 How much longer will that open sign be lit up ?
 By Pepper Parr
July 6, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The telephones will jangle this morning – because there is a crunch coming on the transit union’s membership decision to turn down the city’s most recent offer.
Dean Manville, a CUPE negotiator brought in to oversee the talks with the city is trying to get the Ministry of Labour conciliator back into the city to take part in the next round of talks. Both the union and the city have said publicly that they want to continue negotiations.
The union has committed to giving the city 72 hours’ notice should they decide to with draw their services.
Here is where the rubber hits the road.
 Mayor might have to call a Special meeting of Council during the summer if an agreement can’t be reached with the transit workers. Council will meet this evening as a Standing Committee – and while the transit negotiations are not on the agenda there is nothing preventing anyone from asking to speak and nothing preventing the Mayor from speaking on the issue.
Whatever agreement is reached has to be ratified by Council. The offer that was put on the table was agreed upon by the city at a Special city council meeting June 30th – that offer was turned down so whatever the city decides to offer, if anything, will have to be ratified again.
The next city council meeting is July 15th – then they are off for the summer.
The tone from the union people the Gazette has talked to is not to let this situation simmer for the summer.
If the union tells the city they are withdrawing their services in 72 hours – expect the Mayor to call another Special meeting – we can see some vacation schedules being changed.
“Stay tuned”.
Background on where things stood earlier today:
 By Staff
July 6, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
In a surprisingly short media release the city announced that Burlington Transit workers, represented by CUPE Local 2723, Sunday night turned down a negotiated settlement reached by the union and the City of Burlington on June 30 and recommended to the members.
 Transit wil continue to operate while both sides return to the bargaining table. Negotiations will continue, said the city and transit services will operate as usual at this time.
In its statement the union said:
“Our members have spoken and indicated the contract offer before them did not go far enough to address their concerns,” said Dean Mainville, CUPE national representative for CUPE 2723. “We are calling on the city to resume discussions with us and explore ways to overcome this impasse.”
“We have reached out to management and asked them to return to bargaining in an effort to work out an agreement that will be acceptable to members, and prevent a service disruption that will affect transit users,” added Mainville.
CUPE 2723 represents 130 transit workers, including drivers and mechanics.
On its website the city said: “We hope the union does not choose to withdraw its services, but if they do initiate a strike, we intend to do the best we can to meet our obligations to the residents of the city and our other non-striking employees.
During a strike, unionized staff will picket in certain locations near city facilities. It is legal to picket and to attempt to persuade third parties to support a strike.
It is also legal for non-striking employees and customers to cross a picket line, to report to work or conduct business with the city.
The rights of both parties should be respected. In a strike situation, local police work with the striking workers to determine a reasonable arrangement that allows the striking workers to temporarily delay the entry of vehicles. We anticipate responsible, respectful behaviour from members of CUPE Local 2723.
Should you attempt to come to a city building and you are unreasonably delayed or prevented from conducting city business as a result of picket line activity, please speak with one of the city’s picket line monitors (wearing an orange vest) or call Service Burlington at 905-335-7803.
By Staff
June 27, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
 City manager James Ridge wants union workers to understand the issues before the walk off their jobs. In a message to the citizens of the city Burlington city manager James Ridge, who seldom makes public comments, said on the city’s web site:
The City of Burlington’s bargaining committee is scheduled to meet with the union’s bargaining committee on Monday, June 29, 2015. The city is committed to working hard to reach a resolution that is fair to our employees and responsible to our taxpayers. If we are unsuccessful, the union has advised us that we can expect a strike.
To be very clear, the city does not want a strike. Strikes are hard on everyone–union members, management, City Council and, most especially, city residents.
Before you go on strike, we urge you to understand the issues and make sure you communicate your views with your union. We simply ask that you know what is at stake and make good decisions.
 Will there be picket lines around city hall? That last sentenced had the thread of threat in it – well what are the issues and what is at stake?
Corporations are usually loath to involve media in the labour bargaining process – it muddies things up. The city is negotiating collective agreements with two unions: CUPE Local 44, outside workers and arena/outdoor pool operators, and Local 2723, Burlington Transit workers. Both unions have stated that if there is no agreement by the end of June, they will begin strike action as of midnight (12:01 a.m.) on July 2, 2015.
The unions maintain that benefits for workers over the age of 65 are written into the existing collective agreement but are not being paid. A staff member at a senior level who asked not to be named has said that the city and the outside workers are “not that far apart but that there is considerable distance between the city and the transit drivers.”
Burlington’s transit drivers earn considerably less than their counterparts in Hamilton and Oakville.
If there is a strike there will certainly be picket lines – will the inside workers cross those pickets lines.
Get ready for some disruption.
By Pepper Parr
June 17th, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The labour picture in Burlington is getting that cloudy look.
Two CUPE locals have passed the “no board report” point and are now moving on to mediation which will take place June 29th.
If they can’t settle with the city at mediation they can go on strike July 2nd.
The view among many was that the outside workers would find a way to settle with the city but the transit workers are very far apart – strike is quite likely with the bus drivers.
 The sign in the window might not say open for parts of July. The unions have one issue which they both want to see some movement on – workers over 65 do not get health and welfare benefits – even though it is apparently written into the collective agreement.
Burlington has never paid those benefits to people over 65 and is apparently now taking the position that not paying the health and welfare benefits is a past practice and does not have to be paid.
The unions claim they have served a legal notice on the city and want the benefit, as it is written into the collective agreement, paid.
The size of the health and welfare package is lower for the outside workers than it is for other union locals, according to the union.
It sounds as if the outside workers are going to use the howl that will come from the public if the pools and splash pads are shut down for July to make their point.
City Council has standing Committee meetings on the 6th, 7th and 8th of July – so they can’t just leave town. If the Outside workers strike – do the Inside workers respect the picket lines?
 This bus might stay in the garage for part of July – and not because it is out of gas. Wages are the issue for the transit workers. The union claims that Burlington transit drivers earn $7 an hour less than those in Hamilton and $3 an hour less than those in Oakville.
Putting money into transit is a hard sell in this city.
By Staff
June 8, 2105
BURLINGTON, ON
The city has a memorandum of settlement with the outside workers.
A conciliator worked with the city and the unions and reached an agreement June 4th – the agreement will go to the union membership June 9th.
That should keep the unionized outside workers, arena/pool operators on the job.
 Mayor looks at a transit schedule on a Smart phone – his hope is that transit will keep on working so that phones are needed to call a cab. Things are not going nearly as well with the transit workers who are reported to be some distance apart from where the city sees a wage settlement going.
Both unions have gone very quiet, not returning phone call or answering requests for information.
Local 44, representing outside workers and arena/pool operators, and Local 2723, representing Burlington Transit, each recently held strike mandate votes and both voted in favour of a strike mandate. Both continue to negotiate with the city.
 Why are fire fighters allowed to even think of striking? The city is also negotiating with Burlington Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 1552; that issue will get very sticky – the fire fighters have demands based on a municipality’s ability to pay which is giving municipalities across the province considerable grief.
“We are currently in negotiations with the two CUPE locals,” said Scott Stewart, general manager of Development and Infrastructure with the city. “Although each has held a strike mandate vote, this is not an actual action to start a strike. We are hopeful that we can reach a negotiated collective agreement with all of our CUPE bargaining units.”
By Pepper Parr
April 27, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Late in March, BFAST (Burlington for Accessible Sustainable Transit) held a meeting to hear what transit users thought of the service.
 Mayor Goldring decided to promote his personal use of transit by releasing a “selfie” he took while riding the bus to work. Earlier in the year BFAST put out a challenge asking members of Council to use transit one day of every week for a month. Mayor Goldring took the challenge, got himself on the front page of a newspaper and was begging to be seen as a transit advocate.
Ward 1 Councilor Marianne Meed Ward took the challenge – she didn’t get her picture in the paper but she had some very useful data – it was not good news.
As community based events go the Saturday morning session went very well. BFAST issued a Summary of their findings – the full report will come out late in May.
 The March meeting broke out into workshop groups – here the seniors discuss what works and doesn’t work for them. The Forum attracted about 90 people with much to say about their experiences using Burlington’s buses. There in the role of listeners were four of the seven members of Burlington City Council, including Mayor Rick Goldring, as well as Burlington’s MPP, Eleanor McMahon. Not present, unfortunately, was anyone responsible for designing and operating the transit system – Burlington Transit.
Positive messages from the participants can be quickly told: everyone praised the friendliness and thoughtfulness of the bus drivers, who often help passengers in unusual circumstances.
Now for the negative messages, the same problems coming up over and over again. Because of cuts to service and frequent route changes during the last three years, Burlington Transit’s system is no longer convenient, resulting in a considerable drop in ridership. And two fare increases, one in May 2013, and another to take effect in May 2015, have made it unaffordable for many potential users.
Community Development Halton Executive Director Joey Edwardh looks a little puzzled with the information Mayor Goldring has pulled up on his Smart phone To illustrate the lack of convenience, consider the schedule on the North Service Road (Route 81.) The buses operate between 6:00 and 9:30 am and between 3:00 and 6:00 pm, on weekdays only. A person who uses this route asked, “What am I supposed to do at other times of the day? It makes it difficult if I have appointments to go to.” Or, she might have added, if you have to get back from work after 6:00 pm. Further, this route has no service on Saturdays and Sundays. This is just one example among many that show how inconvenient transit service is in Burlington.
The South Service Road is even worse: although there are many hotels and businesses, as well as McMaster’s DeGroote School of Business located along this road, there are no buses to serve them.
The most recent fare increase seems to have been designed to persuade (force?) users into acquiring Presto cards. However, for many people, getting a Presto card is not as simple as saying “Hey, presto!” For some seniors and young people and for people with limited financial resources the application process is not easy, and putting money on the card can only be done online or at the three GO stations and the Downtown Terminal. Also, the initial fee of $6.00 is enough to deter some people from applying. A young person said that Presto ought to be as convenient as cash in order for it to replace cash fares.
Signage at bus stops throughout Burlington presents a problem for many, especially occasional transit users. Ideally, every bus stop should display the route numbers of the buses stopping there and the scheduled times of arrival. The reality is rather different: bus route numbers and arrival times are nonexistent. You need a Ride Guide and the ability to decipher it. It was pointed out that signage for buses serving the GO stations is quite limited.
 Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven appears to be making a point to transit advocate James Smith about how the service works. Craven did not take the BFAST challenge. Burlington Transit’s Handi-Vans provide an essential service for people with disabilities unable to use the regular bus service. Unfortunately, as BT’s nine Handi-Vans cannot handle the current demand, users must book at least a week in advance. To deal with requests at short notice, such as necessary medical appointments, taxis should be used to supplement the Handi-Van fleet when required, as is the case in Oakville. This provision would be a valuable service, as well as the taxi scrip program which many citizens would like reinstated. (For many seniors who are frail, the ride on Handi-Van is not possible due to a bumpy ride.) It should be added that several people questioned why those who are legally blind and those with low vision are excluded from using the Handi-Van service.
Another issue affecting many transit users concerns buses no longer going into Mapleview Mall and Burlington Mall. The walk from the closest bus stops to a mall entrance is not pedestrian friendly, and it can be dangerous in winter conditions, especially for people with limited mobility and for those who use walkers and wheelchairs.
Many people pointed out that the bus schedules are too tight, making it very difficult for the drivers to stay on schedule. When a driver attempts to catch up after falling behind schedule, there may be a loss of safety.
All the shortcomings of the Burlington transit system mentioned above result from a common cause: serious underfunding of transit by the City Council. It seems that the guiding principle when making decisions about transit is to save money, not to provide a good service.
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman making a point during one of the BFAST workshops. Sharman did not take the BFAST challenge Recommendations
Spend more money on transit!
Provide more frequent service and extend the hours of service.
Improve the route schedules to make good connections at GO stations and other transfer points.
Post schedules with route numbers and arrival times at all bus stops.
Make Presto cards easier to obtain and to load.
Supplement Handi-Vans with taxis when required and reinstate the Taxi Scrip program.
Community buses should be labeled as such, and promoted.
The Downtown Terminal should be staffed during all hours when buses are operating.
Provide more bus shelters and make sure they are accessible for motorized wheelchairs.
The community meeting was a success; a majority of the members of Council were in the room, what happens next? The budget for the next fiscal year has been cast in stone. The two members of council with the most fiscal prudence, Taylor and Dennison did not take part in the meeting – don’t expect either of them to move any money from their |”shave and pave” program into transit. Councillor |Sharman is not likely to become a transit advocate any time soon.
Burlington Transit seem to have convinced themselves that the several million they are going to spend on technology to gather data will solve all their problems.
The transit advocates have a long road to travel.
 By Staff
April 2, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Starting May 3, 2015, several routes and services are being either adjusted or enhanced based on public feedback and expanding service levels.
Scheduling improvements focus on a number of routes to adjust timing and connectivity as well as expansion of the Community Connection service and Handi-van service which will be expanded later this year.
 Tucked in behind the buses there is a small ticket office – the transit people talked seriously about shutting it down and sending people to city hall top buy ticket. Decisions like that – this one got killed – make one look askance when news comes out of the transit department. “A transit system that is efficient and effective is good for all, regardless of your reasons for taking it,” said Mayor Rick Goldring “Many of these improvements and adjustments are a result of public feedback. “We are constantly looking for ways to enhance services to improve the system for regular riders, as well as attract new ones.”
Improvements
• Based on rider feedback and transit data, Routes 2 and 3 will change slightly so riders will no longer need to transfer buses to continue their travel from Route 2 to Route 3, and alternatively, from Route 3 to Route 2. This will begin May 3, 2015.
• Also beginning May 3, 2015, and based on rider feedback, the schedules for Routes 10 and 20 will be adjusted to improve on-time performance.
• Burlington Transit bought a new Handi-van vehicle to meet increased service requests. The new van will be in service later this year.
• The Community Connection service will be expanded to provide a network of coverage into areas north, east and west of the city with routes meeting at the Burlington Seniors’ Centre. The service will be provided midday Monday to Friday and is served by smaller transit vehicles that will allow Burlington Transit to make stops at the entrance doors of key destination areas, such as malls and community centres.
Temporary Route Detour
• Route 1 will detour as a result of an extended construction project on Waterdown Road. The timing will be adjusted on both Routes 1 and 101 during the project, which is expected to be completed in October 2015.
We will get revised maps up as soon as they are available.
By Pepper Parr
April 1, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
It was the third in a series of transit meetings – this time it was the riders who were going to do the talking – and talk they did. They packed the Centennial room at the library and told each other what worked and what didn’t work for them.
 Six breakout groups took part in animated discussions on what works and what doesn’t work. What was not surprising was the number of positive things the public had to say about the men and women who drive the buses – and the number of drivers who give students a break when the coins in their pockets don’t equal; the demand of the fare box.
However – it wasn’t all good news.
 Joey Edwardth, on the left isn’t sure the Mayor has it figured out. A newly converted transit advocate Mayor Goldring may have an issue he can run with. Routes don’t work the way they need to work and the service is spotty much of the time.
When Bfast (Burlington friends for accessible transit) put out a challenge to the members of city council to use the bus one day a week for a month – Mayor Goldring took up the challenge and made a media event out of it. He has continued to use the bus since that kick off date for him
Councillor Marianne Meed Ward used the bus to get to a Regional Council meeting – she won’t be doing that again – close to three hours and $12+ in costs for what she says can be done in a fifteen minute car ride.
So far none of the other Councillors have taken the challenge – don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
James Smith, a consistent transit advocate said he wasn’t able to take transit to get to the meeting: “the bus schedule wouldn’t allow me to do the errands I needed to do and get to the meeting on time”.
 The public meeting for transit users broke out into different groups – these are the seniors talking about what the transit system does for them. Smith was originally concerned that the politicians would take over the meeting – that didn’t prove to be the case.
Councillors Sharman, Craven, Meed Ward and the Mayor were on hand. The Mayor has clearly gotten the message – he has a new understanding of just what the transit problems are.
Meed Ward isn’t that much of a transit user – but then she lives and works in the downtown core and can walk to almost everything she is involved in.
Councillor Sharman didn’t look like he was enjoying himself and Councillor Craven just worked the crowd.
There was no one from Burlington Transit at the event. “They were invited”: said James Smith.
 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward explains a point to one of the breakout groups. The much touted Presto pass can’t apparently be easily loaded – students found this a problem. The city had to spend a considerable amount of money to get the Presto pass service operational – it wasn’t an option and it wasn’t cheap.
The Burlington Transit system has 51 buses covering 31 routes. Coming up with a schedule that meets the needs of the ridership has been a challenge and synchronizing the bus schedule with the GO schedule has been close to impossible. GO trains come and go more frequently than the buses.
 A transit rider making a point. One of the Bfast organizers pointed out that there is apparently no one at the transit office with a long, deep background in transit – and it shows.
Signage was also described as a problem; especially when moving from the bus service to the GO service.
The biggest problem transit has is a lack of resources. The provincial gas tax rebate is devoted to transit in most municipalities – no so in Burlington. This city has a very significant infrastructure deficit and council has decided to repair the roads rather than improve the bus service.
And some of the roads are in close to desperate need of repair. The city’s namesake street – Burlington – is a mess. There are more people living on that street who drive cars and can complain than there are bus riders. And this city council knows how to listen to as few as a dozen complaints to make a change in a policy. They are certainly responsive – they need to work on being more responsible.
There is an announcement coming in May apparently on more changes to the schedule and in the not too distant future Burlington Transit will begin installing some technology that will provide them with real time information on how many people get on a bus and where they get off. It will cost millions – transit believes that with this data they can develop a schedule that will meet the needs of the bus riders.
 Everyone got an opportunity to tell their transit story – they weren’t all bad. Doug Brown, a retired engineer has most of the information the city needs in filing cabinets in his basement. A tireless transit advocate, Brown surprisingly is not used or appreciated by many members of council or the people who run the transit system.
Brown does have a style that is unique to him – but he knows what he is talking about. He is a resource that should be tapped into.
 Doug Brown, chair of Bfast, wants to see a bus schedule with routes that work for people and not the current bus route set up in place. It doesn’t work claims Brown. The city no longer has a Transit Advisory committee. The one they did have consisted of had some people who should not have been at the table; they were uninformed, rude and interested only in advancing their personal agendas. There were a few that served well – just not enough of them.
Bfast is an organization the city might think of outsourcing the advisory role to – they have a wealth of talented, informed and committed people that can help make a difference.
Councillor Craven on the right explains a point to a transit users meeting participant while James Smith on the right looks on. There should be a group of people who use the bus daily serving as a sounding board for the people who run the transit service.
Transit apparently doesn’t have a Twitter account – it does have a web site that more than does the job; it’s better than the city’s web site.
Burlington is reported to spend 50% less than comparable municipalities – and it shows.
 Bfast will produce a report once they’ve gone through the comments that came from the several breakout groups that were created. Expected to be completed by the end of April, it will be a solid, fact based report.
Getting the response it needs from city council is not a given – however, the Mayor now has a better understanding of the needs and the problem.
Can he swing the minds of his colleagues? Don’t expect to see Councillors Sharman, Lancaster Taylor or Dennison becoming transit advocates – their focus is on repairing the roads.
The public is going to have to howl louder to get what the city needs. The squeaky wheel does get the grease.
By Staff
March 29, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
REVISED:
THERE IS A PERSON ON OUR STAFF THAT WILL NOT BE GETTING A BONUS.
THE FIGURES ORIGINALLY POSTED WERE FOR 2013 – THE FIGURES BELOW ARE FOR 2014. WHEN WE GOOF, WE REALLY GOOF DON’T WE?
 $100,000 does bring out a smile. The first figure is the salary component, the second is funds paid for something other than salary that was defined as a taxable benefit.
The people shown in red are part of the Fire Department.
Council members don’t appear on the list because a large part of their income comes from the Region and that is a different list.
For some reason, none of the people at the Economic Development Corporation don`t appear on the list nor is the Librarian. No one from the Performing Arts Centre or the Burlington Art Gallery.
What is clear from this list is that public sector jobs pay very well.
The 2014 list is just a little shorter than the 2013 list.
