The magnitude of the changes in a six block area in the downtown core are quite stunning.

News 100 blueBy Staff

February 14th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

For those concerned about what is happening to their city and what the downtown core is going to look like the following numbers are pretty brutal.

22 – 23 – 24 – 26

The Bridgewater condominium will top out at 22 storeys.

The 421 Brant project has been approved for 23 storeys

The 409 Brant project (where Elizabeth Interiors used to operate) is asking for 24 storeys

The ADI Development Nautique has just has its 26 story project approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Joe Gaetan, a downtown resident who delegated against more height said: “the city is a goner”

In a prepared statement Meed Ward said:

“The OMB decision to approve the 26-storey ADI proposal at Martha/Lakeshore is devastating for the downtown. This will be the new precedent height.

“The decision referred to the Bridgewater at 22 storeys (and other tall buildings in the area); it also referred to the fact that the city had “received” other 23 storey applications (how is that relevant is anyone’s guess; these were only “applications” with no approval at the time of the OMB hearing).

“I am not confident that by rushing adoption of the proposed new Official Plan we will gain more control over planning; the proposed plan calls for 17 storeys for this site. The OMB approval is nine storeys higher. The Brant and James corners (north and south) are both 17 storeys in the proposed new Official Plan, but council approved 23 storeys on the north side and we just got an application for 24 storeys on the south side.

“Developers can, and will, continue to ask for more than what is permitted in the existing or proposed plan.

“The decision also referred to the downtown as an Urban Growth Centre and transit hub, thus the development needed to meet certain densities appropriate for those designations.

“Until we remove those two designations from the downtown (Urban Growth Centre, Mobility Hub), we will not wrestle control of planning back into the hands of staff, council and the community. (Credit goes to Gary Scobie for suggesting these designations be removed, which is what led to my motion.)

“My motion Jan 24 to move the Urban Growth Centre from the downtown to the existing Burlington GO Station Mobility Hub (as Oakville has done to protect their downtown), and to eliminate the downtown as a Mobility Hub, failed 6-1.

“In light of this OMB decision, we have to reconsider this vote. I will bring a reconsideration motion to the next Official Plan statutory public meeting (starts Feb. 27, 1pm and 6:30, extending to Feb. 28 if another day is needed)

“What can residents do? Use your democratic tools:

“There is a provincial election coming up June 7. Ask all candidates who are running if they will work with the city to remove the Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations from the downtown.

“There is a municipal election Oct. 22. Ask all candidates who are running if they will work with the region to remove the Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations from the downtown. There is still time: our new plan isn’t in effect until the Region approves it, which won’t happen until the Region begins its review of its own plan in 2019.”

In its media release the city in part said:

In its decision, … the OMB states that the city’s current land-use policy for the site does not reflect Provincial Policy.

As the OMB noted in its ruling, “the evidence suggests to the Board that the current designation is no longer appropriate for the site and a proposal that is taller and more transit-supportive is both preferable and better implements the transit-oriented and intensification policies of the province.

The OMB further notes that “While the provincial policy regime emphasizes the importance of a municipality’s official plan, there is no suggestion in the provincial policy regime that a municipality’s official plan may undercut provincial policy.”

Mary Lou Tanner, the Deputy City Manager, comments: “In light of the OMB’s ruling, it is even more important that the city move forward with the adoption of the new Official Plan. As this ruling shows, our current OP is a liability; it is out of date and is open to challenge. The area-specific plan for downtown Burlington will strengthen the city’s position on development in the downtown by replacing outdated polices with a plan that better reflects provincial policy, while also protecting the character of the city.

 

Downtown 4 projects

The black diamond shapes show where the four developments are going to be located.

Rendering with Bake Shop

409 Brant – south of James Street. Application is for 24 storeys.

nautique-elevation-from-city-july-2016

Nautique – Lakeshore at Martha – OMB approved for 26 storeys.

421 Brant

421 Brant, north side if James – city council approved for 23 storeys.

The Delta Hotel will give the city some first class convention space that could radically change the way the city is seen by the small corporate convention community. Add the Performing Arts Centre to the portfolio and the city has a good offering. Now to put a team in place that could work with the Delta Hotel organization.. We don't have that in place today.

Bridgewater development – under construction at Lakeshore and Elizabeth – 22 storey condominium

Return to the Front page

Whose interests are being served with the comments section of the Gazette?

opinionandcommentBy Pepper Parr

February 11th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

Revision were made to this story after its initial publication.  Some of the quotes were attributed to the wrong person.

We got a note from James Schofield, who tells us that he reads the Gazette and added that there was “a line in your piece on the code of contact that caught my eye.

Lancaster on bullying“Lancaster said that the incidences of harassment and intimidation have occurred both internally and externally and appear to be linked with the insurgence of social media, media, increased communication and participation with the public.

“It may be worth some reflection on the role the Gazette plays in relation to this.

“I’ve largely stopped commenting on your site. I won’t go as far as to say I’ve been harassed or intimidated, but I’ve certainly had my character and motives called into question and been the target of juvenile name-calling. Far from being a place for respectful dialog and an intellectual debate on issues and ideas, I find the Gazette’s comments are often replete with ad hominem arguments and those with entrenched ideas spewing vitriol at anyone who dares express an alternative point of view.

“So I just don’t bother trying anymore. And I suspect I’m not alone. I think that’s a problem, because as the moderate voices keep their heads down we lose out on a diversity of opinion, and the comment section increasingly becomes an echo chamber for those with a particular way of thinking.

“For example – how many commentators have written anything critical of ECoB? Or in support of council’s efforts to pass the Official Plan before the election? Even on something as banal as trying to make it easier to ride a bike around this city, few are willing to stick their necks out. Why poke the bear? Yet when I listen and talk to people in the community — many of them Gazette readers — I find a broad diversity of opinion on these matters. You’d never know it from reading the comments.

“I’m thankful you’re at least moderating comments — I can’t imagine how much junk you must filter out as it is. A real name (and ideally, validation of that name against a social media account) would be a good step. But I think the recognition that commenting on your site is a privilege, not a right, and certainly not a “free speech” right, is also important.”

We consistently have to tell people that we will not approve their comment.

In the back and forth email with Schofield we asked: Are we part of the problem? We wanted to be part of the solution.

Transit - unhappy customer

An angry old man or an unhappy transit customer?

Schofield said “I don’t know if you’re part of the problem or not. You’re at least serving a helpful role in providing some form of media coverage in a city otherwise devoid of it. But I feel there is a strong echo chamber effect, both in the comments, and in the editorial content you feature. “Aldershot resident thinks…” and the like tend to pull from the same streams of consciousness as your most frequent commentators. Can you do more to foster some diversity — both in ideology and in demographics? Can you find some female voices and some young people to complement your “angry old man has something to say” content?

Schofield makes an exceptionally good point – one that has bothered us for some time. There are some very very good comments – and boy is there ever a lot of crap that doesn’t see the light of day.  Our objective was to give people a place where their comments and ideas can be published and shared.

In the the past few days the comments on the cycling survey the city is running are a case in point. There are people on both sides who go at it day in and day out and make the same argument.

The New Street Road diet idea was a disaster in the way it was executed and I think that the views of those opposed it were part of what brought the city the point where they realized it had to be cancelled.

The idea never got a chance to have a true trial run – mostly because the city found that the road was continually under some form of construction.

New street - being rebuilt

The New Street Road Diet never got a chance to be fully tested. Poor execution on the part of the city and the Region and vociferous opposition from the car set doomed the idea.

Schofield said he did not want to “dwell on New Street but I largely agree with you. As one of the instigators of the whole saga I’ve learned a lot from the entire experience. I still think it was a sound idea, but poor execution, and a 2 km stretch that didn’t connect to anything useful on either end didn’t set it up for success. Lessons learned and we’re moving on.”

Part of the purpose of the comments section in the Gazette is for new information to come to the surface, a place where sound, rational ideas can be voiced and a place where a citizen can hold the politicians they elected to account and ensure that the bureaucrats actually serve the interests of public.

Related content:

Lancaster asks for an anti-bullying – harassment Task Force.

Return to the Front page

Long time Burlington resident can remember when there was a strong citizen's association. Wants city council to slow down on OP approval.

opinionandcommentBy Jim Barnett

February 7th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

City staff did a lot of hard work putting together Grow Bold, a draft of the new Operating Plan for the city. It now appears that they did most of their work without very much in the way of asking the citizens what they wanted in the city going forward before it was published. After it was published, they then began a number of initiatives to engage with the public to introduce the Mobility Hub concepts.

The presentations were primarily used to sell what was in the Plan, give outside pressure from other layers of government as justification for a number of the conclusions reached and to keep the time line for passage as short as possible.

Reverse town hall 1

Jim Barnett at Mayor Rick Goldring’s Reverse Town Hall.

With each passing week the citizenry became more concerned . While there were a number of meetings, there was almost no dialogue. Even in the Reverse Town Hall, a new term, dialogue was discouraged. The essence of Town Hall Meetings is to encourage dialogue!

Then the bombshell. 421 Brant went from 12 to 17 to 23 stories!

421 Brant

The 421 Brant project was a surprise to many – they weren’t aware of the development and stunned at the height approved.

At the last committee meeting on the subject there were over 30 delegations, more than 90 percent against the plan and its current amendments,

Why?

I suggest the following.

1. The bombshell woke people up to what was happening to their city and they did not like it.

2. The Plan has four Mobility Hubs. Yet the downtown is very different from the others on the Go Train line. The downtown should have its own set of criteria, its own set of restrictions in the precincts and its own name such as Historic District.

3. A Transportation plan in general and Transit in particular are not in the proposal. People realize that you have to get people in and out and around the area efficiently and needs to be part of the plan, not something that is done sometime in the future.

4. Parking in the downtown area is insufficient now. What will it be like with all the planned new construction. Increased parking ratios for residences, visitors and commercial units in this area need to be increased now.

5. Affordable housing in the area keeps being mentioned as a necessity by some yet they do not come forward with a method to accomplished this. This needs to be corrected.

6. The Plan will and its iterations will affect Burlington for a long time , 25 to 40 years. There is no reason to not take whatever time is necessary to get it right and get the majority of the citizens on side. The timing of the municipal election should not be the issue.

Official-Plan-Binder_Image

Planning department expects to bring an updated Official Plan to council for adoption.

7. A plan has numbers so one can measures progress and if necessary take corrective action suggested by actual results not meeting the plan. The current proposal is almost devoid of actionable numbers. This a major shortfall in the proposed “plan”. The current draft is more of an essay than a plan.

8. There has been a suggestion that a meeting be called, under the chair of a moderator, where say 10 representatives of council and staff and 10 from those who have delegated spend a day to try and find common ground. This appears to have great merit. Lets hope the Mayor encourages the dialogue.

9. Past practice is for the Planning Department to grant deviations on property if in their opinion ” community benefits” are derived. This practice should be greatly curtailed.

