

By Pepper Parr

March 21^st, 2024

BURLINGTON, ON

OPINION

Life for Angelo Bentivegna is going to be very different for the next six days.

He will be under immense pressure from his Council colleagues, especially Mayor Meed Ward and Councillor Sharman.

Angelo would appear to be the hold out vote on the attempt on the part of four of the members of Council, Galbraith, Kearns, Nisan and Stolte who tabled a Motion requesting Mayor Meed Ward to relinquish some of the Strong Mayor powers she acquired last July.

If what the public saw two days ago there is little chance Meed Ward will give up as much as an inch. She would probably want to use the phrase the actor Charlton Heston used when he was with the American Rifle  Association and said, when asked when he would give up the right to bear arms: “You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward – wants to have everything at city hall under control.

Meed Ward is leaving the distinct impression that is not prepared to give up any of the power she has.

She stunned her Council colleagues when she advised them that she had consulted with the Integrity Commissioner on what she could say and what she couldn’t say during the debate about getting the Motion on the Agenda.  The four. Galbraith, Kearns, Nisan and Stolte won the effort to get the Motion on the agenda.  The Mayor used several procedural opportunities to keep the Motion off the Agenda.

The detail on the back in forth is covered in an article that is being prepared.

For reasons that are complex and difficult to understand – there appear to be issues as to who can say what when.

The Council members want to know now what the mayor thinks about the request to give up some of the powers she has.  And the Mayor is saying she can’t say at this point.

Bentivegna: Troubled by possible delays in resolving how much Strong Mayor powers the Mayor should keep.

Which confuses Angelo Bentivegna.

He is a simple man who wants to serve the community.  He said he wanted to meet with the Mayor and and talk about giving back to Council some of the powers she now holds.

Bentivegna is expecting an open honest discussion.  He is going to get snowed.

As of Tuesday Bentivegna wasn’t sure what his position on the Motion was going to be.

He was certainly disturbed at what was taking place.  A Gazette reader, in a comment made in the Gazette put it very well when he said: “The vote next Tuesday hinges, as all are acutely aware, on the disposition of Angelo Bentivegna. If his performance yesterday is any indication, it will be frustrating to watch and laborious to decipher. However, it is time for him to shine and for his fundamental decency to manifest itself. I expect that it will.”

Bentivegna is going to need all the support possible from the community – The four members will lobby him, the Mayor will get a cute and sweet and do a number on the poor man.

Councillor Sharman, a Council member on whom Bentivegna relies often for direction and help in understanding issues that he doesn’t understand.

Bentivegna: Plans to meet the Mayor and ask if she will relinquish any of the Strong Mayor powers she holds.

Angelo Bentivegna is not a stupid man.  He has his strengths, one of which is to look out for the small business community and the taxpayers as well.  When he gets his teeth into an issue he is like a dog with a bone.  Tenacious would describe him very well.

Councillor Sharman and Meed Ward have a lot riding on this – and they will lean very heavily on Angelo Bentivegna.

He will be doing a lot of thinking during the weekend and reaching out to anyone who will talk to him.

One of the things Angelo might ask himself:  Why is Councillor Sharman going to such lengths to support the Mayor?  Sharman wants the matter taken to a Standing Committee – which means delays which is the approach Meed Ward will use.

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.

By Pepper Parr

March 20^th,2024

BURLINGTON, ON

Three members of Council put a Notice of Motion on the Council meeting agenda.  They wanted the Mayor to give up some of the Strong Mayor powers that were available to her.

Mayor Meed Ward consistently claims that she was required to accept the Strong Mayor powers; that is not true.  There are a number of municipalities that had had Mayors who took a pass; Guelph is an example.

