By Pepper Parr
August 13th, 2024
BURLINGTON, ON
This is part 2 of a 4 part series
The discussion at the Council meeting has been edited for clarity and length.
While gathering data City Hall, staff have realized that changes are going to have to be made and that is going to cost.
Just how much, is a task that is now underway –” the budget cycle is coming up very quickly and there are some obvious areas that we would like to invest in” said Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Hassaan Basit.
Enrico (Rico) Scalera, Director of Roads, Parks and Forestry Department
Enrico (Rico) Scalera, Director of Roads, Parks and Forestry Department touched on a few of the new tasks yjat are going to have to be added to the budget, including enhanced Creek monitoring, maybe looking at our respond time capabilities to looking at where there may have been gaps, or maybe expanding out the areas that we thought were at risk that are currently being inspected.
Basit continued: “Maybe there’s more that needs to be put onto that list. Maybe the frequency needs to change, but we want to make sure before we present lots of solutions that they actually are solutions. We have some work to do on data and analysis; there has been some discussions internally which we will be presenting as one of our priorities around emergency preparedness. We have one Emergency Coordinator in Burlington: Toronto has 24. I think we could do with some additional resources there.”
There was a lot of discussion earlier during the Council meeting about being proactive. Not a lot of that was around funding; being proactive means preparing for something. Basit explained: “Having emergency preparedness plans in place, maybe a plan that’s specific to flooding might be the direction we have to go in. What we have right now are sort of generic, you know, EOCs and so that’s one area I can kind of give you a little bit of insight – that’s emerging as an early favorite as an area we may want to invest in that may actually inform where the gaps are.”
“We do need to take our time to conduct the analysis and also understand the nature of the storm that that occurred.”
Councillor Paul Sharman: “I certainly echo all the great work that’s been done so far.”
Councillor Paul Sharman: “I certainly echo all the great work that’s been done so far The coordination is so dramatically different to 2014, it’s palpably different. I totally agree – we have much work to do, but it leads to questions that arise in the southern part of the ward five in particular, where, of course, most of the flooding has occurred, and that’s got to do with legal non-conforming.
Rico gave an example: We’ve got water flowing from an older commercial property down a ramp onto the road, increasing the water flow in the road. We don’t know if its from the road or from the property across the road. Perhaps the commercial property caused the residential property to flood. Any insight on the adequacy of our understanding as to whose problem it is?
That question got passed to Scott Hamilton, Director of Engineering. We are aware of the non-performance issue as it relates to grading and drainage bylaws.
We do have bylaws in place that allow us to deal with those issues as they as they come up. The problem we have is that a lot of them are complaint based or resident driven.
The developments are separate. Our site plan process allows us to control or regulate those. But whenever a homeowner widens their driveways or hardscapes their backyard or paves their front yard, that’s a that’s a trickier situation for us to be aware of.
We do have a mechanism in place to deal with that – a lot of the calls come in to our engineering department have been around that exact thing – grading surface drainage from our neighbour’s property or commercial properties on our property. We get about four or five of these reviewed on site per day. We have about 155 of those, those type of complaints coming into the city now.
Sharman: I know this particular property – it’s been around there for a long, long time, and there’s lots of lots of catch basins and the there’s grading of the parking lot and all the rest of it that presumably was as required back in when the parking lot was built. Do we have a requirement for them to update that relative to potential massive rainfall and storms?
Scott Hamilton: Director of Engineering
Scott Hilton: If it was compliant when they built it, then no. But if they were not compliant, or they changed what was applied, was approved previously, then yes, we do have mechanisms to go and correct that.
Sharman: That was the answer to the first question. I have a second question. With respect to new development on old properties where somebody built a house, and have gone through all the site plan.
Scott Hamilton: We don’t do site plan for single family homes, I gather, as I recall, but where we’ve done all the work and approving it, and presumably with the grading as well relative to the house there is a question. Did we also define the grading for the rest of the yard that would cause it to not flood in the event we get 50 to 80 millimeters of rain. Yes, we regulate the entire lot.