ADCOCK ALAN Firefighter $102,031.26 $483.84
ALDHAM JUDY Field Services Supervisor $111,009.49 $2,185.06
ALLDRIDGE BRIAN Platoon Chief $125,971.19 $649.80
ANTONIOW PHIL Manager of Program Development, Budgets and Contracts $114,881.79 $636.11
AXIAK ROB Manager of Recreation Services $102,451.31 $562.56
BAKOS MICHAEL Captain $108,367.48 $570.96
BARANOWSKI DEREK Captain $102,812.05 $514.29
BARRY PHILIP Captain $108,850.00 $570.96
BATTAGLIA MARY Manager of Field Services $106,085.34 $1,248.03
BAVOTA ANTHONY Fire Chief $165,324.85 $2,974.19
BAYLOR MARK Captain $111,922.02 $570.96
BAYNTON STEVE T. Captain $111,754.92 $585.12
BAYSAN ERGUL Senior Traffic Signal Technician $100,847.25 $491.60
BEDINI CHRIS District Supervisor $110,226.37 $703.61
BENNETT RANDY Manager IT Infrastructure and Operations $117,482.38 $652.56
BERDAN MICHAEL Senior Transit Operations Supervisor $100,193.47 $458.04
BEVINGTON KIM Captain $103,733.66 $526.47
BIELSKI BIANCA Manager of Development Planning $136,058.28 $736.98
BIRCH CHARLES T. Captain $113,196.51 $585.12
BLACK JEFFREY Manager of Field Services $107,380.39 $3,169.47
BOYD LAURA Human Resource Manager $106,127.55 $595.79
BRILLON SYLVAIN Firefighter $100,768.89 $483.84
BURROWS TRACEY Manager of By Law and Administration $101,981.11 $11,207.00
CAUGHLIN DEBORAH Manager of Council Services $109,094.40 $587.86
CHOLEWKA CHRIS Captain $109,661.47 $570.96
CLARK CARY Manager of Development and Environmental Engineering $108,338.17 $592.77
COFFEY PETER Captain $109,134.34 $566.28
COULSON ANN MARIE Man Financial Planning & Taxation $131,771.98 $722.67
CRASS JOHN Manager of Traffic Services $106,951.19 $1,553.48
CRAVEN RICK Councillor $100,722.85 $562.10
DI PIETRO ITALO Manager of Infrastructure and Data Management $119,020.45 $655.90
DONATI DERRICK Firefighter $101,411.97 $495.00
DOWD TIMOTHY Captain $113,714.92 $585.12
DUNCAN JOHN Transit Manager $121,674.39 $680.72
DYKES RICHARD Firefighter $100,542.18 $509.16
EALES MARK Captain $107,463.41 $562.64
EICHENBAUM TOOMAS Director of Engineering $132,494.20 $511.91
EVANS FRANCES Manager Halton Court Administration $106,003.66 $580.83
FIELDING JEFF City Manager $163,343.09 $4,337.84
FORD JOAN Director of Finance $152,992.02 $845.42
FRYER E. TODD Firefighter $100,329.68 $509.16
GALEA KYLE Firefighter $100,919.65 $483.84
GILROY GERALD Firefighter $100,314.51 $485.36
GLENN CHRISTOPHER Director of Parks and Recreation $142,035.88 $758.76
GLOBE DARREN Captain $108,598.54 $570.96
GOLDRING PATRICK Mayor $170,025.95 $2,927.50
GRANO FRANCES Manager of Strategic Information Technology Service Delivery $101,898.44 $568.61
GRISON GREGORY J. Captain $111,754.92 $585.12
HAMILTON SCOTT Manager Design and Construction $116,702.59 $642.75
HAMMER CHAD Captain $105,795.32 $544.74
HAMMOND BILL Fire Training Supervisor $111,519.22 $567.96
HAYES DENNIS M. Platoon Chief $124,167.54 $649.80
HEBNER PETER B. Captain $113,567.52 $585.12
HURLEY BLAKE Assistant City Solicitor $133,679.42 $649.80
JAMES MICHAEL Fire Training Officer $101,861.64 $570.96
JARVIS DAWN Manager of Fire Communications & Admin $104,927.27 $575.94
JONES SHEILA City Auditor $129,085.03 $680.64
JONES STEPHEN Captain $106,570.42 $556.92
JURK ROBERT Senior Project Manager $105,669.95 $585.12
KELL DONNA Manager of Communications $114,981.30 $638.52
KELLOGG GAVIN Supervisor Golf Course $108,587.82 $552.16
KELLY JOHN Captain $110,066.14 $570.96
KOEVOETS MATT District Supervisor $118,371.00 $1,142.13
KRUSHELNICKI BRUCE Director Planning and Building $159,392.67 $891.60
KUBOTA ERIKA Assistant City Solicitor $134,953.30 $652.56
LANCASTER BLAIR Councillor $100,722.85 $562.10
LAPORTE N. JASON Captain $107,951.53 $570.96
LASELVA JOHN Supervisor Building Permits $104,601.68 $582.72
LEGG TRACIE Manager Business Services $101,413.14 $564.55
LONG MARK Captain $113,601.59 $585.12
MACDONALD GARY F. Captain $112,659.31 $585.12
MACKAY MICHAEL J. Captain $111,754.92 $585.12
MAGI ALLAN Executive Director of Corporate Strategic Initiatives $180,473.51 $982.32
MALE ROY E. Executive Director of Human Resources $180,372.37 $1,012.56
MARTIN CHRISTOPHER Captain $106,638.03 $556.92
MATHESON JAMIE Firefighter $100,887.23 $483.84
MCGUIRE CHRIS District Supervisor $108,192.88 $683.50
MEED WARD MARIANNE Councillor $100,722.85 $562.10
MEEHAN DAVID Firefighter $102,019.98 $510.10
MERCANTI CINDY Manager of Recreation Services $113,924.30 $473.50
MINAJI ROSALIND Coordinator Development Review $101,438.02 $568.14
MONTEITH ROSS A. Deputy Fire Chief $145,953.17 $1,372.72
MORGAN ANGELA City Clerk $143,711.02 $770.03
MYERS PETER R. Captain $111,754.93 $585.12
NICELIU KENNETH Firefighter $102,254.95 $509.16
NICHOLSON J. ALAN Captain $111,754.92 $585.12
O’REILLY SANDRA Controller and Manager of Financial Services $110,567.13 $604.47
PEACHEY ROBERT Manager Parks and Open Space $114,401.18 $633.57
PHILLIPS KIMBERLEY General Manager $185,505.87 $7,599.39
POLIZIANI MATTHEW Captain $107,805.24 $556.92
REID DAVID Fire Prevention Officer $101,295.09 $556.92
REILLY PETER Captain $111,754.91 $585.12
ROBERTSON CATHARINE Director of Roads and Parks Maintenance $149,458.02 $1,403.87
ROESCH GORD CHARLES Fire Training Officer $101,821.02 $542.88
SCHMIDT-SHOUKRI JASON Manager of Building Permit Services and Chief Building Official $133,681.16 $748.20
SHAHZAD ARIF Senior Environmental Engineer $102,105.76 $567.67
SHARMAN PAUL Councillor $100,722.85 $562.10
SHEA NICOL NANCY City Solicitor $172,124.38 $836.38
SHIELDS LISA Assistant City Solicitor $136,246.06 $651.90
SLACK CRAIG D. Platoon Chief $126,694.90 $649.80
SMITH CLINT Platoon Chief $125,523.38 $649.80
SMITH SIMON Firefighter $100,300.17 $495.00
SPICER MIKE Director of Transit $129,920.15 $721.53
STEIGINGA RON Manager of Realty Services $112,646.26 $619.76
STEVENS CRAIG Senior Project Manager $103,459.71 $568.88
STEWART SCOTT General Manager $227,077.25 $9,381.94
SWENOR CHRISTINE Director Information Technology Services $156,493.35 $876.68
TAGGART DAVID Manager Facility Assets $112,157.40 $462.71
THANDI JAZZ Manager Procurement Services $107,953.94 $592.99
VRAKELA STEVE Field Services Supervisor $105,436.15 $1,920.30
WEBER JEFF Deputy Fire Chief $116,019.23 $7,670.64
WHEATLEY RYAN Captain $110,028.42 $570.96
WIGNALL T. MARK Firefighter $101,647.73 $509.16
WINTAR JOSEPH Chief Fire Prevention Officer $110,961.56 $621.60
WOODS DOUGLAS S. Captain $113,128.08 $585.12
ZVANIGA BRUCE Director of Transportation Services $153,951.49 $787.56
 By Staff
March 25, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Now that travelling transit is about to experience a sharp increase in ridership – heck the Mayor takes the bus to work now – Burlington’s Friends and supporters of Transit (Bfast) wants to pull together people who have used transit and hear what they have to say about the service.
 This is the third public meeting Bfast has held – their purpose has been to focus attention on transit in a city that hasn’t taken to that mode of transportation.
Bfast has had the view that city council isn’t really transit friendly – the Transit Advisory committee was shut down and some of the gas tax money the city gets from the province got put into infrastructure repairs rather than transit.
The first Bfast event had Paul Bedford, a former chief planner for Toronto and a strong transit advocate spoke about Transit from an overall GTA wide Lets-Just-Get-On-With-It point of view.
The second session was a Panel Discussion with a City Councillor Rick Craven,
a VP from Metrolinx, MPP & Legislative Assistant to the minister of Transportation, Mike Colle, Burlington Green, and journalist Lorraine Sommerfeld
 There was a point during the last term of council that the city looked seriously at the idea of closing the small ticket office – that led many to wonder how serious the city is about transit. If there was ever a place to locate a transit terminal – that would be John Street where the only terminal in the city is now located. This third public meeting they are attempting to shift the discussion to make it user focused. Bfast wants to be able to take the experiences of those who attend the meeting and work them into a set of Good, Bad, Ugly bits that we can then package up into recommendations for how to improve Burlington Transit.
There are 50+ registrations including the Mayor, and Councillor Paul Sharman plus the city’s MPP Eleanor McMahon.
Share your experiences and what it is like for you riding the bus with Burlington Transit
Share your ideas for improving transit and special transit
Register at electronically or by phone – 905-632-4774.
Complimentary continental breakfast provided.
By Pepper Parr
March 5, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Ontario is proposing reforms to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act that would give residents a greater say in how their communities grow and would provide more opportunities to fund community services like transit and recycling.