The Motion reads:

That Council request the Mayor to delegate to Council the powers and duties assigned to the head of council under Section 284.5 of the Municipal Act, with respect to the City Manager; and

That Council request the Mayor to delegate to the City Manager the powers and duties assigned to the head of council under Section 284.6 of the Municipal Act, with respect to:

1. 1. 1. determining the organizational structure of the municipality; and
      2. hiring, dismissing, or exercising any other prescribed employment powers with respect to any division or the head of any other part of the organizational structure;

That Council request the Mayor to delegate to Council the powers and duties assigned to the head of council under Section 284.7 of the Municipal Act, with respect to prescribed local boards or local boards within a prescribed class of local boards; and

That Council request the Mayor to delegate to Council the powers and duties assigned to the head of council under Section 284.8 of the Municipal Act, with respect to prescribed committees or committees within a prescribed class of committees; and

That the Executive Director of Legal Services and Corporation Counsel for the City of Burlington be directed to consult with external legal counsel on the current state of any legal challenges to strong mayor power in Ontario and whether a legal challenge would have any chance of success.

Council in session

Their first challenge was to get the Motion on the agenda. That called for a Motion to waive the procedural rules. .

Councillor Sharman came out of the gate, before there was any debate from other Council members saying – I will not be supporting this. I believe this is rushed. It is inconsistent with the purpose of Council.  It should be brought to the committee first and I won’t be supporting for that reason.

It was clear from the beginning that Sharman was going to align himself with the Mayor.  Four Councillors: Galbraith, Kearns, Nisan and Stolte wanted changes.

Councillor Bentivegna: It was a very hard meeting for him.

That left just Councillor Bentivegna as undecided and very uncomfortable.

Mayor Meed Ward:” I really look forward to this conversation.”

Mayor Meed Ward said: “I really look forward to this conversation. I will not be supporting waiving our procedure bylaw at this time. Enhanced scrutiny around following our procedure Bylaw and regardless of what we would like it to be, we are stuck now with what it actually says.

“I will also note that the motion includes a direction to staff which is well outside any advocacy. So I believe for maximum community engagement, public notice and transparency. This should be run through committee and I would greatly look forward to that conversation at committee and Council, which allows residents actually two additional opportunities to speak to this instead of one today and only if they happen to see it on Friday when this was initially posted.”

Councillor Bentivegna said: ‘I don’t know how to start;  first of all, I received this motion, on the weekend. I’m not sure when everyone else got it.

‘I’m not a big fan of what I believe is a walk on motion. Having said that, I think this is an important discussion to have. And I actually don’t want to wait till the April cycle. So I would like to bring an amendment once we have the discussion.

‘I think this is a very important topic. And I do agree we do need engagement on it. If we wait until the April, my concern is the misinformation that might go out because nothing’s been discussed on it. And perhaps any rumours that go on and for everyone’s peace of mind is I believe we need to take care of this sooner rather than later. So I’m going to bring a motion to call a special council meeting for next Tuesday.’

Counsellor Kearns: “I want to take the opportunity to underscore that there is an underlying sense of urgency related to this; I do feel that it is a discussion that needs to happen sooner rather than later. I think that our community is engaged enough with a topic like this that they will want to be engaged quickly, which would support a special council meeting.”

Councillor Nisan: The first order of business is that we have to get this to the floor where it can be debated.”

Councillor Nisan: “I think the first order of business is that we have to get this to the floor by waiving the rules of procedure because there are things that we do need to talk about, at least in part, or by way of deferring to a special council meeting.”

Councillor Kearns “I want to highlight Councillor Nissan’s point around this very prescriptive use of the procedure bylaw in order to defer this or delay this into the next cycle. Things like this don’t usually come forward with such urgency and I think that there is an opportunity here to be amenable to bringing it to the floor at least and not stopping it at this point.”

Councillor Stolte:  “I just want to take the opportunity quickly to thank Councillor Bentivegna for his comments I had not considered the potential for there to be misinformation or rumour innuendo in the community. I look forward to the discussion.”

I could live with if that’s permitted,

Councillor Galbraith “I was going to support this motion. It’s not an emergency that it’s done today. Councillor Bentivegna brings up an interesting point and if it’s next Tuesday I am not I’m not fussed about that either. But it’s already out there.