10. There needs to be a large dedicated food shopping area in the plan. Otherwise, a walk able downtown plan is not complete.

Rick Craven: Best committee chair the city has; not big on the warm fuzzy stuff through. Needs a hug badly.

Councillor Rick Craven – represents ward 1

11. The Councillor for ward one, at the council meeting on January 29, expressed his concern that there had been little feed back from the BIA or the Chamber of Commerce. I would think the planning department has an obligation to get submissions from both of these groups before proceeding. It should be noted that individual business delegations to council presented a number of short comings in the plan.

12. Joan Little, our columnist emeritus suggests that when the citizens and the developers are equally unhappy then council has it right. A better conclusion would be if everybody is annoyed, then there is a lot of work to be done.

In my opinion the process has been flawed. It is up to the council to take the time to get it right.

Jim Barnett is an east end Burlington resident who recalls the time when there was a strong citizens association.

Return to the Front page

Damoff to offer the popular Women in Leadership class again.

eventsred 100x100By Staff

February 6th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

After overwhelmingly positive feedback from last year’s initiative, Pam Damoff, MP for Oakville North-Burlington has announced the launching the Young Women in Leadership program for the second year in a row during the week of April 9-13, 2018.

Damoff with big wide open smiles

Pam Damoff, Member of Parliament for Oakville North Burlington.

The program will offer young women in Halton an opportunity to job-shadow in a local business, agency, organization, or government. Damoff is seeking local businesses and organizations, as well as young women currently in high school, pursuing post-secondary education or just starting out in their careers, to participate in this year’s program.

Damoff Women in leadership

The Damoff Women in leadership class of 2017.

Work experiences are a critical component of preparing youth for transition to adulthood. The need for a career shadow initiative for young women came out of a roundtable on women’s empowerment that I hosted on International Women’s Day in 2016. The goals of the Young Women in Leadership Program are to support young women in:

• developing an understanding of different occupations in order to make informed career choices
• increasing knowledge of specific occupational skills and workplace settings
• gaining career readiness skills, including the “soft skills” that employers look for in entry level workers
• building confidence in professional environments

The program will require commitment of one day throughout the week of April 9-13. Those interested in participating this year as a mentor, please contact the Program Coordinator, Elexa Stevenson, at pam.damoff.a3@parl.gc.ca or call the Damoff office at 613-992-1338.

If you are interested in participating this year as a mentee, please fill out this Google form. Please indicate your interest by March 16, 2018 at the latest.

 

Return to the Front page

City has begun to gather data that will be used to shape the Cycling Plan.

News 100 yellowBy Staff

February 4th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

City Hall is inviting the public to share their thoughts and ideas about what would improve cycling in Burlington.

The feedback will be used to help shape the city’s new Cycling Plan which will guide the future of cycling infrastructure in the city.

Burlington is at a unique time in its history. In the past, growth has meant the development of new neighbourhoods but growth in the future looks very different for Burlington because our city has very little room left for traditional suburban-type development.

Cycling survey photo

Cycling as the city seems to want to portray it. Is it a realistic picture?

Instead of growing out, Burlington City Council has made the decision to grow up and intensify in key urban areas. This direction, approved through the city’s Strategic Plan in April 2016, will enable Burlington to curb sprawl, protect the rural area and make efficient use of land and infrastructure.

The 2016 Census data shows Burlington grew by 7,535 people between 2011 and 2016 – a 4.3% overall growth rate. The provincial Places to Grow policy mandates that Burlington plan for a population of 193,000 by 2031, however, the city will reach this population number within the next few years.

As the city plans for future population growth with documents like the proposed new Official Plan and Mobility Hubs, it must also plan for how people will move through the city.

Over the last 30 years, Burlington’s transportation network has accommodated growth by building more roadways. This strategy is no longer sustainable. The city does not have the space to build new roadways and the financial cost to maintain a larger network of roads is significant.

A 21st century city is built around a different transportation model, one designed to provide people of all ages and abilities with more travel choices for things like walking, transit and cycling.

Burlington’s Cycling Plan was last updated in 2009. Since that time, the following cycling investments have been made:

Implementation of over 200 kilometers of on-road and off-road cycling infrastructure

Trail - CentennialFour metre-wide multi-use paths paved along hydro corridors

The New Street Pilot Project was an experiment to reduce road capacity and add on-road buffered bike lanes.

That idea didn’t work out; after considerable public reaction the city decided to abandon that initiative. What city hall learned was that is was going to have to be much more transparent when new initiatives are being brought forward.

Among current initiatives are:

Consideration given to include cycling facilities as part of all new road reconstruction projects with a preference for implementing on-road bike lanes

The use of bright green pavement markings at major intersections to clearly mark cycling lanes.

The new Cycling Plan will build on these successes and recommend new programs and policies that seek to provide safe, comfortable, and convenient routes for cyclists of all ages and abilities.

How do people feel about the use of bicycles.  The graphic represents where public opinion was in 2009.  Has it moved very much?

Cyclists by type

The Cycling Plan is now on the public engagement phase – gathering feedback that will be used to help shape the Cycling Plan.

What is confusing is the disparity between what city hall tells the public and what people see on the street.   The city uses a photograph of a relatively young person on a bike in the winter. Cyclist - winterAt the same time city hall and all the members of council tell the public that Burlington is becoming a city of seniors and that the seniors population is where the population growth is taking palace.

This citizen isn't smiling. Was she one of the hundreds that were basically locked in theoir homes during the five days of heavy winter weather because streets were not cleared?

This citizen isn’t smiling. Was she one of the hundreds that were basically locked in their homes during the five days of heavy winter weather because streets were not cleared?

Those seniors are for the most part not going to be riding bicycles.  Pushing walkers is what we will see on the streets,

Opportunities to participate are available through an online survey open until Feb. 23, 2018.
https://luraconsulting.mysocialpinpoint.com/citythatcycles#/

There will be a series of Drop-In events throughout the community.

Staff will be showing up all over the city seeking input and reaction.

Monday, Feb. 5, 6:30 – 9 a.m. – Nelson Recreation Centre,
Friday, Feb. 9 6 – 8 a.m. Appleby GO Station,
Friday, Feb. 9 – 4 – 7 p.m. Mountainside Community Centre,
Tuesday, Feb. 13 – 7 – 9:30 a.m. – Tansley Woods Community Centre,
Wednesday, Feb. 14 – 6 – 8 a.m. – Aldershot GO Station,
Wednesday, Feb. 14 9:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. – Brant Hills Community Centre,
Saturday, Feb. 17 – 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. Mainway Recreation Centre

The number of Drop In events is impressive. These began at the end of January – six have taken place so far.

What the city has to learn is just how the public views the use of bicycles – are they a form of family exercise and part of the recreational plan or are they a form of transportation that will replace the car and at times be used instead of public transit.

The city has budgeted funds for where a cycling bridge over the QEW could best be located.

The Gazette is aware of one business person who keeps her bicycle in her office and uses it for short trips in the downtown core.  You are not going to see this lady biking to Hamilton.

Cycling Bus Bike Rack use

How heavily are the bike tacks on buses being used?

The extent of bicycle use the public is prepared to live with is the issue – hopefully city hall will not come up with any surprises.  The information gathering has to follow the education part – a major shift is going to take place in the way people get around their communities – the car has been the mode of choice for the past three or four decades – that is going to change and the public will have to understand why.

Failure to do that will see another uproar that will equal the reaction to the 23 storey high rise opposite city hall and the plan to turn New Street into a road that would have few lanes for cars and lanes on either side of the road for bicycles.

City Cycling Plan – 2009

The New street Road Diet kerfuffle.

Return to the Front page

Intensification is simplified - Mayor tells where he got his understanding of the benefits

News 100 blueBy Staff

February 2, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

During his address to the Burlington business community where he delivered his eight State of the City speech Mayor Rick Goldring said he read in a publication titled “Intensification: what it is and what it promises”. The document was on the Neptis Foundation website.

Goldring at Inspire April 2015

Mayor explains intensification at a public meeting.

“Intensification is promoted as a way to achieve several benefits.

“First, if population growth can be accommodated at higher densities, or within existing urban areas, or both, less Greenfield land will be required for new housing.

“Second, research shows that when density increases beyond a certain level, automobile use declines in favour of transit, walking and cycling.

“Third, where surplus infrastructure capacity exists in urbanized areas, adding more people to these areas make more efficient use of public urban infrastructure such as water and sewer pipes, as well as soft infrastructures including schools and social services.

“In short, development in already urbanized areas plays to the city’s strengths rather than spreading its resources over an ever-wider territory.”

Is it really that simple?

One of the ideas that came out of the Mayor’s Reverse Town Hall was to have a “character” study done on the downtown core.

Bought in

Indian Point was a mish mash of different built forms with the community divided on what they wanted the community to look like. They were never able to agree on what should be permitted but the study did show what existed and what was worth saving.

The studies have been done for Roseland and Indian Point. The Roseland study was seen as a success because residents had a lot of input that they felt was listened to and heard.

There is an opportunity for the downtown residents, the Core Group would be ideal, to press the city to have a character study done which would become part of the criteria that developers have to meet.

Waiting for the Planning department to pick this up is not an effective route to take.

Delegate to Council and convince a Council member to put forward a Staff Direction.

The simplistic explanation the Mayor picked up is part of what got the city on the mess it is in.

Return to the Front page

Rick Golding's eighth State of the City address to Burlington's business leaders.

News 100 yellowBy Rick Goldring

February 1st, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

The Gazette has published all but one of the eight State of the City addresses. Links to those addresses are set out at the end of this unedited address.

 

The ward four debate gave Rick Goldring a lot to think about - he was never challenged like this when he ran for the office of Mayor in 2010

Rick Goldring during a 2014 election debate.

Good morning everyone. I would like to offer a warm welcome to the annual Mayor’s State of the City Address.

Thank you all very much for joining me this morning. It means a lot to have so many people here.

I would like to recognize the Burlington Chamber of Commerce for hosting this event, as they have done for many decades.

In particular, thank you to Keith Hoey and his team, Marty Staz and the board of directors, along with the volunteers and membership. Together, you facilitate many different programs and events throughout the year that helps bring the community together and build relationships that are essential to the prosperity of business in Burlington.

And thank you to all of today’s sponsors.

Congratulations to Bell for another successful “Bell Let’s Talk Day”. Your efforts since 2010 are making a significant impact in de-stigmatizing mental illness.

Before I commence my remarks, I do want to comment on the format this year.

In preparation for this year’s state of the city address, I took a look at last year’s event and watched and listened to myself for the full 45 minute speech. That was very hard work. My team and I decided to break up the long winded 45 minute speech by shortening the formal speech and then breaking into an interview with Tim Caddigan, Senior Director of Programming from Cogeco asking me some questions which will include questions from a few of you who are here this morning.

You all have a question card at your table. If you could please use it to write down your questions; there will be staff going around collecting these cards right after my speech, during a video presentation.