 City planner Bruce Bruce Krushelnicki will undoubtedly applaud the proposal the have Official Plan Reviews done every ten years instead of the current five. The proposed Planning Act changes, if passed, would:
Ensure residents are better consulted at the beginning of the planning process for new developments.
Encourage residents to provide feedback on the future of their communities.
Help municipalities resolve potential planning disputes earlier, reducing involvement of the Ontario Municipal Board in local disputes.
Extend the review of new municipal official plans to 10 years, instead of the current five-year cycle.
 If passed the Bfast people (Burlington for Accessible Transit) will burst with Joy! – and probably have to have Pacemakers installed to still their beating hearts.
Burlington has always had a confusing relationship with transit – most people don’t use it – and council doesn’t like spending for a service that isn’t used all that much
Changes to the Development Charges Act, if passed, would:
Help municipalities recover costs for transit services and waste diversion.
Create clear reporting requirements for capital projects municipalities financed though development charges, as well as section 37 of the Planning Act related to density bonusing and parkland dedication.
Working groups of stakeholders will review and consider further more complex land use planning and development charges issues, and propose solutions.
The proposed amendments are based on input from across Ontario including more than 20 public workshops and stakeholder meetings held from October 2013 to January 2014.
More than 1,200 submissions on the land use planning and appeal system, and the development charges system were received during the reviews.
Approximately 200 of Ontario’s 444 municipalities use development charges.
 Province appears to want more public input on transit decisions – might mean crating a new transit Advisory Committee. We scrapped the one we had. The announcement from the provincial government this morning are proposals that will have to be debated and it will take some time for them to work their way into the way business is done in the province. If passed they have the potential to make significant changes in the way transit development gets done and the rile the public can play.
The question left hanging for Burlington on this one is: Will we have our Official Plan revised and voted on before the province makes these proposals law?
Ten years between Official Plan reviews must have resulted in huge sighs of relief in the city’s planning department.
By Pepper Parr
February 27, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Ontario is celebrating the 10th anniversary of the largest permanently protected greenbelt in the world and looking to the future by reviewing the land use  plans of southern Ontario. The Greenbelt protects farmland, green space and clean water.
Our Escarpment is a part of this review.
The Province will hold public consultations, across the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Greenbelt area, on the review of four provincial land use plans to grow the Greenbelt, protect prime agricultural land, build transit friendly communities and support economic development. The province will undertake a co-ordinated review of:
• The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
• The Greenbelt Plan
• The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
• The Niagara Escarpment Plan
In addition to public consultations, like town hall meetings, Ontarians will also be able to comment through the Environmental Registry.
 David Crombie, former Toronto Mayor and one of the best friends Burlington has seems pained at Mayor Goldring’s comments.fourth The review, which is expected to be complete by early 2016, will also benefit from the input of an expert advisory panel, chaired by David Crombie, former federal cabinet minister and former mayor of Toronto. Other panel members include:
Keith Currie, Vice President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Rae Horst, former CAO, Credit Valley Conservation Authority
John MacKenzie, Commissioner of Planning, City of Vaughan
Debbie Zimmerman, CEO, Grape Growers of Ontario
Leith Moore, Senior Vice President, Urban Fieldgate Homes
Having this review panel chair by David Crombie is good news for Burlington. Crombie has been a friend of the city for years and in the past has chided Burlington for not doing all that it could do to ensure there is a consistent Waterfront Trail.
Burlington recently agreed to sell of some prime waterfront property along the edge of Lake Ontario between Market and St, Paul Streets because it didn’t believe there was any real potential for a trail continuation in that part of the city.
 The Escarpment is what gives us a large part of our identity. While the waterfront isn’t within the mandate for a Greenbelt review it is the waterfront and the Escarpment that define this city.
Burlingtonians know that there are still bureaucrats within the Ministry of Transportation who want to push a road through that part of the city
Citizens are invited to make comment on the Environmental Registry. Click here to get to the Registry – and if you can make any sense of it – tell us how you did it.
 By Pepper Parr
February 24, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The budget was done – out came the rubber stamp – but they didn’t use it. There were a couple of minor amendments.
There was one delegation – the Marsden’s saying they had researched James Ridge the new manager and they approved of him.
City taxes for Burlington home owners will increase 3.64% over what they were last tear.
 Dennison, on the left, explaining the budget to a resident. Dennison felt the revenue side of the budget could have been increased by $400,000. The decision to adopt the budget was not unanimous – Councilor Dennison had wanted to add two revenue items – each worth $200,000 to the budget. His colleagues didn’t agree with him – so Jack decided he would not vote for the budget.
The city media release calls the 2015 operating budget one with a continued focus on ensuring cost effective service delivery, strategic investment in infrastructure and additional funding to address climate change events such as the ice storm and August 2014 flood.
2015 marks the first time the budget has been presented in a new service-based budget approach. Budget highlights include:
Aligning existing service delivery costs with inflation.
Not sure how an increase of 3.64% is described as aligned with inflation which is currently less than 2%
An additional $1.745 million of funding dedicated to the renewal of the city’s aging infrastructure
$4.5 million of funding for flood mitigation measures
$900,000 to expand transit service and increase support for Heritage, the Sound of Music Festival and the Art Gallery of Burlington.
“This budget is based on services rather than by departments. It gives a more transparent view of how tax dollars are invested and that is significant,” said Mayor Rick Goldring. “Once again, staff and City Council have found a way to balance the excellent quality of life we enjoy in Burlington with the long-term financial planning we rely on, all the while keeping taxes competitive with other municipalities.”
The Mayor chose not to mention that the twenty year forecast has tax increases at the 4% level for a long time.
The 2015 Budget includes a 3.64 per cent increase in the city’s portion of property taxes. When combined with Halton Region and the boards of education, the overall property tax increase is 2.06 per cent or $18.08 for each $100,000 of residential urban assessment.
That statement is true – but it is also very misleading. Burlington has zero impact on the education budget – that is set by the province. Burlington’s director of finance gets a number from the province and is told how much to collect and where to send it.
 Not much different with the Region. Burlington sends seven people to the 21 member Regional Council. We have input, we have some sway – but not as much as Oakville, even though they have the same number of representatives on the Regional Council – they are just much more effective than the Burlington members.
Burlington’s city council is responsible for Burlington’s budget and it is that on which their performance should be measured.
It is confusing to give out a number that is not ours.
They used to call a person who gave out misleading information a “flim flam” man.
Telling people the tax increase is 2.08% more than it was the previous year is true – but we can’t take credit for that. We are responsible for the 3.64 % increase in our own spending.
By Pepper Parr
December 30, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
The city is taking a different approach to the way they present their budget to the public and a significantly different approach to how staff work with the funds they are given to use.
In an effort to show tax payers where the money is going and the value gotten from the spending the city is now setting up budgets based on the service delivered rather than on just the department that that does the spending.
 This approach has introduced a significantly different business process management and brings forward a phrase you are going to hear a lot of from your council member: Results Based Accountability – the city wants you to know that staff will be accountable for the results they deliver.
Not quite sure how that phrase would be applied to the pier. Several council members expressed concern and surprise over how many people in their wards had not ever been to the pier. Yet we spent more than twice the original price of $6 million – and I’ve yet to hear any Council member even mention the word accountability let along accept any responsibility for the thing – which the public appears not to care all that much about.
The city has released a draft budget that will call for a tax increase of 3.55% in 2015 – a little higher than inflation isn’t it?
Included in that budget are nine business cases for new, or improved or upgraded services. Each business case sets out the argument for the expenditure.
One of the nine business cases is about transit – a service expansion, an upgraded Community Connection will cost $337,000, add three Full time employees (FTE’s) and tack on one quarter of one percent to the tax levy.
This service is designed to connect the places where seniors live to the places seniors want to travel to. The Seniors’ Centre would be the hub for this service.
 There is nothing fancy about the place. It’s simple, serves the purpose with a bus stop almost outside the door and plenty of parking. The site will become a bit of a mobility hub for the Community Connection the city proposes to upgrade. There is a Community Connection service that runs just two days a week – the proposal is to make this a Monday to Friday service running from 10am to 3 pm with additional links added to the service.
The Business Plan approach requires that the potential benefits and risks be spelled out and that what the metric for success will be. Smaller buses will mean lower fuel costs (lower gas prices aren’t going to hurt either) – the risk at this level is defined as low.
The Business Plan approach requires staff to explain “How Success will be measured”. Here they set the bar so low that they can’t possibly fail. Transit staff talk in terms of an additional 8 boarding’s each hour on the route. The service, if approved, will run for five hours each day –and they call success a total of 40 boarding’s during the week. That seems like an almost incredibly low number. It gets taken up to 14 boardings an hour in 2016.
Included in the nine new business cases is an $84,000 expenditure for 3D Visualization software – which the city should have bought five years ago. It’s a minor expense but the business case doesn’t tell the full story. There doesn’t appear to be any allocation for staff training nor is there any mention of ongoing upgrades to the software – and with software there are always upgrades.
 The terminal on John Street where many of the bus service transfers are made is to be made one of the mobility hubs in the city. Still a lot of thinking to be done on how the parking lot gets integrated into the plan. The benefit to the city is they will have a tool that will allow them to create images of the growth of the community. “Building on existing models” the business case made adds that “the downtown will be completed first with other mobility hub areas and intensification corridors to follow”. Mobility hubs are points in the city where different transportation modes come together: the GO stations at Aldershot, Burlington and Appleby Line are the prime identified bubs at the moment with the John street terminal added. There are many that believe there should be an additional hub somewhere near the top of Appleby Line.
 Six properties were assembled in a part of the city that is to some degree isolated – they’ve basically nothing in the way of parks – and crossing the railway tracks is one way this community gets its daily exercise.  Those six properties in the Queensway shown above were assembled, houses demolished and 54 units built. would 3D modelling have let the public know how massive the change was going to be? The 3D models will be used for public engagement, council meetings and visioning exercises. “One of the central elements of the project will be the ability to build the model by requiring builders and developers to submit images of proposed and completed development projects for import to the model.
 An example of 3D rendering. The software used to create the image allows the image to be seen at different angles and elevations. Creatively used it can be a very effective tool. The Capital Works department says “success will be measured by” Customer satisfaction but it isn’t clear just who the customer is. The developers are not going to like the additional expense. They might want access to the model – will the city give it to them?