“The rumours could be spreading. So I think it’s important that we discuss it sooner than later. But if it’s not today, Tuesday I could live with if that’s permitted, but I think we need to pass this to get it to where Angelo wants to present his motion. So I’m supportive of it today.”

Councillor Sharman, speaking for the second time,  “I’m very happy to have this conversation. I just believe we need to get our research done. I want to hear from staff I haven’t had a time to get a chance to talk to them. I believe that we do want to encourage the community to come and speak to us that the first time we discussed this, not just doing this kind of run out in a kind of council that we’re not prepared for.

Councillor Sharman: “I’m not prepared for this conversation.”

I’m not prepared for this conversation. And I’m completely willing open to an opportunity to move it later. It doesn’t fit. It’s fair. To say a meeting in advance. I still believe we should have committee and then counsel separately. If it’s a special counsel, I’m okay with that. But right now, I’m not ready to have this conversation. So other than when is the appropriate time to talk about it; today is not the right time, but I’m willing to have the conversation.”

Councillor Nisan: “I’m interested in the discussion around a special counsel hadn’t been raised to me before.  I’m open minded to that. I just want to note that this motion was given the standard notice required for council motions, and met the deadline that was set by the clerk for being received at counsel.. We met the we met the deadline and like other motions, we were given the usual amount of notice if we don’t like that notice, then we should we should push it back in the procedure bylaw.”

“Secondly, I want to note that we waive procedures, practically every council meeting.”

Mayor Meed Ward calls the recorded vote to waive the procedural rule.

It passes – so the item is on the agenda.

Mayor Meed Ward and Councillor Sharman were not able to keep the item off the agenda.  They now have to debate it when Council gets to what is the very last item on the agenda.

That debate follows in a seperate article. Despite significant effort on the part of the Mayor and Councillor Sharman a vote to debate the issue at a Special meeting of Council on Tuesday March 26th.

By Pepper Parr

March 20^th, 2024

BURLINGTON, ON

How did City council decide to fund BurlingtonGreen?

The decided to give the organization $50,000 and add $12,000 to cover the rent for the Pump House.

The query council had was around whether they could simply credit or not charge the $12,000 for the Pump House lease. Staff’s recommendation was not to go down that path, and instead continue to have them pay the lease fee and if we wished to enhance their budget to consider the $12,000 in addition to the 50,000.

BurlingtonGreen has a five year license fee agreement for the Pump House.

Councillor Nissan and Councillor Stolte moved and seconded the motion to give BurlingtonGreen (BG) a total of $62,000 for 2024 and to consider adding that amount to the 2025 budget.

Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan

Councillor Nisan said: BurlingtonGreen offers a lot in exchange for what we put into it and that this would be a very strategic investment in keeping our community environmental green, and they do a lot of community work, that if we were to try to internalize it that the city would cost us exponentially more. They leverage a huge volunteer cadre for their events and their cleanups; I think they are essential. The way their funding from the provincial and federal government has changed is unfortunate but we have to deal with what’s in front of us here today. I think this one time increase is more than justified.

Councillor Stolte said she agreed with everything Councillor Nissan has said; I wanted to comment that it’s a bit of a confusing conversation. I look forward to the day when we move this one time funding into the budget.

From that point until the end of the discussion Council went back and forth with everyone making sure that they got to say how wonderful BurlingtonGreen is  – the problem council had was getting around the word “grant” so the motion says “approve one time funding as a fee for services”.

Those are the basic – everything else is background and a peak at the way Council goes about its business.

Alan Magi, Executive Director of Environment Infrastructure and Community Services explained: the $50,000 is a fee for service. It is directly related to work we are contracting with BurlingtonGreen. Confusing the issue Magi said: “ there is a delineation of it because it is not a fee for service, it is an essentially compensation for the fact that there is a fee that we pay.