What was becoming clear that the handling of floods was going to require a much different look at how these occasions get managed.It would be unfair to say the city doesn’t know what it’s doing – more to the point is for the city to figure out what they are likely to be up against – and with the rate of climate change an unknown.
IF MMW and Council had followed thru with MMW’S promise in 2018 to fix our infastructure, Burlington would not be in the mess we are in since the recent Flood on July 15 and 16.
Also, what was the maintenance schedule in place to follow-up with clearing catch basins, storm sewers, creeks and streams in our City?? Was the schedule followed and adhered to? Time sheets should be able to create data on this.
We don’t need additional Staff hired to address this! What we need is for City Staff, Mayor & Council and the new City Manager in charge to direct City Staff and maintenance staff to do their assigned jobs properly. This is how the Private sector operates. Adhere to the Budget, and only spend on what is absolutely necessary!! i.e. our Infastructure First before you even contemplate adding any other items to our 2025 City Budget, All Without any Tax Increases for 2025.
We as residents pay alot of money in property tax dollars. You need to work with what you get “wisely”. You can’t just keep spending and raising our property taxes year over year to pay for your “Nice to haves”. A concerned and competent Mayor and Council should already know this. “No ‘Frills’ or Vanity Projects” moving forward. MMW and Council must work on and approve the necessities only.
Eric’s question about 2015 taxes prompted me to look that up. They definitely didn’t raise taxes to deal with that flood – the increase was 2 percent.
But reading the 2015 budget document, particularly starting on page 101 where they discuss flood prevention and surface water drainage, one finds their “Business Plan Summary for Surface Water Drainage for 2015 to 2018 in the 2015 year” (document dated November 2015):
“Expectations include:
Flood and erosion protection for properties and structures
Clean and safe creeks
Protection of natural habitat, including trees
Accessibility to trail systems along creeks, with well-maintained and attractive amenities
Safety and risk avoidance related to flooding
Delivery of approvals and permits in a timely and cost-effective manner
Well-maintained storm water management ponds
Well-maintained surface water drainage systems, including culverts and storm inlet grates
Help addressing storm drainage concerns and complaints
Inventory information and assessment of infrastructure condition
Replacement of damaged infrastructure
Good storm water quality
Professionalism, expertise, innovation and education.
The Development Review Service is an internal service providing storm water management design review.”
Both Meed Ward and Sharman were of course on council then when these commitments in maintenance and flood prevention were made. I’d give them a failing grade since and I think the Ward 3 residents and others flooded in 2024 would too.
Link to budget document (there is a lot in here which is most interesting):
https://www.burlington.ca/en/council-and-city-administration/resources/Budget-and-Finances/Approved-Budget-Book/2015/2015-Approved-Operating-Budget-Book.pdf
Major construction of spillways is in progress on the 407 ETR between the 403 and Dundas, also the storm drains are being dug up along the length of Caroline, I guess the Mayor’s house was flooded after all and she didn’t want to wait for global climate change to be resolved.
Jim
You continue to ignore the dramatic change in the topography of not only in Burlington but throughout the entire GTA. In ’54 the rain had huge areas of untouched land in which it could be absorbed. Today with development of those natural lands rain cannot penetrate the hard impermeable surfaces. The only place for it to go is the drainage system. The drainage systems were not built to deal with the volumes like those last month. But climate change has made events like last month’s storm a common occurrence.
1954 and 2024 are not directly comparable.
You still avoid answering Councilor Stolte’s question.
Bon Vie
Jim, you are essentially putting forward the same comment as you did to an earlier Gazette article. So as regards to a 1 in 100 year storm I shall provide the same information and comment as I did to your previous remarks.
“Please read the article linked below. Admittedly it references Mississauga and Toronto and the GTA, not specifically Burlington.
* One/two day rainfall.
“Officials also noted in the post that 97.8 mm of rain “fell on July 16 alone,” included in that a 10-minute span in which 26 mm of rain fell.