Heck – the Gazette would like access to that model.
The other two success criteria are “Model Utilization” and the “% of Complaint submissions”. So they have thought of the complaints that will come in. Interesting.
Each business case is required to set out the potential risks and benefits and what the probabilities of each actually are. The benefit/risk probability for the project is high if the project proves to provide an effective tool to assist Council and the public to visualize alternate development proposals.
Not implementing the service is given a medium probability due to the “lack of community support and understanding of intensification”.
 And that is what this $84,000 expenditure is really all about – showing the public what intensification will look like before it gets shoved down their throats.
By Pepper Parr
November 15, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The 2015 budget will take a significantly different approach in the way it is presented to the public. There will be a focus on Results Based Accountability with the service delivered more easily identified and understood. Tax payers will see the service; its cost and who is responsible for delivering that service efficiently and effectively. The first step in getting to that point was to create an inventory of services delivered to the public and to place them in categories for administrative purposes. What the city actually does for you is set out below.
What has city hall done for you lately? How about changing that to – what does city hall do for you anyway? And for that there is an answer.
 Just under 1000 people working full and part time deliver 25 different services to the public. The building they work in can no longer hold them all. They call it their Portfolio of Services – which is a list of all the things the city does for you. Burlington has what city hall calls an Insight Panel – which is a group of people who answer questions the city poses on the development of a service or a policy. It is a relatively small group of people but it does serve as a good sampling – it includes the balance needed to include gender, location, income, education, home owner or renter. The important part is the city doesn’t know and never will know who you are – they just know what you are.
The city used the Insight Panel to ask some questions about the portfolio of services. It wanted to know how well people understood the names given to the service and the description of the service.
The information being gathered is the first step towards Service Based Budgeting and Results Based Accountability.
The city will assign responsibility for the efficient and within budget delivery of each service and in time will ask the public if they want to continue spending a specific percentage of the budget and a set dollar amount on a specific service.
The following is a list of the services the city delivers.
Building Code Permit & Inspection Service
Development Review Service
Parks & Open Space Design & Development Service
Cultural Service
Organized Sport Support Service
Recreation Service
Council & Citizen Committee Service
Service Burlington
Cemetery Service
Parks & Open Space Maintenance Service
Roads & Sidewalk Maintenance Service
Street Lighting Service
Surface Water Drainage Service
Tree Management Service
Animal Control Service
By-Law Enforcement Service
Emergency Management Service
Fire Protection Service
Halton Court Service
Roads & Structures – Design & Construction Service
Parking Management Service
Traffic Operations Service
Transit Service
Transportation Planning Service
Winter Control Service
Each of these services will be put into a category – the city wanted to know what the panel thought about the six categories they had created and if a specific service should be in a particular category.
674 people were invited to take part in the survey; 385 started and 252 completed what was a long and at times complex survey.
In the report summary staff reported:
What We Learned
• Providing a visual reference, such as a picture, helps the public identify with a service; however, it is important the pictures truly represent the service to avoid confusion.
• The word “service” is over used and redundant.
• Descriptions must be clear and use easy-to-understand language.
• Categories must be well defined and their use must be clear.
What We Will Do
• Work with our service owners and communications partners to identify the appropriate pictures to associate with the service.
• Eliminate the word “service” from the service name.
• Work with our service owners to ensure clear and use easy-to-understand language is used in the descriptions and in other information related to the services.
• Use the comments from the panel to prompt discussion with service owners to refine our services.
• Revisit the category names and the categorization to refine based on feedback.
Of those who completed the survey the city wanted them to comment on the following:
Clarity: There were more favourable comments than unfavourable comments; that is, 70% were favourable and 30% were unfavourable. Of the favourable comments, 42% referred to the overall view being easy to follow.
Of the 30% unfavourable comments, the majority of these comments reflected the redundant use of the word “service” and the lack of clarity in the category names representing the services.
Format: There were more unfavourable comments than favourable comments; that is, 73% were unfavourable and 27% were favourable. Of the unfavourable comments, 28% related to the font size (e.g. being too small) and 20% referred to the need for the visual to be more appealing.
Completeness: There were only unfavourable comments related to completeness. The majority of the comments related to the catalogue not being complete with all services including reference to services provided by the Region of Halton.
Six categories were created with like services clustered together in a single category.
1) Design and Build; 2)Maintenance; 3)Roads and Transportation; 4)Leisure; 5)Local government support; 6) Public Safety and asked if a service belonged in a specific category.
Design & Build Category
Building Code Permit & Inspection Service: Over 70% of the respondents indicated the name and description were suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 75% of respondents selected the Design & Build category.
Development Review Service: Less than 50% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and slightly more than 55% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 75% of respondents selected the Design & Build category.
 This is a little park that the public may never see – staff thought the city should lease the land on the edge of the lake between Market and St. Paul streets – council has decided to sell it – but that’s not a done deal yet. Parks & Open Space Design & Development Service: More than 60% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and slightly more than 55% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 60% of respondents selected the Design & Build category.
Leisure Category
Cultural Service: Less than 50% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and less than 60% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 75% of respondents selected the Leisure category. Seven respondents made specific comments that the Cultural Service name was too vague.
Organized Sport Support Service: Slightly less than 65% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and slightly more than 65% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 90% of respondents selected the Leisure category.
Recreation Service: 75% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and more than 70% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 80% of respondents selected the Leisure category.
Local Government Support Category
Council & Citizen Committee Service: Slightly less than 60% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and slightly less than 65% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to
 Residents gather to review a budget that the city has basically already made up their mind about. Some want a more open, transparent budget process. Results Based Accountability could be a first step towards this happening. place the service into a category, over 90% of respondents selected the Local Government Support category. Six respondents made comments indicating the service description should highlight citizen committees.
Service Burlington: Slightly less than 55% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and only 40% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 75% of respondents selected the Local Government Support category. Thirteen respondents made specific comments indicating the name and description were too vague.
Maintenance Category
Cemetery Service: Over 70% of respondents indicated the name and description were suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, fewer than 40% of respondents selected the Maintenance category and almost 35% indicated that it did not fit into a category. Five respondents made comments indicating Cemetery Service does not fit well into a category.
Parks & Open Space Maintenance Service: Over 75% of respondents indicated the name and description were suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 75% of respondents selected the Maintenance category.
 That’s certainly surface water drainage. Roads & Sidewalk Maintenance Service: Over 75% of respondents indicated the name and description were suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, 60% of respondents selected the Maintenance category, while over 30% selected the Roads & Transportation category.
Street Lighting Service: Over 80% of respondents indicated the name and description were suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, 50% of respondents selected the Maintenance category while over 35% of respondents selected the Roads & Transportation category.
Surface Water Drainage Service: 75% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and over 70% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 70% of respondents selected the Maintenance category. Three respondents made specific comments indicating the description was unclear.
Tree Management Service: Over 75% of respondents indicated the name and description were suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 85% of respondents selected the Maintenance category. Three respondents made specific comments indicating the name should be more descriptive and include the loose leaf pick-up program.
Public Safety Category:
Animal Control Service: Over 80% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and over 70% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, approximately 50% of respondents selected the Public Safety category, while 25% of respondents felt it did not fit into a category and another 20% of respondents selected the Local Government Support category. Two respondents comments indicated the description was unclear and should be expanded and three respondents’ comments indicated it did not fit into a category.
 That hill of land fill that no one really knows where it came from was done without an approved site plan. The city had to go to court to force the Air Park owners to comply. They have yet to do so. By-Law Enforcement Service: Over 75% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and slightly less than 70% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, less than 50% of respondents selected the Public Safety category, while over 25% of respondents selected the Local Government Support category. Three respondents’ comments indicated this service should be merged with Parking Management Service.
Emergency Management Service: Close to 75% of respondents indicated the name and description were suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, more than 70% of respondents selected the Public Safety category. Two respondents’ comments indicated the name was unclear.
Fire Protection Service: Over 85% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and almost 75% of respondents indicated that the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, more than 90% of respondents selected the Public Safety category. Two respondents’ comments indicated the description was unclear.
Halton Court Service: Over 65% of respondents indicated the name and over 70% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, less than 55% of respondents selected the Local Government Support category, while over 20% selected the Public Safety category and another 20% of respondents indicated it did not fit into a category. Two respondents’ comments indicated Halton Court Service did not fit into a category and three respondents’ comments indicated the name was vague.
Roads & Transportation Category:
Roads and Structures Design & Construction Service: Less than 70% of respondents indicated the name and description were suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, slightly less than 60% of respondents selected the Roads & Transportation category, while approximately 35% selected the Design & Build category.
Parking Management Service: Slightly over 80% of respondents indicated the name was suitable and slightly over 75% indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 60% of respondents selected the Roads & Transportation category. Three respondents’ comments indicated this service should be merged with By-Law & Enforcement Service.
 Traffic barriers in place on LAkeshore for the Car Free Sunday last year were expensive and not really used. The event was poorly attended. An opportunity for better traffic management. Traffic Operations Service: Over 60% of respondents indicated the name and over 65% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, over 65% of respondents selected the Roads & Transportation category, while 20% selected Public Safety category. Five respondents’ comments indicated the name was unclear.
Transit Service: Over 80% of respondents indicated the name and over 75% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, slightly less than 85% of respondents selected the Roads & Transportation category.
Transportation Planning Service: Slightly less than 65% of respondents indicated the name and slightly less than 60% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, more than 65% of respondents selected the Roads & Transportation category, while over 20% of respondents selected the Design & Build category. Four respondents’ comments indicated the description was unclear.
 One of the more than 25 pieces of equipment out clearing the primary roads – on this day they were out at at 3 am. Winter Control Service: Over 70% of respondents indicated the name and over 80% of respondents indicated the description was suitable. When asked to place the service into a category, less than 50% of respondents selected the Roads & Transportation category, while over 30% of respondents selected the Maintenance category. Seventeen respondent comments specifically indicated winter cannot be controlled.
This is what your city does for you. In a couple of months they will tell you how much of your money they want to pay for these services.
The budget that is presented for 2015 will be quite a bit different than what the public saw for 2014. The Gazette will report on all the changes.