My colleagues from Burlington City Council are with us today. I am proud to work alongside these men and women who are deeply committed to our city.

Please welcome councillors Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster.

Our City Manager James Ridge is here, along with many staff from the city today. I am proud of the dedicated, competent and caring staff working effectively every day to make this city the best it can be.

I am very pleased to welcome our regional Chair Gary Carr, Oakville Mayor Rob Burton, Halton Hills Mayor Rick Bonnette and Milton Mayor Gord Krantz. It is great working with you as we build strong communities and a prosperous region at Halton Regional Council.

It is a privilege and an honour to serve as Mayor of Burlington.

Each day I reflect on how grateful I am for everything that I have in my life. I am thankful for the education I have had growing up in Burlington.

I am thankful for my family, especially my wife Cheryl who is here with me this morning.

I firmly believe that we should all be grateful for where we live, whether it is Burlington, Oakville, Milton, Halton Hills or Hamilton. These are all great communities.

Now I have been inclusive and respectful of our neighbouring municipalities, I am going to focus on Burlington!

Best Mid-Sized City in Canada

If you haven’t heard, MoneySense Magazine has recognized Burlington as the best mid-sized city in Canada five years in a row.

We are the safest region in Canada. Burlington alone saw a thirty-one percent drop in crime over the last five years.

We have a healthy and resilient economy. Last year, our city added over twelve hundred jobs, an increase of eighty-eight percent year over year.

We continue to maintain a higher than average percentage of jobs to population ratio. We have the highest ratio in Halton Region, even higher than Waterloo Region or the cities of Markham, Brantford and Hamilton.

A significant number of Burlington families are financially stable.The latest census data shows that Burlington has an average household income that is twenty-five percent greater than the provincial average.

Our unemployment rate nationally is lowest it has been in forty years at five-point-seven- per cent and our local unemployment rate is a percent below that at four-point-six per cent.

Our residents are well educated. Seventy-three per cent of us have post-secondary education and the average rate of residents holding a University degree in Burlington is higher than the provincial average.

We live longer. The life expectancy in Halton Region is about seven to eight per cent longer than that of provincial average. We don’t just live longer; we live longer with lower incidences of morbidity – the incidence of disease and illness – than the provincial average.

The percentage of Burlington residents whose income is below the Low-Income threshold is five-point seven per cent versus the province as a whole at nine-point-eight per cent.

Despite the fact that Burlington is flourishing overall we need to recognize that there are people in our community who are struggling. No city is immune to social issues like mental illness, addiction, accessibility, isolation, women and children abuse, unemployment, underemployment and poverty, including some of our youth and seniors and many others.

We are fortunate that in addition to the great work being done through Halton Social Services and Housing, there are not-for-profit agencies, service clubs and faith communities that reach out and fill some of the voids.

Burlington Economic Development Corporation

In 2017, we saw significant growth in Burlington’s economy. On top of adding over twelve hundred jobs, we saw a significant reduction in the Burlington Office vacancy rate.

Some of the new companies we welcomed to Burlington include Amec Foster Wheeler, an international energy and industrial company, A-Z-X sport, a promotional products manufacturer and distributor and Cardon Rehab, an innovator in the physical therapy equipment business.

2017 was a year of expanding the supports available to support businesses to innovate and grow in Burlington.

Crossroads Media Centre is an example of this, it was recently acquired by a private investor. In the coming months, the Centre will transform to become a multi-use facility offering state-of-the-art television studios and digital media facilities.

The Halton Hive, Burlington’s first co-working space and business centre for entrepreneurs, startups, and digital content creators, has relocated to the Centre and will be integral to the re-imagining of the space and the growth of a vibrant community of complementary businesses. This is an exciting development for Burlington and Halton Region, with more announcements to follow soon.

Last year, when I stood before you for the 2017 State Of The City address, I announced the signing of a lease for Burlington’s Innovation Centre, TechPlace just around the corner at 5500 North Service Road and a few months later in June, the doors were open, and they were in business.

Today, I’m excited to tell you how TechPlace has thrived beyond our expectations.

First, I want to share with you how TechPlace came to be. In a 2016 report, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce identified a critical gap in Canada’s business growth strategy. Forty per cent of new jobs in Canada come from companies less than five years old, but they failed short of growing into large organizations.

It was clear that in Burlington we needed to do our part by nurturing innovation and entrepreneurship. Not just in Burlington but the GTA west region leveraging relationships within Halton and Hamilton. After all, the business community does not look at municipal boundaries, they look at regional markets.

Today, TechPlace is operating at full capacity with businesses on a waitlist.

Innovative technology companies from Dubai, Finland, Kitchener-Waterloo, Mississauga and Burlington have been accepted into TechPlace’s Launch Pad program and are thriving in their new environment.

For example, in October, representatives from BEDC met with a company named Orfer – A leading robotics manufacturing and robot automation company based out of Finland. Orfer was looking to establish a North American headquarters, and the company had met with many municipalities across the GTHA. After just one meeting with the BEDC team, Orfer decided TechPlace was the new home for their soft landing. And Burlington is the place for their new North American headquarters.

Service Path is yet another success story. This company helps organizations automate their sales processes and reduce the time to quote for complex services. This industry that didn’t exist ten years ago is now a forty-two billion dollar industry. Since settling into TechPlace, the company has hired more staff and is looking to expand within Burlington.

This is precisely the kind of activity we anticipated. Fostering new partnerships within the startup ecosystem and creating a destination for new and growing technology companies to tap into new ideas provides opportunities to network and collaborate.

I want to congratulate everyone at the BEDC for the success of TechPlace. TechPlace is helping to put Burlington and the whole GTA west on the map as a centre for entrepreneurship and innovation.

The BEDC has also been working with key stakeholders to make sure that we have the land we need to attract businesses to Burlington.

In order to support the City’s strategic plan to be a City that Grows, Burlington must make the shift from Greenfield development to redevelopment, intensification and the creation of mixed-use amenity rich employment hubs that meet the needs of today’s and tomorrow’s employers.

We have over one million square feet of land in the development pipeline that will head to the market.

This means one million square feet of land, ready for new industrial, commercial and institutional spaces in Burlington. Having these spaces ready for businesses looking to locate, expand or start-up in Burlington is an important value-add, to the site selection process.

To attract innovative and prosperous businesses and people to our city, the focus will be on developing and leveraging a strong brand that positions Burlington as a highly attractive business location and a place to call home.

Evolving City

Burlington City Council is in the process of finalizing a new Official Plan for the City that is set to see approval in the spring.

There is nothing simple or easy about where we are as a city.

When you pave over farmer’s fields for suburban sprawl; it is relatively easy to take out a piece of paper and plan where roads, parks, schools, retail stores and homes are built. I contrast that with the redevelopment of existing underutilized areas.

Our draft plan outlines the areas where we will grow.

Fifty per cent of Burlington’s one-hundred and eighty-five square kilometres is protected from development. This area includes much of North Aldershot and the area north of the Dundas – 407 corridor that includes Mount Nemo, Kilbride and Lowville. The vast majority of people we talk to want to keep it that way.

Thirty-four per cent of our city is traditional neighbourhoods and it is critically important that we maintain the character and integrity of those neighbourhoods.

Eleven per cent of the city is our employment lands primarily around the QEW-403 corridor. These lands are crucial to our current and future economy and work force providing a variety of career opportunities for Burlington residents.

The remaining five per cent of the city includes the areas around our three GO Stations and our downtown. These are identified for most of the increased population and corresponding job growth.

After decades of Greenfield development of traditional single-family home neighbourhoods, we are now in essence built out.

This is reflected in the 2016 census data that shows Burlington having the lowest population growth in over fifty years.

Between 2011 and 2016, we grew from 176,000 people to 183,000, which works out to an annual growth rate of around point-eight per cent and the vast majority of this increase occurred in the North East part of the city. Excluding this area of the city, our annual growth rate is only point four per cent.

We know that most cities grow over time – this is just natural – but the question is often asked. “How much should we grow by?”

The Conference Board of Canada states a growth rate of one-point-one per cent is optimal and suggests a higher rate if there is a disproportionate seniors’ population.

Why will Burlington’s population increase?

Some of the reason for this is that we are mandated to grow by the province. We know that primarily because of immigration, the population of the GTHA will grow from seven million to ten million people by 2041.

We know that Halton Region will grow from 550,000 people to one million. While Burlington’s 2031 target is quite modest, the 2041 target will be defined in 2019 at Halton Region.

Our Proposed New Official Plan is for the next twenty-five years and beyond.

A stable and growing economy requires a core working age population. Communities with no growth cannot sustain a strong economy as the workforce ages.

Canada is addressing declining birthrates through immigration, and cities must also grow their population to remain economically vital and sustainable. Too little growth constrains the economy; too rapid growth stresses services and infrastructure.

We need to continue to create as much variety in our housing stock as possible and housing will take on different forms that are no longer the traditional detached dwelling.

We will provide opportunities for ageing baby boomers to downsize. It’s critical that the housing supply is increased – to improve affordability for younger residents and so that families are not priced out of our traditional and new neighbourhoods.

Without reasonable growth in our housing stock, real estate prices will increase even more than they are currently and the pressure on school enrollment will be unabated.

Our vision for the areas around our three GO Stations will provide Burlington residents with the benefits of walkable neighbourhoods.

The Aldershot Mobility Hub area is already seeing development. As more people move into the area, there will be an increase in jobs, amenities, stores, restaurants and pubs that everybody can find value from.

And this growth can help lead to that grocery store in the west end that many people have been asking for.

Residents will have access to all day fifteen-minute GO Train Service within seven years and sooner than that we will see fifteen-minutes all-day service provided by Burlington Transit along the Plains Road and Fairview Street Corridor.

And with more people living in the downtown, current businesses will thrive and new businesses such as stores, restaurants and other services will be attracted to move to the downtown.

When I ask people what they like about living or working in the downtown; invariably the answer is “You can walk everywhere.”

You can walk along our waterfront, to the Burlington Performing Art Centre, to the Art Gallery of Burlington and to the new Joseph Brant Museum when it opens as well as to stores, restaurants and cafes.

It’s exciting to think that new developments will have car share and bike share programs. This will result in some residents making the shift and choosing not to have a car or reducing multiple car ownership because they can walk, cycle or take transit for the vast majority of their trips. And, if needed, they can use the car share program for long distance trips or to make larger purchases that don’t happen on a regular basis.

This type of lifestyle is healthier and reduces the carbon footprint. We know this isn’t a lifestyle that will work for everyone, but in time, it will be desirable to many.

Deciding how Burlington will evolve isn’t just about new buildings and where they will go.

We are making an improved commitment to ensure that new development will be architecturally attractive and unique, with a great feel for pedestrians on the street. By doing this, we will be proud of how our city looks and continues to grow.

A publication titled “Intensification: what it is and what it promises” on Neptis Foundation website said this about intensification.