Over the two-day period July 15-16, Pearson’s weather station measured 122.9 mm of rain.”
* Record single month rainfall
“With 6.79 mm of rain recorded on Tuesday at Pearson Airport in Mississauga, a new single-month rainfall record was set.”
*GTA wide flooding – not just Burlington
“Numerous homes and businesses were also flooded in Mississauga and across the GTA.
Mississauga received a month’s worth of rain over the course of a few hours that caused localized flooding in areas across the city,” City of Mississauga officials said at the time.”
*Hurricane Hazel and previous inundations
“Back in October 1954 as Hurricane Hazel made its way through the area, that storm dropped more than 200 mm of rain in a single 24-hour period.
The third-wettest month in history as recorded by Pearson was September 1986 (212.2 mm) with May 1942 (208.6 mm) sitting fourth on the list.
*N.B.
Obviously back in both 1942 and 1954 there was way less building development and way more permeable surfaces to assist in drainage than there is today.
It my understanding the vast majority of the hundreds of homes flooded resulted from sewer back up because the sewer system could not handle the immense volume of water. The same cause for flooded homes in other parts of the GTA.
It should be made mandatory for every building to have a sewer back up preventor installed. No matter where one lives it is prudent to have a sump pump installed (with battery back up).
Jim, out of the hundreds of flooded homes in Burlington how many can you with supporting evidence say were exclusively damaged by clogged drains or culverts?
Do you have evidence that rules out debris being swept downstream from a distance to clogg culverts/drains rather than that debris already prior to the storm just sitting there at the culvert/drain?
It seems commentators here view the flooding as isolated to Burlington and not a GTA wide event. Let’s blame and pile on the mayor and council.
Councilor Stolte asked this most pertinent question of residents – are you ready and willing to pay the cost of infrastructure upgrades and manpower servicing costs?”
Jim, you suggest that maybe someone needs to ask what the system is supposed to handle! Handle when? A one hour period? A 12 hour period? Having got your answer how do you propose implementing and paying for the required upgrades. Are you ok with the need for the City to raise the necessary funds through property taxes and borrowing?
No, I’m not. I don’t think any resident of Burlington is ok with flooding. Though in this instance it should be noted the homes flooded in 2014 were not so impacted this year, primarily due to the water management upgrades implemented around Tuck Creek since then.
I was questioning your incorrect implied assertion that the July storm was not an unusually massive deposit of rain in a very short timeframe, which simply due to its volume overwhelmed the system in the city, as it did in many other municipalities in the GTA and in the USA. The unanswered question I asked of you is “are you willing to pay increased property taxes to help the city fund infrastructure upgrades”? Are you?
Does anyone remember if taxes were raised in 2014 / 2015 to deal with the flooding? Has that increase been baked in and are we still paying for the 2014 flood?
If there was no increase then how did the city reduce the number of homes flooded this time around, reserve funds?
The city should upgrade our infrastructure and protect us from future floods – which will happen as this amount of rainfall is no longer unusual – but rather than saying “hey taxpayers, tell us if you’re ok with paying more – ergo, stop complaining about huge tax increases in general.”
Here’s a thought: the onus should be on council to direct staff to make the improvements and maintain them as they should have been doing for years, and they should immediately start cutting on every single wasteful thing they’re funding instead. Cancel the trip to Japan for six, stop finding neighbourhood parties, cancel Food for Votes (newsflash: the food isn’t free, we pay for it), stop hiring consultants continually, freeze hiring in areas where you can, stop decorating poles, severely cut back the civic square renovation – start being not just fiscally responsible but actually go on a slashing blitz so that you can spend where it is needed most.
But it’s much easier to carry on spending like drunken sailors and saying well taxpayers, if you don’t want floods, you’ll have to pay more, because we certainly aren’t willing to spend less.