 By Ray Rivers
November 8, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
 The Roman Senate – not what we have in Burlington. The political party is an essential component of representative democracy. The Athenian (Greek) model of direct democracy allowed everyone to get into the act, but that is an impossibility in todays busy, modern, and heavily populated world. So we are stuck with political parties, warts and all.
Parties make it easier for the voter to choose, particularly in a bi-cameral system such as the US has, with Republicans or Democrats the only choice on election day. Americans, tired of Obama’s leadership, swept his party’s representatives out of office and replaced them with Republicans in this week’s congressional elections. And in almost all cases voters were electing the party, not the person.
 Councillors Rick Craven and Marianne Meed Ward are both known Liberals but there is precious little they agree on. Parties also make it easier for the candidate to present him/her self and to identify issues. The party system simplifies choice, since formal party platforms offer voters a clear choice among competing philosophies of governance. This may be one of the reasons why voter turnout is consistently higher in provincial and federal elections than for municipal elections where parties are banned (in Ontario).
Of course, municipal issues are pretty mundane stuff. Dealing with zoning, stop signs, speed limits and development proposals isn’t as sexy as sending CF-18’s into action over Iraq, or ramming an oil pipeline through environmentally sensitive land. Still these local issues matter to residents concerned with transit, development charges, local taxes and urban sprawl.
But I’ve never understood voting for school trustees? Isn’t education policy delivered and delivered by the Province? Wouldn’t the administration of schools and children’s transportation be best left to the local authorities (cities) where they are situated? And isn’t it already confusing enough for voters to have to deal with choosing a mayor and ward councillor, in addition to potential referenda questions. Perhaps internet voting will help facilitate this process.
Parties do a lot of the legwork for the voting public by screening candidates, training them in fulfilling their duties and disciplining them when they screw-up. For example, Trudeau has just removed two MP’s from his Liberal caucus over accusations of sexual harassment. Unlike individual candidates, the party candidate not only represents him/herself but everyone else connected to the party – their ideals, principles and policies. Rob Ford would never have lasted as long as he did were he representing a respectable political party.
 New candidates in every ward, many that were very credible – but Burlington voters decided they were happy with what they had – well at least just over 30% were happy and actually voted. To look at last week’s municipal election results one couldn’t be blamed for thinking they’d been voting in Russia or Syria, if only because the results are mostly a foregone conclusion. Well, except for Toronto where the Ford brothers did make for a colourful election. Incumbents normally have a huge advantage running as individuals because their names have been made familiar in the media and they have no official daily opposition to challenge them.
In addition, new candidates face an uphill battle, particularly if the electoral field is huge as it was for Toronto’s mayor, with over 50 contestants. Then there are all those local issues which can leave newbies vulnerable in candidates’ debates, depending on their exposure. Funding and organizing a campaign can also serve as huge barriers for a potential new candidate.
Jack Layton attempted to bring party politics into Toronto many years ago with his Metro NDP. Lacking political infrastructure, like an Elections Toronto, his venture ended up working out a lot like Ford Nation – it didn’t. Montreal and Vancouver have had successful, working political parties, which for the most part are independent of those at the senior levels. One wonders how Ontario’s best known perpetual incumbents, Mississauga’s Hazel McCallion and Milton’s Gordon Krantz, the queen and king of urban sprawl, would have fared in a partisan environment. At least the development issue might have received more public airing.
 Angelo Bentivegna and Jivan Sanghera in discussion after the ward debate An important consideration is how to keep good people wanting to compete for municipal offices, though the odds seem stacked against them. Not that long ago municipal elections were held every two years, then it got bumped to three, and now it is four. The longer the period between elections, the less the chance for new people to get involved. And then Ontario experienced a spate of municipal consolidations through forced amalgamations in the 1990’s which ended up reducing council positions and, thus, opportunities.
In Burlington all those who spent their time and money to challenge the existing council ended up going home disappointed this year. That might still have been the case were there political parties for voters to choose from, rather than just somebody’s name. We’ll just hope that these people who committed themselves to public service don’t all give up even though it’ll be four years before they can try again.
 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.
Direct Democracy More Parties Duties of Trusties Even More Parties Montreal Parties
Toronto Parties Trustees More Toronto Parties Councillor Duties
Hurricane Hazel E-Voting Metro NDP Vancouver Parties
 By Pepper Parr
October 26, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
If the incumbent in ward 2 is beaten October 27th – it will be the upset of the year.
There are two challengers; one who we suspect has been put up to running and the other should find a new hobby.
Marianne Meed Ward is what the commercial people call a “disrupter” – she wants to change the way the city operates and she wants to get people involved. She doesn’t have much time for the social groups who feel they have influence and clout and she has no time for the vested interests.
 Meed Ward was a frequent delegator at city council meetings. Anyone wanting to run for Council in the future wants to look at her model – it works. Meed Ward cannot avoid a microphone and is like a moth to a flame when the television cameras appear. Some think she talks too much – and she does. She spoke longer than the candidate when Katrina Gould was being nominated as the Liberal choice for Burlington in the next federal election.
She drives her council colleague’s bananas – Councillor Taylor rolls his eyes frequently when Meed Ward is going on and on – and he is her friend.
However, when Meed Ward is going on she is asking the questions that need to be asked; she is asking the questions that no one else bothers to ask.
 They had every reason to be smiling. Councillors Meed Ward and Lancaster pose with five members of the Friends of Freeman Station after the Council meeting that approved the entering into of a Joint Venture that would have the Friends moving the station and taking on the task of renovating the building. She, along with Councillor Blair Lancaster, saved Freeman Station from destruction.
Council will consider a Code of Conduct which Councillor Craven wants to see in place hoping that it will keep Meed Ward out of his territory. Craven goes close to ballistic when Meed Ward talks about ward 1 issues. Craven takes the old approach to local politics – each Councillor is responsible for their ward and they keep their noses out of the others. Meed Ward sees herself as on Council to represent ward 2 specifically but she feels free to speak about issues in every ward.
She is by far the most aggressive member of Council, aggressive in a positive way; but that doesn’t make it any easier for her council colleagues to cope with. They don’t share her approach to municipal politics – she works for participation and inclusion. She is usually quite comfortable delegating and letting the people, who are going to be impacted by a decision, be part of the decision making process.
 Meed Ward wanted this project to be not more than four storeys in height to protect the character of the neighbour. The economics of the project made that impossible. Meed Ward does have problems with her understanding of economic fundamentals. She wanted the Maranatha project on New Street to be much smaller than economics of development make necessary.
Meed Ward doesn’t think the city has to change it rules so that developers can make a profit. The people developing Maranatha are certainly not your classic developer; this is a Christian organization that looks for ways to create housing that meets the needs of different groups.
The economics of buying property don’t seem to matter to Meed Ward, but they are a reality for anyone wanting to build anything. The people whose property is being bought want the best price they can get. The prices paid for the property assembled determine to a large degree what the cost of the units being offered will amount to – that economic fundamental seems to go right over Meed Ward’s head.
While Meed Ward talks about a collaborative approach to solving problems and arriving at solutions – collaboration means creating groups that can work together and it would be difficult to point to an occasion, when she has been able to work closely with her colleagues. The Freeman station cooperation was more of an exception than a rule.
It is often her against them. Like it or not, Council is made up of seven people and Meed Ward needs to work with all of them. We did not see much of that in her first term of office. She has worked closely with Councillor Lancaster on saving the Freeman Station from destruction – so it can be done.
 The Molinaro Paradigm project will change the stretch of Fairview and Brant hugely and result in major changes in future development in the area. Meed Ward also worked closely with the Molinaro’s on their Paradigm project on Fairview next to the GO station. So she can and has worked with developers.
Mayoral candidate Peter Rusin however pointed out that there are going to be just five affordable housing units in the five structure complex: “who negotiated that deal” he asked. Good question – who did negotiate that deal and was that the best that could be done.
There is a lot of fuzziness around affordable housing – how it works and where the responsibility lies for the creation of affordable units and then assuring that they remain affordable. Some leadership is needed on this – Meed Ward is the logical one to take this on – so far we’ve not seen the kind of leadership this issue needs.
According to the Meed Ward Newsletter web site: “…a number of developers have agreed to meet with residents before submitting development proposals, and in several cases they’ve modified their plans based on your input, most notably the Molinaro “Paradigm” project on Fairview. More than a dozen changes were made to that project after two public design workshops, all voluntary since the project has already been approved by the OMB.
On Section 37, she spearheaded a community conversation about the risks and benefits of using this tool, and secured a review of our Section 37 protocol which was changed to require consultation with the ward councillor to ensure public input on any benefits negotiated in your name. Meed Ward effectively took that issue out of the hands of the Planning department and put it into the hands of the residents – at least in ward 2.
Meed Ward believes “we can reach our provincial growth targets through jobs or residential units” and adds that “we need to focus on jobs downtown, so more of our residents can live and work here.
City Council approved the downtown as one of five hubs in the city for focused economic growth through the Burlington Economic Development Corporation.
 There was a time when a much larger bus terminal existed 25 yards to the left of this small terminal on John Street – it was where people met. There were fewer cars, Burlington didn’t have the wealth then that it has now. We were a smaller city, as much rural as suburban. The times have changed and transit now needs to change as well. This part of town is to become a transit hub. This same Council actually thought about closing the transit station on John Street – a mixed message if there ever was one.
And “mixed message” is the best that can be said of the ongoing efforts to create a downtown with more buzz. Shutting down traffic for car Free Sundays was a nice idea but it didn’t work in ward 2.
Meed Ward wants to see a retail attraction strategy developed.
Right on sister – now get the Burlington Downtown Business Association to do the job they are in place to do and make downtown more people friendly. They could start with a better job of getting the retailers on Brant Street to gussy the place up a bit during the holiday season. Last year’s effort was pathetic.
Meed Ward wants to “explore the feasibility” of a year-round farmer’s market downtown.” Make sure the Rotarians are involved in that discussion. They operate a very healthy market at the Burlington mall and they don’t want to see tax payer dollars taking their customers away from their event.
In the next term of council, Meed Ward said she “will get a report back on the possibility of setting up incubators for start-up businesses, including downtown.”
 A successful entrepreneur took a risk and opened up what can be called a start-up incubator. All the politicians showed up for the opening night drinks and then forgot about the place. There is a start-up incubator downtown. Meed Ward attended its flashy opening – and that was it. The city hasn’t given it an inch of support. Meed Ward argues that the city cannot favour a private venture. Rubbish. The HiVe uses a “membership” model and there is no reason why both the BEDC and the city could not have bought a couple of memberships and used them for people who are in the city and need a place to work with their computers.