City Manager Tim Commisso said his “preference would to add it on to the $50,000 fee for service.  “This is a fee for service. Recall last year we contracted BurlingtonGreen in the amount of $70,000. “I think it’s fair to say that the cost of providing those services, which are very similar in nature to what they provided last year, and that would be sort of closer to $70, 000.  So if Council chooses I think that this would be considered that the lease payments which is the $12,000 that includes HST the one in my memo did not include HST such as for that clarification, but this package really is that fee for service. The staff report that Lynn provided outlined some of those services that would be provided and then we would articulate those all into a more formal memorandum or service agreement, the staff would undertake that when we would actually contract with Burlington green.

Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna

Bentivegna: “So are you saying that the $12,000 will be added to the $50,000 saying it’s not a grant ?

Councillor Bentivegna went on the record to say I’m going to Thank BurlingtonGreen for all the work you’ve done. Over the years they certainly have provided good service for the city and certainly keeping in mind with the environment. Having said that, my concerns here are we’re looking at funding one time and then going to look at funding in the future on a regular basis, perhaps up to $70,000. I’d like to see and hear more information as to what those services are going to be and requiring or contracting on a regular basis with timelines and so on as we would do with any procurement. That’s number one.

“Number two. Last year we gave $70,000, that came out of Community Development Fund. And that was not part of council approval process. Is that correct?

Magi: “That funding is approved by Council: the allocation was done through the Recreation Community and Culture department.  “We had a number of services that were identified, and we had an agreement with BurlingtonGreen to deliver those through that funding source.

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns

Every member of Council felt the need to publicly thank BurlingtonGreen. Councillor Kearns explained that the support comes at a cost saying the issue had become quite a bit of a flashpoint for some conversations. “ I received emails when we were debating this first that said: “I’ll never vote for you again. I’m sorry that I did. I’m looking for a better candidate that’s more aligned with green initiatives.”

Council continued for an additional 36 minutes before arriving at the final motion.

Kearns: I really wanted to help correct that this is not just about the work that BurlingtonGreen is doing. This is about the process and being aligned with our appropriate policies in a way that it did previously.  We do not generally fund not for profits, and that is found in our policies that are appropriate.  When this moves over into a fee for service and a sole source agreement which is part of the motion that’s easier to support when a contract basis, but I just wanted to appreciate the work  BurlingtonGreen is doing however, going about this way makes it very difficult. I appreciative that this has moved out of tax rate stabilization reserve fund to one time funding and into a more appropriate one time reserve funding and then we’ll have the further discussions when it comes forward in the budget process. I have not been comfortable with this approach. I know it was tabled in the budget. It did. Not Pass in the budget. And I’m just very concerned that we are creating a precedent for other very noble not for profits to come forward for funding if they’re able to quantify the type of service that they’re providing to the city.

“We would normally do a cost benefit analysis or a business case to see and present to us whether these services should be sole sourced what the valuation of these services are, and whether it’s better to outsource them, which is what we’re doing or hire internally to do this work and align with this work recognizing the volunteer base that BurlingtonGreen does have.

“I just wanted to express my discomfort with the process. I’m glad that it’s unfolding in a more amenable way, especially in relation to the source of funding, the scope of work, the sole sourcing, sort of definition that we will be working with through the MOU and the way we will be able to reconsider this within the upcoming budget process.

Galbraith: This is really early consultation on the budget. It happens all year. As some of the speakers have noted consider this as a fee for service. There is no way that we could deliver this service for $62,000. So this really does protect our taxpayers from additional and quite frankly, unnecessary expense. But more importantly there this is a proven partner and has a very long track record of delivering these services. And I think in terms of our partnership model and our and our willingness to think outside the box in terms of how we deliver services. This is an example of exactly that to work with a trusted partner and it doesn’t mean we can’t have other partners doing other things for sure. And but let’s recognize the partnerships that we already have, and support those partners.

The final result: Councillors Galbraith, Kearns, Nisan, Stolte and Sharman voted for the motion as did the Mayor. Counsellor Bentavegna was opposed.