“Intensification is promoted as a way to achieve several benefits.

First, if population growth can be accommodated at higher densities, or within existing urban areas, or both, less Greenfield land will be required for new housing.

Second, research shows that when density increases beyond a certain level, automobile use declines in favour of transit, walking and cycling.

Third, where surplus infrastructure capacity exists in urbanized areas, adding more people to these areas make more efficient use of public urban infrastructure such as water and sewer pipes, as well as soft infrastructures including schools and social services.

In short, development in already urbanized areas plays to the city’s strengths rather than spreading its resources over an ever-wider territory.”

Public Engagement

Building a beautiful and vibrant Burlington is a never-ending marathon. There are always many hurdles to cross as the city will be around much longer than any of us.

Public Engagement is a critical piece of the decision making process for municipalities.

The City of Burlington was named the Organization of the Year by the International Association for Public Participation for applying the “Community Engagement Charter” adopted in 2013. It recognizes our mandate to consult and engage with residents in all matters.

As one judge put it “Employees now ask how to engage — not whether we should or not”.

As I look forward to our continued progress with public engagement, I am inspired by a 2017 lecture given by Bret Stephens of the New York Times to the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Australia titled ‘The Dying Art of Disagreement’.

He suggests that we may be failing in how we deal with disagreement and that disagreement is critical to a decent society.

I want residents to know that Council recognizes the importance of accommodating differences on the many issues that we face as a city. The view is shared that “every great idea is really just a spectacular disagreement with some other great idea.”

To be successful, I am drawn to some simple advice from Bret Stephens of the New York Times that reads

“To disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, and watch closely. You need to grant people with alternate views moral respect; give people the intellectual benefit of the doubt; have sympathy for people’s motives and participate emphatically with a different line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded by what has been said.”

We will continue to develop and improve how we connect with residents and engage our community and support discussions around issues with strongly held viewpoints – that is democracy.

Partnerships

In order to build a great city, you need to have great support and great partnerships.

We are fortunate to have that with our federal and provincial representatives.

Last year, we received over eleven million dollars from the Federal and Provincial governments through funding applications for various city projects.

Six million dollars of that was for the Joseph Brant Museum Expansion, which allowed us to break ground for the work that has begun this winter.

Once completed, the museum will expand from the current five thousand square feet to seventeen thousand square feet of barrier free space for gallery displays, interactive programming, the storage of collections and community outreach.

It will also become a destination and a beautiful addition to our waterfront.

We also partnered with the Province of Ontario, the City of Hamilton, Mohawk College and Sustainable Hamilton Burlington to launch the Centre for Climate Change Management at Mohawk College last year.

The centre is the first of its kind at an Ontario college and will help accelerate the region’s transition to a low-carbon economy and support Burlington’s Community Energy Plan, which has already made a significant impact in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The partnerships we build with our neighbouring cities and the different orders of government are crucial to the success of Burlington.

As Helen Keller said, “Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much”

Connected City

I mentioned earlier that Halton residents have a higher life expectancy than the rest of the province and the country.

I believe a major contributing factor is the opportunities in Burlington to be mentally and physically active, to be engaged and to build relationships that result in a sense of belonging within our community.

2017 was a banner year for community building and togetherness in Burlington.

In celebration of Canada’s 150th birthday, the city initiated a goal of reaching one-hundred and fifty Love My Hood events. The program was designed to build a healthier Burlington by engaging and empowering residents to come together and host events celebrating their neighbourhoods.

I’m happy to say we surpassed our goal of one-hundred and fifty with one-hundred and fifty-eight Love My Hood events.

This initiative attracted residents of all ages. We had a fourteen-year-old boy who hosted a block party that brought one-hundred neighbours together.

You’re never too young to make an impact and initiate change in our city. Last summer, we opened up a brand new playground at the Bolus Parkette in the Aldershot community.This park was designed by local kids and built by the community members. The playground has created a place for culture and community activities to thrive and has provided a positive sense of place, inclusivity and community.

A special thanks to the McNally Foundation for their tremendous financial support not just for the playground but also the journey that got us there.

In August last year, the new Michael Lee Chin and family patient tower opened which is a major milestone in the redevelopment of Joseph Brant Hospital. The renovations to the original tower of the hospital will continue this year.

This past November, Burlington’s Carpenter Hospice broke ground on a significant capital redevelopment that will see the construction of a new state-of-the-art resident wing and a new wellness outreach centre that will extend the Carpenter Hospice care into the community.

I am proud to say that I am the Honorary Chair of the capital campaign for the Carpenter Hospice’s Making Room Redevelopment Project.

Thanks to the generous contributions from donors over the last decade, Carpenter Hospice has over three million dollars saved, and now it’s up to us, the community, to raise three million dollars more to reach the goal of six million.

I know I can count on the support and generosity of residents and businesses in our city to make this happen because when there is a need, our community comes together like no other.

Ladies and gentleman, these are just some of the reasons why Burlington continues to be the best mid-sized city in Canada.

This concludes my formal remarks. While Tim Caddigan and I get comfortable on the chairs, please turn your attention to the video.

 

Previous State of the City addresses:

State of the City 2011
State of the City 2012
State of the City 2013
State of the city 2015

State of the City 2016

State of the City 2017

The Gazette has published all but one of the eight State of the City addresses. 

Return to the Front page

The Official Plan being developed is the bedrock on which future growth is being based - let it be the core issue in the October 2018 election.

opinionandcommentBy Jim Young

January 20th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Yielding to intensive lobbying, delegation and protests from Citizens Groups, Local Businesses and even from Building Developers, Burlington City Council and Staff have pushed the schedule for passing their revamped “Official Plan.” Back to April 2018.

The original December 2017 schedule for Burlington’s most important planning document for the next several decades, was being rushed in order to have the plan adopted before it could become a 2018 election issue. On Tuesday January 23, council will discuss final implementation dates for that plan.

The question now becomes: Will that final vote by council in April still allow Councillors to avoid electoral accountability in next year’s election?

Official-Plan-Binder_ImageThis New Official Plan is important enough to be a major issue in that upcoming election so those same community groups are now saying very loudly that accountability to citizens can only be served by moving the decision back until a new council is elected. Instead of rushing to avoid electoral accountability, we should spend the time finalizing a Plan that serves all of our city and let the election be a referendum on the plan.

That New Official Plan must be based on the Mobility Hub, Transit and Cycling Plans, which have been promised but not yet completed, begging the question: “How do you build an overarching plan when the building block plans are not yet in place?” These should all be developed and put in place first, with real input from Citizen, Retail and Commercial Groups and with real engagement; not the pseudo consultation that has taken place to date,.

Mobility hub + graphic

The Official Plan will rely on and be informed by the Transit plan, the Transportation plan and the finalization of the Mobility hubs. Citizens want council to wait until the other studies are completed before making the Official Plan final.

The New Official Plan proposes a radical change to our city. It contemplates massive increases in population, allowing hi-rises on traditional downtown retail and commercial sites with no allowance for preserving the quality of life for residents. The city would have us believe that any negative effects of the Plan will be addressed by Mobility Hub, Transit and Cycling Plans which, as previously stated, are not even in place yet.

As our city moves forward with the revised schedule for its Official Plan, citizens ask our city;

Jim Young A

Jim Young, a frequent delegator at city council.

1. Please do not close off further citizen input and delegation. The legalities of the Official Plan approval process demand citizen input. To date that input has at best been directed by staff rather than real participation by those citizens directly impacted. The best and most attention grabbing ideas so far have come from engaged and active citizens groups, small businesses even city developers and not from the Pseudo Involvement so far undertaken by the city. Let staff and council use this time and this groundswell of engagement to seek real input to improve and perfect the plan.

2. Having accepted that the timeline for the New Official Plan was indeed flawed and reacted appropriately by revising that timeline, we ask that the decision on the zoning amendment for 421/423 Brant Street be revisited and any revisions of that zoning be included as an integral part of the fresh review of the New Official Plan. The parallels between the two issues, Intensification in General, and Specific Downtown Zoning are so similar it seems logical to consider one as part of the other bigger issue.

Jim Young

Jim Young speaking up for his community.

3. Citizens accept that council are elected and staff employed to provide the best possible planning for our city’s future. We will not always agree on what that planning may look like so we rely on two things to limit city power in such disagreements.

First: The professionalism and qualification of city staff to provide guidance to council.

Second: The underlying accountability that our representative democracy gives us to hold our elected officials to.

So we ask again: Why the rush to pass this Plan? If it truly is the basis on which our city will be built over the coming decades, and if our city fathers truly believe in the plan they have created, why not let council make this New Official Plan the core issue in the 2018 election? Why not let the people speak?

Be assured that citizen groups are paying very careful attention to this issue and council’s responses to their voices. A failure to listen to your citizens now will not go unnoticed in October.

Jim YoungJim Young is one of the founding members of ECoB –  Engaged Citizens of Burlington. He lives in Aldershot.

 

 

Return to the Front page

Mayor Goldring gets an earful at his Reverse Town Hall; four of the seven member council fail to show up for what was really a face the music meeting.

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

January 19th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

They gave him a lot to think about.

Their concern was that they weren’t at all certain he knows how to listen.

News anal REDThe Mayor held a Reverse Town Hall at the Art Gallery – an audience of about 150 came to voice their concerns. The Mayor stressed that he was not there to explain very much – even though he did –he said “this is your meeting, I am here to listen.

He got more than an ear full.

Of the 20 plus people who rose to speak – one was positive about a structure that has citizens close to up in arms – he owns a bar that will benefit from more traffic.

Three of the developers were in the room, the Molinaro Group, New Horizons and Carriage Gate sat quietly together.

Two of the seven members of Council were in the room: Marianne Meed Ward and Jack Dennison and the Mayor. Councillors John Taylor, Paul Sharman, Blair Lancaster and Rick Craven did not make an appearance – all four voted for the 421 Brant development that will see a 23 storey condominium rise opposite city hall.

wef

Voted for the 23 storey condo – didn’t attend a “face the music” meeting

Councillors Sharman and Lancaster: both part of the Shape Burlington committee who seem to have forgotten what the report was all about - civic engagement

Councillors Sharman and Lancaster voted for the condo – didn’t attend the Mayor’s meeting.

Rick Craven

Councillor Craven voted for the condominium

The theme that was consistent was the building was just too much, it was not what the vast majority of those in attendance wanted for their city. Development was not their issue, it was the height that had gotten to people – and they didn’t think high rise buildings were appropriate for the Brant – Lakeshore Road part of the city.

Transit was a concern and parking was another and the rate at which the Official Plan was being “rammed down our throats” was mentioned by several.

The meeting started with the Mayor trying to put some rules in place – he wanted people to be respectful of each other and then suggested that clapping might not be appropriate. He lost that one – people clapped loudly when a good point was made. Larry Griffiths, a 70 year old ward 4 resident said the intensification being done was going to drastically change the city and we are in jeopardy of losing what we have”. Griffith referred to Port Credit that has the feel Burlington residents want to keep.