 It is going to take quite a bit more than Red Bag Sales to grow the downtown retail sector. It would be interesting to see the reports on the meetings between the Downtown Business Association and the Economic Development Corporation – were there any? The EDC doesn’t seem to have figured out how to push the clutch so they can get their act in gear. Don’t hold your breath for those two organizations to come forward with a cohesive well thought out plan. There are people at city hall who have gone grey trying to develop policies and guidelines for something in the way of downtown commercial growth.
The number of new business enterprises is about the same as the number of people who either ran out of money or just plain gave up. Not very promising numbers.
The development community see Meed Ward as dangerous and describe her as such. Former city manager Jeff Fielding once said that if she had a decent handler she would be a very strong Mayor. The idea of Meed Ward being “handled” is one that is not easily embraced.
Meed Ward got herself into office by creating an organization focused on a single issue: Saving our Waterfront. That group had representation in every ward. She showed her community that she knows how to listen and they have embraced her approach.
Meed Ward brings a significantly different approach to municipal politics in Burlington. She has shown a willingness to share the power and authority she has. She gets called a “populist” for that approach.
We were never sure just what was meant by that word “populist”. Meed Ward certainly doesn’t set out to be popular. She has forced her council colleagues to stand for recorded votes; her best evening was when she forced them to stand four times.
Why every vote taken by this Council on everything at both Standing Committees and Council meetings is not recorded boggles the mind. Those men and women are chosen to lead and paid to do so. The public has a right to know what they decide and they have a responsibility to ensure the public knows what they have done.
Ward 2 is the smallest in the city which makes the task of organizing quite a bit easier. There are pockets that are not getting the attention they need. The Queensway community is an example. There is an opportunity to get some playground space for that community
 More than 100 mature trees were cut down for a development that razed 8 homes to put in 58. Bad planning. Meed Ward has spoken out strongly against the shameful Ghent Street development that took out more than 100 mature trees and then filled the property that had 8 houses with 58 units that are crammed in like sardines. Great for the developer – bad for the city overall. In time the city will come to see that the Ghent development was a serious mistake.
Meed Ward has a true sense of what a public needs to hear from a politician. During her kick off campaign event at the Art Gallery she asked people not for just their votes but for their trust. Politically that was a close to brilliant choice of words.
When she was running for office in 2010 there were a number of former politicians who were prepared to work with her, but she wasn’t prepared to listen to them. In 2010 her objective was to win the seat and position herself for a run against Cam Jackson who she thought was going to win in 2010.
Full disclosure here: I sat in on several of those early campaign meetings and was asked to play a leadership role in her campaign. I decided against playing a role – not because I didn’t think Meed Ward was a winner – it was clear that she had the potential to win. What wasn’t clear then, and still isn’t clear yet, is this: Does Meed Ward have what it takes to serve as the Mayor of Burlington? Can she develop the skills needed to serve as Mayor?
She is not there yet, but that isn’t going to stop her from trying. Could she beat Rick Goldring in 2018 – based on what Goldring did during the 2010-14 term of office her chances of winning in 2018 are better than even.
Meed Ward was more right than most people give her credit for on the pier issue. The city could have settled for much less than it did – but some smart political spin when the settlement was reached, allowed the city to come out looking like the winner.
 The pier was just a part of a longer term development that will next see a 22 storey condominium and an eight story hotel go up and possibly followed by a 28 storey tower as well.- The pier is just one part of the waterfront. There is a patch of land that is referred to as the “football” that is bound by Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road and has a reported 18 different property owners.
 The west end of the “football”, a patch of land with Lakeshore Road on he north side and Old Lakeshore Road on the south. Begging for intelligent planning. When the Waterfront Advisory Committee was in place they had plans to hold a design competition for some ideas as to what could be done with that part of the city. It was a good idea then (it was given to them by former Toronto Mayor David Crombie) and it is a good idea now. Meed Ward needs to find a way to move this from an idea into a reality. It would certainly position her very well for a run at the top job in 2018.
While that committee got shut down – they did produce some good information. They identified who the property owners were and what was possible and not possible from a planning perspective. Members of that committee learned all about “top of bank” which limits severely what can be done with the properties that line the lake along Old Lakeshore Road.
 Meed Ward used this graphic in her 2010 campaign to show what was possible within the “football”. She never dreamed that a developer would come along and ask to plunk a 28 storey structure across the street. There are significant limitations as to what can be done – but there is also significant opportunity – but nothing is going to happen without real vision and leadership from city hall. That hasn’t come from the Mayor nor has it come from Meed Ward.
Her very strong position on the possible sale of waterfront land makes it clear how she feels – there is an opportunity to put those feelings behind some concrete action in her second term.
By Staff
October 23, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Burlington Transit held a community meeting on proposed changes to Route 6 at Tansley Woods Community Centre Tuesday evening. It was not a smash hit.
Two seasoned observers, one, the best mind on transit matters the city has and Jennifer Hlusko, a current school board trustee running for the ward six council seat who always has a command of the numbers on anything she talks about, comment on the event.
Hlusko had this to say:
“I attended the City’s presentation last night about the options that City Staff are considering to response to the complaints received from Headon Forest Drive residents. I had attended the Council meetings last May to listen to the residents’ delegations.
 Jennifer Hlusko I was astounded by what I witnessed last night. The City hired a Consultant to handle this transit complaint. Dennis Fletcher, of Steer Davies Gleave, told the audience that over the past few months he has read every email and complaint received from the public. Mr. Fletcher said he was “brought in by the City to be an objective third party”.
In addition to the Consultant, I counted 8 City staff members, 23 residents, 3 Ward 6 Councillor candidates and 1 Ward 6 trustee candidate. Significantly, in the room was Mike Spicer, Director of Burlington Transit. John Duncan, Burlington Transit, was quick to tell me staff weren’t being paid overtime. That wasn’t my objection (although I expect they’ll be given lieu time).
My objection was that the City once again hired a Consultant to handle a file that staff should handle. There was nothing that Mr. Fletcher provided last night that staff couldn’t have handled themselves. Halton District School Board staff frequently lead very contentious public meetings dealing with boundary reviews and school closures.
Mr. Fletcher presented the 3 options (that were already available online), took questions from the audience then invited them to review the charts up close. Neither he nor staff would provide ridership data. To me, that is the crux of the matter. Mr. Fletcher did take the opportunity to diss the school board for downloading the problem of transporting Notre Dame Catholic SS students onto the City of Burlington. How many students ride the bus? If the route is changed to Option #1, has the administration at Notre Dame been asked how that would likely impact ridership? Does the City project that changing to Option #1 will increase ridership by providing direct access to the Supercentre mall, MMRobinson HS, the No Frills plaza, etc.? Can these projections be shared with the public?
Mr. Fletcher said that City Staff will prepare a report that will go to Council in December. If I am elected to be the Ward 6 Councillor, rest assured that I will advocate for data based decisions. Furthermore, that data is shared with the public. I will highlight for the public every time the City considers hiring a Consultant and how much it will cost taxpayers.
I invite residents to attend the repeat performance on Thu Oct 23rd at Tansley Woods. While the notice states the meeting start time is 6pm, the presentation does not begin until 6:30pm.
Here are the three options. Please note they did not include an option along Upland Drive that meets the criteria of providing transit to the Burlington Supercentre mall, but would consider it if the public requested it. Then when an audience member asked if they would consider Deer Run, Mr. Fletcher said, “We are not looking for streets to put a bus on or to take a bus off. We are trying to provide a service to meet GO times.”
The Hlusko comments were published by Hlusko on “blog” she writes almost daily
 Doug Brown and Susan Lewis look over a 1982 copy of the city’s bus schedule. Doug Brown, chair of Bfast a transit advocacy group based in Burlington made the following comments about the meeting.
Residents do not have the right to remove service from transit users. Not wanting a bus or bus stop near your home is not a reasonable request. It is strange that Council has been so receptive to moving bus stops and bus routes away from complaining homeowners, while showing no interest in the hundreds of complaints from bus users who have lost service during the arbitrary changes resulting from the “Interim Plan” of September 2012, and the wholesale route and schedule changes of November 3, 2013. Does Council have a bias against transit using citizens?
Transit routes should be determined by user needs and through a long-term, comprehensive transit plan. The November 03, 2013 changes did not meet these criteria.
Any changes made to Route 6 should be based on user needs and views – not on unreasonable requests from non-users to remove service.
Further transit changes should be based on a long-term well researched transit plan. Since the 2010-11 Transit Master Plan was aborted by the City in January 2011, there has been no long-term transit plan. The current Transportation Master Plan would have been a good opportunity to develop a long-term integrated transportation plan that would have included a balanced strategy for moving people via car, transit, cycling, or on foot. This opportunity is being missed.
In an interview the day after the meeting Doug Brown said: “To put it mildly, not a good public meeting.
The meeting had a number of non-transit using residents of lower Headon Forest and Pine Meadow. There were some transit users there, even though the Tansley Woods meeting site has hourly bus service – not great accessibility if you can’t drive there.
The meeting began with a talk by a paid facilitator who spent 25 minutes describing the three options that Burlington Transit has developed for the north end of Route 6.
I was the first person to speak from the audience, but was stopped half a minute into my statement by the facilitator and Mike Spicer on the grounds that only comments on the posted three options were allowed. Before being cut-off, I was interrupted several times by some rude residents with comments such as “have you heard the buses.”
I did at least get my first point out that no resident had the right to prevent transit from using their street, and that streets were public right of ways.
Empty buses was the theme of most of the non-transit using residents. Four transit users did speak, but it was very apparent that the NIMBY-minded residents had created a very anti-transit mood. The first transit user to speak felt compelled to apologize for his comments since they contradicted the presented empty bus claims.
Nonetheless, there were several good observations from the few transit users there. One lady recommended going back to the old #6 route which serviced Burlington Mall as well as the Fortinos plaza.
Anyway, back to my comments which I was prevented from delivering. My first point was that residents did not have the right to remove bus stops or buses from their streets. The second issue is that Transit routes should be determined by user needs and through a long-term, comprehensive transit plan. Good transit planning cannot be achieved by the ad hoc and time constrained options presented at the meeting.