Hi David – I’m not getting into what constitutes the thresh-hold for a “1 in 100” rainfall event since there seems to be little consensus and much debate. However, to answer your question “are you willing to pay increased property taxes to help the city fund infrastructure upgrades”?
my considered response is ‘yes, if that is what is required to ensure a reasonable degree of protection against future flooding and home damage – but not as an automatically applied additional tax levy’ without rationalizing what has and needs to be done’.
We need to remember that when the Jo Brant Hospital expansion project was announced in 2010, the City committed (amongst other ad hoc funding pledges), an annual tax levy of $2.4 million. The project was completed in October of 2017 with the grand opening (hurray for the multi-jurisdictional photo op) of the new patient tower. However, the tax levy never ended. It had been included in the base tax budget and was rather quietly converted to an annual “infrastructure improvement fund”. This will have amounted to approximately $19 million dollars up to and including the 2024 budget. So, the rather obvious question is how much of this fund has been directed to the infrastructure improvements needed for more effective flood control in the wake of the 2014 “event”? I think that it is reasonable for Burlington taxpayers to request an accounting – particularly if they are being asked to contribute still more through increased property taxes.
Additionally, there are very serious questions concerning the actual efficacy of the backflow valve technology that is a fundamental piece of the City flood mitigation response since 2014/15. It would appear that these recommended features are a “mixed blessing” and may cause as much harm as they do good. As a precaution against home flooding, I believe that they are not only inadequate without the complement of many additional water management measures but may, in fact, make matters much worse unless extensive infrastructure improvements are also made. At the least, there are questions that need to be clearly answered I find that the current partial direction of “blame” to individual homeowners, by inference, implication and direct statement, is a convenient “misdirection” that has allowed the City to avoid a true accounting of its unique accountability.
So, in answer to your question – “Yes, but Dammit NO!!!!”
https://www.thespec.com/news/jo-brant-redevelopment-avoids-budget-axe/article_80f37188-59c0-50d7-9038-8ecd9010eefd.html
Hi, Blair. Happy belated birthday (I think).
Please elaborate on what potential efficacy issues you are aware of with sewer back up preventers. The preventer has a simple mechanical operation. I have Googled seeking an answer to this question and find no reported issues other than failure due to lack of maintenance/clearing any build up or obstructions flushed down the house system that might prevent the preventer closing properly in an instance of backflow. How can a backup preventer make matters worse?What “additional water management measures” are you suggesting are needed?
I think people were naive to think that the JBH tax levy would end and a tax burden reduction would happen. Whether or not a tax levy for a specific measure is identifiable or blended into the tax levy is smoke and mirrors. If the levy is needed, it is needed. Once the need ends do you really think that revenue stream will be given up.
Over the past 2 decades and more a vociferous minority has shouted for reduced or static property taxes while complaining about poorer service levels. Why these people think the City is insulated from expense pressures that hit every business and individual I cannot fathom.
Burlington time and time again is in the top 5 places to live in Canada. Why is that? Because we have excellent services, beautiful landscapes and we do indulge in “wasteful” items. One person advocated doing away with all that “wasteful” stuff. Yes, let’s have Burlington become blah, bland, Quakeristic. The only answer in my opinion is “balance”.
Editor’s note: Barker says that: Burlington time and time again is in the top 5 places to live in Canada. Why is that?
First of all the “award” comes from a magazine that wanted to improve its circulation. The Mayor at the time – Cam Jackson, got in touch with Money Magazine and asked that they revise their criteria – they were lumping Burlington in with Hamilton. When the criteria were rejigged – Burlington got a higher rating. On occasion Oakville beats Burlington. What makes Burlington what it is ? – is not a magazine rating. The city communications people (make that the public relations department) also call the city vibrant – yes when Sound of Music takes place and Rib Fest – day to day – Borington.
Burlington is built on a flood plane. It has been continuously flooding forever. The region and city are not taking this matter seriously. Maybe a class action suit will direct their attention to this ongoing issue. PS. It’s not climate change – it’s poor urban planning and flood control.