This is a city wide issue said Griffith’s who wants the Official Plan put to a referendum which the Mayor said was going to be discussed at a council meeting next week – January 23rd.

“What do you want” asked the Mayor. Griffiths had no problem answering that question – “the Official Plan permits 12 storeys, stick to that.”

cvf

Rick Burgess, a past candidate for the Office of Mayor asks the current Mayor to stick with the height limits set out in the current Official Plan

Rick Burgess who once ran for Mayor and has served as an advisor for Goldring said he wanted the city to respect the heights set out in the existing Official Plan.

A woman who operates a hair salon on Brant said “we are feeling the pinch and the parking is hurting us”.
The operator of Martini House told the Mayor “we are in trouble” and told the audience that “some people are buying up the visitor spots in the condominiums at $30,000 a spot”.

Commercial rents were a concern. The audience were told that $45 a square foot is what business people should expect.

A New Street resident wanted to know how the Planning department got from putting out Tall Building Guide Lines in March of 2017 and then recommending a 23 storey building in November.

At a number of points during the two hour meeting the Mayor interjected and explained what the city has been doing. He said that 30 years ago the city began investing in the Downtown core with the Discovery Centre and Spencer Smith Park.

He explained that the Greenbelt plan prevents development north of the Hwy 407 – Dundas and that the provinces Places to Grow Plan made it clear that suburban sprawl had come to an end and the communities were going to have to accept some part of the growing population. Burlington is reacting to those two provincial plans.

For reasons that many just don’t understand or accept is the amount of intensification that is taking place on the lower part of Brant Street.

The developers are just reacting to the demand – the condominium units are selling. The Mayor has been known to talk about people he meets who bought a unit and can’t wait to move in.

What disturbs most people is that they feel this just crept up on them – that they weren’t aware and that the city hasn’t communicated with them.

It would be fair to say that residents haven’t been paying close attention. The Gazette has been reporting on the planning department and the Mobility Hubs for more than a year.

Saxony-452LocustStreet

Development was approved at four storeys – developer goes back to Planning department for an additional two storeys.

Residents have difficulty with a project, the Saxony, that was approved for four storeys, construction begins and the developer decides to go back to city hall and ask for two additional storeys. The irony with the Saxony development is that they could have gotten five floors but said at a public meeting that they were happy with four storeys.

Ron Parker, a ward 4 resident said he learned about the plans to redevelop the Waterfront Hotel with a friend while playing golf. He said he had no idea that there were plans to redevelop the site. He said “there is no strategy and we don’t know where we are going … we are in damage control stumbling from decision to decision to decision”.

The audience was a mix of people who discovered the city, fell in love with it and moved to Burlington and those who have been here for a long time. One speaker has lived in Burlington for 73 of his 76 years.

One speaker mentioned the five emails he sent the Mayor – didn’t get a response. He wanted to know how people were expected to read and absorb a 2500 page document which another resident said has “No numbers in it”.

Reverse town hall 2

Part of the Reverse Town Hall meeting hosted by the Mayor.

People were in the room waiting for answers expecting someone to explain what had happened and why.

It was at that point that Lisa Kearns arrived. She had been at the Engaged Citizens of Burlington ECoB meeting and had a six questions she put to the Mayor:

What is the rush to push forward the Official Plan? Residents find the precinct plans difficult to find, analyze, and understand the impacts in all wards. This is still not clear.

Is the City doing enough to defend Zoning and Official Plan limits? Why are the rules changing and why is Development forcing special considerations – profitability?

What are we gaining in the rush for intensification and what tools are available to keep it in control? Is this the City we want to live in?

Why did the City begin engagement on the Official Plan when the supporting plans are not complete, this is not a complete strategy or Plan? We need to see the impact of the: Transit Plan, Transportation Plan, and Mobility Hubs. What is the rush?

Why is downtown an Area Specific Plan if a Character Study was not done on the neighbouring St. Luke’s Precinct and Emerald Neighbourhood? Have the concerns with specific residents who border on the growth areas been adequately addressed? What about uptown?

Do you want to live amongst tall buildings in your neighbourhood? The City of Burlington is changing the rules to turn into a big city intensified with big tall buildings? This is not a provincially mandated Mobility Hub.

Reverse town hall 3

A staffer from the Mayors office captured everything that was said – expect to see much of it in the Mayor’s blog.

Kearns was getting enthusiastic rounds of applause before she finished reading out the questions which the Mayor said he would respond to in his blog.

Many of the people in the room felt that at last there was someone who was speaking for them and was doing something to bring about a change which most of the people listening to the Mayor wanted.

Reverse town hall 1

The Mayor and a Reverse Town Hall participant.

One senior resident told the Mayor that he had lost the trust of the people.

A resident wondered if the city could create a model of what their city is going to look like going forward – people wanted to know what was coming their way. The person with this idea said the city might try having a good visual made showing what the streets would look like.

Lisa Kearns asked if what had taken place that evening was part of the record – was it something the city would include in its thinking. No said the Mayor, the evening was his occasion to listen to the people. He did add that members of Council would certainly now be aware of how people feel. How was that possible of four of the seven weren’t even in the room?

The Mayor closed with a remark former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once made when asked how a meeting had gone. “This has been a good meeting” Trudeau is said to have said “Everyone is pissed off, that’s a good place to start”.

We will let the Mayors closing comment stand on its own.

Return to the Front page

ECoB puts six questions in front of the Mayor.

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

January 19th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

There were two meetings in town last night.

ECoB pic 2 Jan 18

Registration table for the ECoB meeting held at Wellington Square United Church.

One, a Reverse Town Hall, called by the Mayor took place at the Art Gallery, the other, organized by Engaged Citizens of Burlington, took place at Wellington Square United Church; they drew 70 to 80 people and talked about the “need to change council”.

A new group was formed “from ward 1” who were going to meet again and find a way to replace their ward Councillor Rick Craven.

The ECoB meeting ended at about 8:00 pm. Lisa Kierns, an ECoB founder, left that meeting and zipped along to the Mayor’s meeting and presented him with six questions.

• What is the rush to push forward the Official Plan? Residents find the precinct plans difficult to find, analyze, and understand the impacts in all wards. This is still not clear.

• Is the City doing enough to defend Zoning and Official Plan limits? Why are the rules changing and why is Development forcing special considerations – profitability?

• What are we gaining in the rush for intensification and what tools are available to keep it in control? Is this the City we want to live in?

• Why did the City begin engagement on the Official Plan when the supporting plans are not complete, this is not a complete strategy or Plan? We need to see the impact of the: Transit Plan, Transportation Plan, and Mobility Hubs. What is the rush?

• Why is downtown an Area Specific Plan if a Character Study was not done on the neighbouring St. Luke’s Precinct and Emerald Neighbourhood? Have the concerns with specific residents who border on the growth areas been adequately addressed? What about uptown?

ECoB pic 1 Jan 18

Between 70 and 80 people attended the ECoB meeting; at least one with a cheque in hand. Some of the participants formed a group to replace the ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven.

• Do you want to live amongst tall buildings in your neighbourhood? The City of Burlington is changing the rules to turn into a big city intensified with big tall buildings? This is not a provincially mandated Mobility Hub.

One of the meeting organizers, who asked not to be named said: “It was a great meeting with a lot of questions and answers given.”

The ECoB lawn signs were on sale, expect to see them popping up on snow covered lawns.

Return to the Front page

Toronto is on the Amazon short list for their new HQ2 - a Burlington property is mentioned in the Toronto bid.

News 100 redBy Staff

January 18th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

When Toronto Global put in their bid to be the location for what is being called HQ2 – the second headquarters Amazon wants to set up mention was made in that document of a piece of land on Upper Middle Road east of Appleby Line – known as Bronte Meadows.

Transit graphic

Part of the bid made had to include the transit infrastructure of the site.

The document that Toronto Global submitted a number of possible locations – Bronte Meadows was one of them.

aerial of Bronte meadows

An aerial view of the 184-acre site on Bronte Road.

What is just a little ironic is that the Paletta interests have been trying to get what is defined as employment land changed to a residential designation.

Amazon announced today it had whittled down the list of 238 bidders to a short list of 20. Toronto was the only Canadian city to make the list.

One of the showcased sites in the Toronto Global bid was the Burlington’s Bronte-Meadows, a 184-acre site billed as having “campus-style development” potential.

Upper Middle Road looking east towards Burloak - primer commercial. No takers?

Upper Middle Road looking east towards Burloak – prime commercial.

The “Toronto Region” lauded in the bid also includes Hamilton. The TO bid document even gives brief shout-outs to local institutions like McMaster University and Mohawk College as well as recreational highlights like our escarpment parks and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats

Amazon is said to be planning to invest more than $5 billion into the forthcoming headquarters and hire 50,000 highly paid employees in the city housing it.

Amazon had stipulated in September that it was seeking to be near a metropolitan area with more than a million people; be able to attract top technical talent; be within 45 minutes of an international airport; have direct access to mass transit; and be able to expand that headquarters to as much as 8 million square feet in the next decade. But Amazon also made clear in that it wanted tax breaks, grants and any other incentives.

The extra space will help the rapidly-growing company, which It had nearly 542,000 employees at the end of September, a 77 per cent jump from the year before. Some of that growth came from Amazon’s nearly $14 billion acquisition last year of natural foods grocer Whole Foods and its 89,000 employees.

Google 3d aerial

A three dimensional view of the Bronte Meadows site on Upper Middle Road where it curves into Burloak.

The process will now shift into a new phase, with Amazon representatives communicating more directly with finalist cities as they prepare to select a winner later this year, and perhaps with cities being even more outspoken about why they should be chosen.

Amazon.com Inc. said it will make a final selection sometime this year.

You can expect this news to work its way into the municipal election campaign that is already underway – all those condominiums along Brant street just might be needed.

Return to the Front page

Planner lets loose on member of an Aldershot delegation.

News 100 yellowBy Pepper Parr

January 17th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The meeting took place on December the 18th.

It was requested by a group of Aldershot citizens who wanted more information on the developments taking place in their community.  Much of the agenda was put together by the then Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner.

Planters along Plains Road have given what used to be a provincial highway a much more suburban look. Hasn't slowed traffic down enough for most people - except for those who drive through the community.

Planters along Plains Road have given what used to be a provincial highway a much more suburban look. The level and form of development taking place in their community has many concerned.

Main Agenda Topics –

1. An overview of Mobility Hubs with a focus on employment-commercial areas (City staff)

2. Overview of employment lands in new Official Plan – Mobility Hub/Aldershot and residential/height mixed use focus (City staff, All)
3. Identification of issues-concerns with employment-commercial space (Tom, Greg, Dayna, Stephen, All)
4. De- commercialization and the loss of walkable necessities of life – inherent contradictions with the plan, and related issues.