My third point was that any changes made to Route 6 should be based on user needs and views – not on unreasonable requests from non-users to remove service. This is a key issue as staff and council seem to pay much more attention to non-transit users views than the needs of transit users.
And my fourth point was that further transit changes should be based on a long-term well researched transit plan. I noted that the City’s 2014 Capital Budget document shows no funding allocation for a transit plan until 2018 meaning that for the next 4 years, any transit measures will be ad hoc and not based on a sound long-term plan.
The three options presented by the City were far too limited as they ignored the central issue of lack of funding and poor service levels (one- hour headways on the north east routes). Staff has apparently ruled out any alternative that would cost more money – which rules out many potential options for better service.
A final comment – I have been attending many public meetings over a very long time. Last night was the first time I was stopped from speaking.
By Ray Rivers
October 8, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
They used to call the Ontario Progressive Conservatives (PCs) ‘the natural governing party’. Originated with the Upper Canada Family Compact of Sir John A Macdonald, the party was first led by another Macdonald, who was actually a Liberal. The PCs under one label or another have ruled Ontario for over half of the province’s post-confederation history. And interestingly the Party’s official name used to be the Liberal-Conservative Association of Ontario.
 Next May the Ontario PCs will be choosing a new leader and will get the opportunity to rid themselves of the regressive and divisive politics that characterized much of the past couple decades. Christine Elliott, the widow of former finance minister Jim Flaherty, appears to be the candidate to beat. She’s been down this road before, coming in third place to Tim Hudak in the 2009 leadership fight. Flaherty had been one of the Mike Harris’ radicals though he took on subtler, more folksy and progressive persona as Mr. Harper’s finance minister.
After Flaherty vacated his provincial seat to run federally, Elliott squeaked in to fill her husband’s shoes. She claims to be a moderate, a centrist, and unlike Hudak, was never a foot soldier in the Harris government. In fact she has been known to criticize Harris’ ‘Common Sense Revolution’ and the extreme policies of former leader Tim Hudak, policies which led to the party’s failure in the last provincial election.
There is so much political landscape for a moderate leader of the second party to explore, providing that party is focused on good government and not blinded by ideology. For example we know that balancing the budget is an exercise in offsetting expenditures with revenues. And it follows that if costs can’t be reasonably curtailed, then taxes must increase.
Ontario’s state of transportation infrastructure is in shambles – and especially so in the GTA. Former Premier John Robarts would have intervened long ago to build more public transit, so people could come out of their cars and off the roads. And that would have helped, but this is more complex than just building bus lanes, subways and GO trains – it is about urban sprawl and planning for development in Ontario.
 Bill Davis had problems learning how to balance a budget; never really did learn. Former premier Bill Davis implemented Ontario’s land planning process, calling it one of the most advanced anywhere. But for all the praise, it is not much more than a reactive system driven by unsolicited developer proposals. Only the official plans and Greenbelt represent any kind of meaningful planning. And then there is that archaic institution called the Ontario Municipal Board, which exists nowhere else and, which can overrule municipal decisions to the ‘nth’ detail of a developer’s wet dream, thus emasculating council decisions.
Finally the whole municipal system promotes corruption and influence peddling. For example, some councillors accept contributions from land developers, and then are in a position to approve their development plans. And isn’t four years is too long a term for a municipal official between elections? Term limits might encourage greater participation in the municipal process as well as reducing the amount of ‘dead wood’ in council chambers.
Fixing these things is not really a matter of being right-wing or left-wing, and neither is ensuring adequate health care, reliable energy and quality education for the Ontario public. So I welcome a new PC leader who understands that we just want good government. Isn’t that how the PC party started and evolved, at least until it went off the rails. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a choice between two middle-of-the-road parties that mostly believe in the same things for all of us?
 And don’t we get tired watching one party come to power and then cancel the programs the former one had brought in, and so on and so forth… Of course there are some universal truths. Wealth doesn’t just trickle down from the rich to the poor, which is one of the reasons we have taxation. An economy in perpetual deficit will ultimately fail to perform at all. And the profit incentive is essential to ensure economic progress.
These principles or philosophies can be located somewhere in the constitutions of both of the two major political parties in Ontario if we look hard enough. This is the heritage of the parties and also their foundation. What’s not there is how they act to achieve these goals: being moderate, reasonable, inclusive and cooperative or conflicting, contrary, exclusive and divisive.
 Not everybody always votes for the same party, except maybe in Alberta. Some voters might occasionally want to support a second party, if only for a change of blood. But that becomes difficult when partisan ‘policy wonks’ dream up striking new ideological policy planks for the party leader. You know, the kind of stuff Mr. Tory attempted with religious school funding, Mr. Hudak with slashing the civil service and the crippling the unions, and Mr. Harris by dismantling our reliable electrical generation system.
There are at least four other contenders for the PC leadership so far, and in politics anything is possible. So it may not be Ms. Elliott who wins. Hopefully the new leader will look for inspiration to the glorious days before the 1990’s when the PCs were both conservative and progressive.
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.
Links:
PCs Christine Elliott PC Leadership
Patrick Brown Candidate Hudak’s Platform
PC’s Relevant? Federal Conservative Constitution
By Carol Gottlob
September 29, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
Each week, until the ballots are cast on October 27th, we are going to follow the tales and travails of a single candidate. We have chosen Carol Gottlob, running in ward 4 against a well entrenched incumbent. Gottlob has no experience in civic government, has never campaigned before. Following this candidate is not an endorsement; Gottlob will win on her own merit.
Zoning and intensification seem to be the buzz words to get citizens and developers fired up on both sides of the issue. Developers persistently remind us that Burlington has a provincial mandate to meet regarding intensification.
There is a growing Ontario population that needs options for places to live. We get that. The numbers: Current targets call for a minimum number of new housing units to be added to the built-up area between 2015 and 2031 as 8,300.
The intensification mandate also speaks to the intent of building responsibly vis a vis existing mature neighbourhoods, so it’s not a carte blanche to simply build out without thought to consequences of high density population, not to mention affordable housing. Consideration must be given to the impact a larger population would have on public transit, traffic and road infrastructure, and social services.
 Two tower project proposed for Appleby Mall location – 16 and 11 storey structures. That Official Plan is intended to protect, preserve and help Burlington grow responsibly. I believe one of the issue with our planning is the current zoning by-laws which are too large a zoning designation, too generalized a description and not sufficiently specific to reflect the needs of the prospective sub communities within current designated zones.
These by-laws are typically set as minimums that the developers are pushing and the reality is these minimums today do not accurately reflect these sub-communities’ neighbourhoods, their character, their streetscapes or setbacks. For this reason we are seeing a multitude of sub-communities within these ‘grand zones’ rise up against ‘Monster Home’ and ‘High Rise’ development.
When I am out talking to people I hear their stories and their fears: One example of such a conversation was relating to over building on lot sizes and the impact it has to the neighbourhood character. Potential requests for adjustment to by-law zones could be a change to the side lot setback- in other words how close to the property line a person could build.
Current bylaws stipulate no closer than 3 meters (9.8ft), but the request is to move a new dwelling to 2 meters (6ft). Seems minimal on face value, but when the houses in the immediate vicinity are actually on average 4.5 meters (15ft), the new home being so close to the existing property can be daunting.
The results become very drastic to privacy, notwithstanding the impact of precedence setting when bylaws are ‘excepted’. One can quickly appreciate what a Monster Home’s impact is to a neighbourhood adorned by smaller homes on larger treed lots. It also has long reaching implications of clear cutting in the absence of what one may feel are meaningful tree by-laws.
Clearly the citizens’ needs are not being met with generalized zoning minimums that don’t reflect their sub communities’ character, or their neighbourhood needs for responsible growth. I also don’t believe developers want to lose time and money investing with planners and representation and delays going to Committee of Adjustment hearings every time they want to build; it’s just bad business.
 Indian Point underwent a character study that was abandoned. Roseland waiting for its study to be completed. This past year council has been requested to participate in numerous neighbourhood character studies (Roseland, Indian Point, Shore Acres) in an effort to offset this imbalance in the current Official Plan and subsequent zoning bylaws. Citizens are screaming to address this with expedience but the process has been way too slow, without meaningful output for these neighbourhoods or the developers.
So the two parties continue to be at odds with the absence of reflective bylaws, and some developers leveraging the intensification needs as opportunities to build big, build out and, build often while they can. We need to do better for these communities. Until the rules by which all parties’ interests are best served and enforced with some sense of consistency, we will continue to see these disputes.
Burlington is also suffering a significant imbalance in its Citizen Tax Base. We are currently 75% residential and only 25% commercial. So while we are focused on building out residential to meet this provincial mandate, we are not keeping pace with the city’s need for commercial build out. We are hemorrhaging in our ability to meet the service needs of our community. Our transit services are failing with systemic issues that we are currently only addressing through route changes, or worse, route removals and no Transit Master Plan to resolve any of it. Our main thoroughfares are congested with traffic and getting around town is becoming more and more problematic.
 Carol Gottlob, an English as a Second language teachers looked at the candidates that had nominated themselves in ward four and came to the conclusion she could do the job as well if not better than any of them – and she had no time for the incumbent. with no experience at city hall, no community experience she filed her papers and is now running hard against a 20 year member of council. Of such races are legends made. I’m hearing you residents of ward 4, and I want you to know I’m ready to advocate for you. It’s time for change, time for an Official Plan that better reflects the needs of residents and still satisfies the provincial mandates; a plan to better address the Burlington of today as well as tomorrow, one that should be reflective of the attributes that continue to attract people to our city, and we should be wary of continuing to trade on these attributes for development projects.
We need a Transit Master Plan to address the growing population, the increase in traffic, and ensure we have a strategy to have sufficient support services. We have been developing our Residential Tax Base, but at what cost? Ignoring the rest of the things our city needs to support our growing Burlington?
On the cusp of our build out, one candidate in our ward is suggesting now we should “Build Up”, but how we move forward now matters more than ever if we are to preserve the values of our environment, our character, and our city’s culture. We need projects that make sense for our community, not just today, but long term.
Links:
Maranatha project has many opposed: council approves the project, Mayor believes it is the right thing to do.
Indian Point character study.
|
|