5. Encroachment

mary-lou-tanner-city-hs

Mary Lou Tanner

The then Director of Planning, Mary Lou Tanner (she became the Deputy city manager on the 22nd of December) provided the first three agenda items which led at least one person in the group to think there would be “would have a discussion all around, but we did not”.

Six mobility hub planners attended but according to people who were in the room not one of them said a word, except on small items of clarity with few words.

When the “meeting ended they took another way out of the room, avoiding us. There was no mention of a response to our issues and questions.”

The group had questions about

Community feedback;
What is an acceptable retail mix and
Why doesn’t the City enforce a minimum?
Transit integration and “walkability”
New OP
How is growth being measured?
How does that dictate plan direction?

The group was concerned over reports that the city is well over track to meet the region’s goals. What are the population targets for the next 10 years and does this tie in with unit construction?, they asked.

“Is it valid/legal for current planning decisions to be swayed by potential OP changes that are not on the books yet?

“How are mobility hub changes being factored into new OP?”

It was what most of citizens taking part thought was going to be a civil meeting with an open and transparent exchange of ideas.

But there was a bump that changed the tone of the meeting.

At one point, one of the Aldershot residents, appeared to have looked at Tanner in a manner that was uncomfortable to her and she let loose saying:

“Don’t you ever look at me like that again.”

 

Return to the Front page

It is getting nasty out there: City manager threatens citizen group with legal action over wording on their web site

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

January 17th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

It is getting nasty out there.

ECoB – Engaged Citizens of Burlington make no bones about their dissatisfaction with the way information from the Planning department gets to the taxpayers who cover all the costs.

There is a section on their web site offering pointers to people who want to write the politicians.

Here is part of what is on the web site now:

ECOB logo

Do you need some help putting your thoughts into valid points for your letter to City Hall? Here are some ideas for you!

Questions you should be asking. Points you can be making.

Why is council not following its own current official plan?

How can a new Official Plan be passed when so many master plans have not been completed?
How can proper decisions be made when these other master plans aren’t completed? It is like building a house on a base of sand.

Council is not defending its own official plan at the OMB- why not?

Is council so quick to allow planning staff to determine what our City will look like because they don’t want to spend the money in the event that they could lose? Is that a good reason to allow for poor planning?

There seems to be money to spend on “legacy projects” – like the Joseph Brant Museum but not to defend the current official plan.

The residents elect council to represent their needs not the needs of Staff and the Developers.

This council seems to forget this. What is happening in the downtown core is happening in all of Burlington- this needs to be an election issue. Presently 9 new development applications have been received by the City since Christmas – 5 in Ward 2- If we don’t stop what is happening now it will be too late. We should be questioning the legality of how certain areas were designated.

As someone said “Can you imagine that former Mayor Hazel McCallion would allow staff and the developers to dictate what was happening in Mississauga? “

It is the Mayors job to lead his council to do the right thing for the residents. I think residents have been very clear about not wanting over intensification. We need to stress that residents are not against development- but the right kind of development.

Where is our mayor? Why is staff dictating to Council it’s like the tail wagging the dog?

ECoB got a letter from the City Manager in which he said:

James RidgeTo Whom it May Concern:
On your website, in the area of letter writing campaign, you set out questions to be asked of the letter recipients. Among them is:

How can staff in the planning department be pushing these amendments when they know that they are not following The Professional Code of Practice of the Ontario Planners Institute which requires members to serve the public “to provide full, clear and accurate information on planning matters to decision makers and members of the public”?

This directly alleges that City staff have committed professional misconduct, and is categorically untrue. Staff have met or exceeded all requirements of their professional codes of practice, and have far exceeded the requirements of the planning act and other legislation in terms of consultation and provision of information. The fact you don’t like their recommendations does not mean they have acted unprofessionally.

I would like an immediate removal of these comments from your site, and an apology, or I will take all necessary steps to hold you accountable for these defamatory comments.
James Ridge City Manager

It appears that ECoB wasn’t prepared to meet the threat and removed the wording that offended the City Manager and sent the following letter to the City Manager in which they, ECoB said:

January 16, 2018
Sent by email to: James.Ridge@burlington.ca
To Whom it May Concern:

It has been received that on the www.engagedcitizens.ca website, in the area of letter writing campaign, the questions to be asked of the letter recipients including:

“How can staff in the planning department be pushing these amendments when they know that they are not following The Professional Code of Practice of the Ontario Planners Institute which requires members to serve the public “to provide full, clear and accurate information on planning matters to decision makers and members of the public”?

at the request of the City of Burlington City Manager has been removed,

Members of Engaged Citizens of Burlington (ECoB) however rescind the request to issue apology.

It is further argued that the statement “The fact you don’t like their recommendations does not mean they have acted unprofessionally” infers a personal intent and is itself a defamatory comment which cannot be substantiated.

ECoB Dec 13 #2

ECoB attracted close to 100 people to a community meeting on a cold winter night with fresh snow falling. How will they take to the threat from the city manager?

The defensive tactic to silence this group through legal threat of a defamation case would quickly find evidence in the November 30th Planning and Development ECoB deputation that there is no defamatory intent and that this is a matter of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

It was identified on public record that following the November 30th Planning and Development meeting that the position of ECoB is to Request to Planning and Development to defer submission of the planning and building department report PB-50-17 regarding proposed new official plan (November 2017) regarding proposed downtown mobility hub precinct plan and proposed official plan policies until no sooner than June of 2018.

This will allow invaluable community input to understand the impact of the various planning instruments and initiatives. This will align with the provincially recognized Downtown Mobility Hub Area Specific Plan expected for delivery in June 2018. There are 7 requests in total per the deputation.

ECoB’s review of the Professional Code of Practice requiring members to serve the public interest hinges on planning staff bringing the new OP forward for approval without several significant studies (Transportation Master Plan, Transit Plan, Mobility Hubs study, etc). These have not been completed.

The question is simply: Does this action by the Planning Department, knowing that important information is missing, meet the requirements of the above Code? Do they believe they have provided all the required information?

To ECoB the facts are very clear. Do Council and residents have “full, clear and accurate information?” The answer is No.

This issue must be raised in view of the significance of this matter for all residents and the council of Burlington. How can a decision be made without full information? If we cannot agree, perhaps the Discipline Committee at OPI (Ontario Planners Institute) should decide if the document should have been brought forward at this time. We think this is a fair compromise solution.

Sincerely,
Engaged Citizens of Burlington
cc. Mayor and Council Members

Somewhere along the way polite, civil, and transparent communication got lost.

Return to the Front page

Ward 2 city Councillor sets out why she wants changes made to the draft Official Plan; wants the development focus shifted north to the Burlington GO mobility hub.

News 100 yellowBy Pepper Parr

January 15th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Meed Ward H&S

Ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward

Marianne Meed Ward announced earlier this month that she will be bringing a series of motions to modify the proposed new Official Plan policies to avoid over- intensification and ensure balanced growth in keeping with our strategic plan and requirements under provincial and regional policies.

News anal REDThe detail and Meed Ward’s rationalization are set out below along with maps that visualize the changes she thinks should be made.

Motion: 1
Defer approval of Official Plan till after the 2018 Municipal Election

Rationale:
• Major changes are coming to the city through proposed intensification in the mobility hubs at the 3 Burlington GO stations, and the downtown.

• When the Official Plan review began in December 2011, changes to the downtown were out of the scope. The mobility hubs were not included in the scope.

• In October 2016, the city shifted from an update to a rewrite of the plan. The first draft was released in April 2017. Downtown and mobility hubs policies were not included.

• Proposed changes were first released in September for the downtown, and in November for the GO stations. Area specific plans are still to come.

Official-Plan-Binder_Image• There is considerable community opposition to some of the proposed changes, particularly in the downtown.

• We need time to get this right and give the community more voice, by testing the proposed plan democratically via the 2018 election.

• There is no need or requirement from the province to rush.

• Council continues to retain full decision-making control over applications that may come in prior to approval of the Official Plan. Rules around appeals to the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal restrict what can be appealed and give more weight to local decisions, further strengthening council’s decision-making authority.

Meed Ward is absolutely right – what’s the rush?  Where is the time for the public to absorb the huge amount of information?  And were changes of this magnitude part of the mandate this council was given in 2014?

Strategic Plans were four year, single term of council documents.  This administration changed the time line to a 20 year Strategic Plan and has based much of what it now wants to do on that plan.  Future councils are not obligated to accept a Strategic Plan created by a previous government.  Unless of course this Council had the audacity to believe they were going to be around for the next 20 years.

Motion: 2
Direct staff to discuss with the Region and province the possibility of removing the mobility hub classification for the downtown, and shifting the Urban Growth Centre to the Burlington GO station.

Rationale:
• The Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations have put pressure on the downtown for over intensification.  Meed Ward points to the ADI development at Martha & Lakeshore, that was unanimously  rejected by council and staff.  ADI appealed the council decision to the OMB; a decision is expected soon

• The city has input on the location of Urban Growth Centres (UGC) and Mobility Hubs, and recently added more Mobility Hubs on its own without direction from the province (Aldershot and Appleby). “Ergo” said Meed Ward, ” we can work with the region and province to request a shift in the UGC to the existing designated mobility hub at the Burlington GO station. Urban Growth Centre boundaries recently changed – and can be changed again.”

• The city is positioned to meet city-wide growth targets set by the province for 2031 within the next five years: the population target is 185,000; 2016 census shows the city at 183,000, with 1,000 units under construction at the Burlington GO station alone.

• Downtown will continue to absorb its share of city growth under current Official Plan permissions, and will surpass a target density of 200 people or jobs within 5 to 8 years.

Downtown development sites App A

Current development activity in the Downtown core.

• There is significant development interest in the downtown, with at least 23 areas under construction, approved (whether built or not), under appeal, at pre-consultation , or subject to known land assembly.

• The downtown can meet the intent of provincial policy and the strategic plan without the pressure to over-intensify that comes with UGC and Mobility Hub designations.

Meed Ward has spoken with The Director of Planning Services/ Chief Planning Official at Halton Region who is open to this conversation, without precluding any outcome. The Region will be reviewing its own Official Plan in 2019.

Motion 3: Staff Direction
Direct staff to work with the Region of Halton to review the Downtown Urban Growth Centre boundaries, and consider restoring original boundaries with the exception of Spencer Smith Park.

motion 3 appendix c

Land use as the city planning department has presented it in their Mobility Hub reports.

 

motion 3 app b

Growth Centre boundaries as put forward by the Planning Department.

Motion 3 app b +

Changes Ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward will be bringing to council on January 23rd by way of motions.

Rationale:
• Parts of stable neighbourhoods and a community park have been added to the Urban Growth Centre, while the intent of the boundaries is to protect and exclude stable neighbourhoods.

• Areas of high density including mid-rises and high rises have been eliminated , while the intent of the boundary was to accommodate higher density built forms.

Meed Ward said she has spoken with the Director of Planning Services/ Chief Planning Official at Halton Region who is supportive of the proposed boundary changes. The Region will be reviewing its own Official Plan in 2019.

Areas to Eliminate:

• Ontario North/East of the hydro corridor
• West side of Locust and parcel fronting Hurd
• West side of Martha to James, including Lion’s Club Park
Areas to Add back:
• Ghent West to Hager
• Lakeshore South of Torrance
• South East parcels of James/Martha

Motion 4:
4a Retain the current height restriction of 4 storeys (with permission to go to 8 storeys with community benefits) for the Downtown Core Precinct. Proposed height in the new Official Plan is 17 storeys as of right.

4b Include a range of heights in the precinct, to help secure community benefits during redevelopment.

4c Include policies to allow additional density in developments that preserve heritage buildings, as a factor of square footage preserved.

 

Motion 4 app c

Historic property locations are shown on this map in light purple.

Motion 4 app d

Arrows point to where Meed Ward thinks changes should be made.

Rationale:
The downtown can meet growth targets under existing planning permissions. Refer to the intensification analysis completed by staff for the 421 Brant/James proposal, and earlier for the ADI proposal at Martha/Lakeshore. There is no policy need under provincial legislation or the city’s strategic plan to over intensify to accommodate growth.

St lukes emerals precinct 2

Residences in the St. Luke’s Precinct.

The majority of residents are not supportive of this height in this precinct. Residents are supportive of a range of new developments up to a mid-rise character as reflected in the existing plan (4-8 storeys).

St lukes emerald precinct 1

Residences in the Emerald Precinct.

Approving an up zone to 17 storeys as of right does not provide opportunity to negotiate community benefits, for example heritage preservation, affordable and family housing, additional green space setbacks and streetscaping, parking and other matters. That can be achieved in part by including a range of heights in the plan, which the existing policy framework has. That can also be achieved by writing into the precinct policies extra density in respect of the square footage of the historic buildings preserved.

There is precedent: the existing OP for the Old Lakeshore Road area includes density increases for heritage protection during redevelopment; add similar policies to the downtown core precinct.

Up zoning to 17 storeys would compromise the historic character of parts of the precinct, create a potential forest of high rises every 25 metres in this area should land owners take advantage of the new heights by application, in accordance with the Tall Building Guidelines, and make it more difficult to preserve historic (but not designated) buildings in the downtown, as the air rights of these existing 2-3 storey buildings would be more valuable than retaining the building.

There are 93 properties in the downtown mobility hub study area of heritage significance (on the municipal register or designated).

• Of these 26 are designated

• 5 adjacent to mobility hub, 1 of these designated

Motion 5:
Height restriction of 3 storeys along Brant Street with permission to go to 11 storeys along John Street frontage, only with the provision of community benefits.

Rationale:
Existing permissions are 4 storeys along Brant, up to 8 with provision of community benefits. The proposed is 3-11, which is roughly the same; this motion seeks additional of language that allows securing community benefits to get to the full 11 storeys.

Motion 6:
6a. Add the north west corner of Burlington Avenue and Lakeshore Road to the special planning area to match the north east corner.

6b. Reduce height to 3 storeys.

Current proposal in the Official Plan is 6 storeys, on the east side only.

motion 6

Councillor Meed Ward sees Burlington Street as the entrance to the St. Luke’s Precinct and believes that the two corners at Lakeshore Road should be the same height.

Rational:
Burlington Avenue and Lakeshore is a gateway to the stable neighbourhood of St. Luke’s. This corner has existing townhouses and single family homes that contain multiple units. Both sides of the street should be treated the same; the proposed 3 storeys reflects existing built form and is compatible with the balance of the street in the St. Luke’s Precinct. Higher height/density will put pressure on development creep up the street into the neighbourhood.

Motion 7:
Reduce the cannery district at the north east corner of Lakeshore Road and Brant Street to 15 storeys.

Rationale:

Reflects existing heights in the area.

Motion 8: Upper Brant Precinct:
8a. Remove East side of Brant from Blairholm to Prospect 8b.

motion 8

The arrows indicate where Councillor Meed Ward would like to see changes made in the current version of the Official Plan.

Remove West side of Brant from Blairholm to Olga

Existing heights are 4-6 storeys; that is an appropriate transition in these two areas which back onto stable neighbourhoods.

One Gazette reader who has written opinion pieces for the paper said: “This meeting and MMW’s (Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward) motions may determine who will be our next mayor and put the rest of council on notice, as well as planning.

The January 23rd meeting is expected to attract a significant number of delegations.  Many of those who have delegated in the past have come away from the experience feeling they were not respected and not listened to.

The city council decision to accept a Planning Staff Recommendation to approve a 23 storey condominium opposite city hall appears to have been the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.   They want to put a stop to some of the ideas coming out of the Planning department that itself is experiencing some disarray.

The meeting will start at 1:00 pm and adjourn at 4:00 and begin again at 6:30 pm.  Meetings can go to 10:00 pm and can be extended an additional half hour and then are adjourned to be continued on another day.

 

 

Return to the Front page

Tallest buildings the city planners want to permit are to be in the Upper Brant Precinct - ward Councillor doesn't see it the same way.

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

January 12th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

Part ten of a multi-part editorial feature on the precincts and mobility hub being planned for the downtown core

The Upper Brant Precinct is a new precinct, which serves as “the height peak” or the area of the tallest building permissions in the Downtown Mobility Hub. This precinct was created in response to public input around the preferred location of building height in the downtown and as a result of the precinct’s location within walking distance of the Burlington GO Station to accommodate a mixed-use pedestrian, cycling and transit oriented community close to higher order public transit.

Upper Brant precinct

The developers are far ahead of the thinking going on in the Planning department. Major projects are well advanced.

Draft Intention Statement:

The Upper Brant Precinct will accommodate the tallest developments within the Downtown Mobility Hub, where appropriate and compatible, along Brant Street between Prospect Street and Blairholm Avenue. Developments will generally achieve a height and density that reflects the precinct’s walking distance to higher-order transit at the Burlington GO Station and contributes to the creation of a transit, pedestrian and cycling oriented community that links the Downtown Mobility Hub and the Burlington GO Mobility Hub.

The key policy directions for the Upper Brant Precinct include a maximum building height of 25 storeys where appropriate and compatible, as well as several building design and performance measures. Future developments will be required to provide a mix of unit sizes, and attract a range of demographics and income levels to the Downtown. In addition, podium requirements, Transportation Demand Management measures and the mitigation of impacts on adjacent low and mid-rise development will be required.

Upper brant map 2

The two squares are land that has been assembled with plans to build well underway. The circle is where a significant add on is to be added to Brant Square.

The Upper Brant Precinct also includes a special policy area that is intended to recognize the existing shallow parcel depths of lands on the east side of Brant Street, just south of Ghent Avenue and their close proximity to the adjacent low density residential neighbourhood.

Draft Intention Statement for Special Policy Area:

Lands on the east side of Brant Street from south of Ghent Avenue to Blairholm Avenue will accommodate developments at a scale and height significantly less than that permitted throughout the precinct.

Brant Square looking north

Brant Square has had plans for a significant re-development of their property in the works for some time. The property to the immediate north has been assembled on both sides of the street with the developer ready to put shovels into the ground.

Developments will not exceed a modest mid-rise form in order to minimize potential impacts on the adjacent established residential neighborhood areas as a result of smaller parcel sizes and depths that exist in this section of the precinct.

The key policy directions for the Upper Brant Precinct Special Policy Area include a maximum building height of 7 storeys.

Meed Ward at kick off

Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward at her 2014 nomination meeting.

Ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward has announced that she will be bringing a number of motions to a committee meeting on January 23rd.  Two of the nine motions she has outlined relate to the Upper Brant Precinct.

Meed Ward wants to:

Remove East side of Brant from Blairholm to Prospect and retain existing permissions

Remove West side of Brant from Blairholm to Olga and retain existing permissions

She said that “the proposed Upper Brant Precinct from Blairholm to Prospect (royal blue on the map) would allow heights of 25 storeys. Currently this area allows mixed use buildings of 6 storeys, although there are taller buildings on the West side of Brant and Ghent (up to 18 storeys).

On the east side of Brant there are low rises (4-6 storeys) and the area transitions to single family neighbourhoods. Though staff have proposed some restrictions to height in this area, based on lot depth, the east side of Brant should be eliminated entirely from this precinct.

Brant St north of Prospect is part of the Burlington GO mobility hub planning study, which will be discussed at a future committee meeting.

Part 1  Evolution of precincts and hubs

Part 2 Brant Main Street

Part 3 – Parks and promenades

Part 4 – Bates precinct

Part 5 – Cannery precinct

Part 6 Old Lakeshore Road

Part 7 Mid Rise precinct

Part 8 Tall buildings precinct

Part 9 Public service precinct

Return to the Front page

Wilson: Based on my review and consultations, I conclude that, while there were violations of the Board PAR Policy, they were such that they had no material effect on either the deliberations of the PARC or on the final decisions of the Board. Respectfully submitted,

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

January 10th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

It is a 39 page report, it is close to exhaustive. Margaret Wilson, the Facilitator appointed by the province to carry out an Administrative Review of the process used by the Halton District school Board to arrive at it’s decision to close two of the city’s seven high schools: Lester B.Pearson and Robert Bateman.

The report needs a close reading before any analysis can be done.  Not that all the analysis in the world will make any difference.

This was a decision made by the elected trustees – the only recourse is to elect different trustees – you get a chance to do that in June of this year.

The Wilson report:

The Honourable Mitzie Hunter Minister of Education

900 Bay Street 22nd Floor Toronto, M7A 1L2

Re: Independent Facilitator’s Report on the Burlington Secondary Program and Accommodation Review, Halton District School Board.

Dear Minister:

On October 10, 2017, your Ministry appointed me as the Independent Facilitator to conduct an Administrative Review of the Program and Accommodation Review Process undertaken in the City of Burlington. The Board’s Review was focused on the seven secondary schools in Burlington.

My appointment was in response to 2 petitions, one dated July 5, 2017 regarding Lester B. Pearson High School and the other, dated July 6, 2017 regarding Robert Bateman High School. The two petitions request an Administrative Review of the Program and Accommodation Review (PAR) of 7 City of Burlington secondary schools. The PAR was conducted by the Halton District School Board between October 19, 2016 and June 7, 2017, the date on which the Board made its final decision. The PAR Committee was formed on December 1, 2016 and held its last meeting on March 17, 2017.

The PAR led to a series of Board decisions on June 7, 2017, including decisions to close Robert Bateman High School and Lester B. Pearson High School. The focus of both the Bateman H.S and Pearson H.S. petitions is on the process which led to the decisions and on the propriety of the decision making process.

In conducting this Review, I received excellent support from Tom Adams, Education Officer with the Toronto and Area Regional Office of the Ministry of Education. I appreciated the co-operation in the process of Trustees, Board Senior Staff and support staff, Principals of the 7 schools, the Ipsos facilitator, members of the Burlington Secondary PARC, a Student Trustee and a Student Senator, petitioners, parents and members of the community. All were generous with their time, frank in their views and had a deeply felt interest in the education of Burlington’s children. In addition to my meetings with participants in the PAR I viewed, on the Board website, all of the Board Meetings during which the Burlington PAR was discussed and or debated. After my meetings with the PARC and the Petitioners I received several letters, on a g-mail account which we had set up, which are germane to how the process worked. In addition, I received a phone call from the Mayor of Burlington.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

 Burlington Secondary School Program and Accommodation Review

The Facilitator will be responsible for the Administrative Review of the Program and Accommodation Review undertaken by the Halton District School Board of the seven secondary schools in the City of Burlington.

SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

 The Independent Facilitator shall be responsible for:

  • Determining whether the Halton District School Board followed its Board approved program and accommodation review process in conducting the Review of Burlington secondary schools;
  • Reviewing formal documentation, interviewing relevant participants including PARC members, petitioners and board staff;
  • Submitting a written report to the Minister of Education upon completion of the Review

PROCESS OF THE REVIEW

 The Independent Facilitator will consult the Senior Board Staff, the Trustees, the PARC and the Petitioners. She will also visit each of the schools which were under Review.

REPORTING TO THE MINISTER

 The report should be in the form of a letter to the Minister, indicating whether the program and accommodation review process followed the Board’s Program and Accommodation Review Policy. The report will include recommendations for improvement in the Board’s Program and Accommodation Review Policy and/or Processes.

The Minister is responsible for making the Facilitator’s findings available to the Board and the public in a timely manner.

BOARD PROFILE AND DESCRIPTION OF SCHOOLS

The Halton District School Board is responsible for public English language education in the Halton Region, the only Region in the Greater Toronto Area which is not immediately adjacent to Toronto. The Region includes the City of Burlington and the Towns of Oakville, Milton and Halton Hills. Oakville and Burlington are largely urban while Milton and Halton Hills to the north have large rural areas within their boundaries. The Board is organized into three areas, East (Oakville) North (Halton Hills and Milton) and West (Burlington). The Board is responsible for 102 schools, 84 elementary and 18 secondary.

Secondary schools in the Halton District School Board offer a similar core program consisting of subjects such as English, Mathematics, Science and other core subjects which are required for graduation. Schools also offer a variety of optional courses in areas such as the Arts, Technology, Physical and Health Education, Business, Modern Languages, the Social Sciences and Humanities. Every school offers some Specialist High Skills Majors (SHSMs). These provide an additional concentration of learning in a specific career area. The Board has the highest percentage of students enrolled in SHSMs in the Province.

The availability of a wide range of courses in a particular school is dependent on the size of the school population. Secondary school programs/courses are organized with students’ post High School direction in mind. In terms of Special Education, most students with special needs receive in-school support so that they can attend regular classes in their home schools. Individual Education Plans (IEPs) are developed to ensure that support, curriculum and instruction are individualized.

The concept of Pathways tries to ensure that students are able to take the specific courses required for entry to their chosen Pathway (e.g. workplace, university, college, community and/or apprenticeship) when they graduate. Providing the appropriate core courses can become challenging when, as is the case at Robert Bateman, the grade 9 intake drops to only 75 students.

The Board also offers Regional Programs. Regional programs are not offered in every school. Two of them, ACCESS and LEAP are designed to assist at risk grade 8 students who will benefit from an intensively assisted exposure to secondary school while still in grade 8. The Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Programs (OYAP) is offered in a small number of Halton secondary schools. Some schools also offer Dual Credit programs in which students achieve both a secondary school credit and a Community College Credit. Mohawk and Sheridan Colleges are partners in these programs. French Immersion and Extended French programs are also options for students. The Board has specific programs for gifted students. Each area of the Board also has a regional English as a Second Language (ESL) Centre where specialized support and programming is provided to English Language Learners (ELL). The Board has recently opened, in Milton, a Welcome Centre for New Canadians.

Regional Special Education programs are located in schools that offer specific program areas and courses which complement the special education program. The programs are designed for students on the Community Skills track and the Employability Skills track. The Community Pathways Program (CPP) and Essential Skills Program are offered together at a select number of schools throughout the Board. These schools offer open level courses such as technological education, vocational courses and the arts for CPP students. The students can also access Essential level courses. These are locally developed academic courses designed to meet their needs. Many CPP students are medically fragile and require individual support, specially trained Educational Assistants (EA’s) and Special Education teachers and specialized equipment. Students are gathered together so that there is a minimum number at each site to support viable programming. CPP students are entitled to 7 years of secondary schooling.

The Board offers the International Baccalaureate (IB) at three schools. This program has a prescribed curriculum, prescribed exams and requires teachers and administrators and the school site to hold IB certification.

This Review is about the secondary schools in the City of Burlington; therefore I will focus on the City’s situation rather than that of the whole Board. Burlington lies between the north shore of Lake Ontario and the Niagara Escarpment. The Town of Oakville is to the East and the City of Hamilton is the western boundary. It is located near the geographic centre of the Golden Horseshoe, a densely populated region of over 8 million people. The population of Burlington, in the 2016 census, was 183,314. Burlington started as a small 19th century village on the Lakeshore, surrounded by farms. The village grew slowly into a town and then exploded with development in the years following World War 11. Provincial decisions have influenced Burlington’s urban geography and therefore development decisions and decisions on schools. While the City population continues to grow, areas of growth are limited by the Province’s “Green Belt” and Niagara Escarpment rules. In  addition, Burlington is divided north from south by the Queen Elizabeth Way, a controlled access Highway opened in 1939. The City is also bisected by the 407 ETR, another controlled access road, which runs diagonally from northeast to southwest.

Of the 7 schools in the Burlington secondary PAR, 4: Robert Bateman High School (Bateman), Nelson High School (Nelson). Burlington Central High School (Central) and Aldershot High School (Aldershot) are located south of the Queen Elizabeth   Way (QEW). Bateman is the furthest east and Aldershot is nearly in Hamilton. Lester

  1. Pearson (Pearson) and M.M. Robinson (MMR) are located north of the QEW, south of the 407 ETR and centrally in east west terms. Dr. Frank Hayden Secondary School (Hayden), the Board’s newest school, is located north and east of MMR and Pearson but is still south of the 407 ETR. The PAR led to a series of Board decisions on June 7, 2017 which included decisions to close Lester B. Pearson High School and Robert Bateman High School. The recommended date for closing Bateman was June 30, 2019. This  was  amended  at  the  Board  Meeting  to  June  30,  2020.  The approvedclosing date for Pearson is June 30, 2018. The school closing decisions were accompanied by boundary changes and student and program shifts to which I will return.

My appointment responds to petitions from each of Robert Bateman H.S and Lester B.Pearson H.S.

I therefore visited both schools. The PAR involved all 7 schools in Burlington and a number of the decisions made as a result of the decision to close 2 schools affected the other schools in the PAR, in some cases in major ways. I therefore visited all 7 schools, have data on all 7 and will include all of them in my description of the process. My comments on Accessibility under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (OADA) are taken from the Board’s Facility Audit for Accessibility done by Snyder Architects Inc. and dated February 8, 2017. Only one of the schools was untouched by the decisions. I will therefore describe them in alphabetical order.

Aldershot High School

 Aldershot High School was opened in 1960 in an area first settled in the mid 19th century. The first Aldershot School was built in 1870. The area is primarily residential with houses tucked into well-treed lots on quiet streets. The Aldershot neighbourhood and its High School are somewhat isolated from the rest of Burlington. The QEW is on its eastern border and that major road merges with Highway 403 as it turns east. Highway 403 then creates a northern boundary. Aldershot is so close to the Hamilton border that the school has been working with the Royal Botanical Garden, which is in Hamilton, on a horticultural program. The school houses grade 7 and 8 students from the neighbourhood but they are not part of the PAR process. The school is well kept and has a welcoming atmosphere.

Aldershot H.S. sits on a 16-acre site. It is a 2-storey building with several level changes on the ground floor, the result of additions made after the original build. Aldershot offers English Language and French Immersion programming. The school has the usual academic classrooms, multiple gyms, a library, 3 Science labs, 5 Technology shops for College and Workplace Construction Technology and Transportation Technology. There are specialized rooms for Visual Arts, Music, Computer Studies and Family Studies. It also has an auditorium as well as a cafeteria. There is a spacious playing field and a track which is in good condition. The library, gyms, the general office and some computer labs are air-conditioned. There is an adjacent City operated swimming pool which the school uses. There is a paved parking lot with 163 places plus 6 handicapped spaces (HC). Aldershot H.S. meets most of the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (A0DA). There is a limited use elevator (LULA) between the 1st and 2nd floors and stair lifts have been installed in several locations to deal with access on the 1st floor. Washroom access has been upgraded but does not meet current standards.

Aldershot H.S. has a student capacity of 1018. The enrollment in 2010 was 523. In 2015 it had dropped to 436 and is projected to reach 461 in 2020. The school offers 109 courses in its calendar but that does not mean that every course is available in any given semester. The courses are primarily focused on College and University bound students but one of the offerings is College and Workplace Construction Technology. The school offers 1 SHSM to 52 students. The reality is that, despite what is listed in the course calendar, 38% of Aldershot students had timetable conflicts in 2016. With the small number of students, not every course will be offered in any given year. The low numbers affect the number of teachers assigned to the school and also affect the number of subject specialist teachers who will deliver the program. As a consequence, most students in grades 11 and 12, who  need specific courses for post secondary program entry, take e-learning courses. This is a learning mode which suits some but not all students.

The Board has agreed to examine innovative ideas for Aldershot H.S. including the concept of a magnet school. While the community and its students love their walk-to school, the question of an equitable education for its students remains unresolved.

Burlington Central High School

 Burlington Central High School was originally opened in 1922 and has been added to several times since. As its name suggests, it is in downtown Burlington, adjacent to a City of Burlington playing field and track, which the school uses, and close to  City Hall. The school sits on a 10-acre site. It has a paved parking lot with 148 spaces plus 1 H.C, The school site and parking are shared with Central Public School. The school houses grade 7 and 8 students but that program was not part of the PAR process. Central is the Dowager of Burlington high schools. It has “good bones” but, particularly in the original building, it is in need of a face-lift. It is a 3-storey building with multiple levels on various floors as a consequence of the additions. The original building has high ceilings, big classrooms with large windows and wide corridors. The newer sections of the school are also light and spacious. It was a bustling, cheerful place on the day that I visited. The school offers English Language and French Immersion programming. The school building has academic classrooms and specialized rooms for Visual Art, Science, Music and Family Studies. There is an Auditorium, a library and a cafeteria. The last major addition added a technical wing and multiple gyms. The Library, Auditorium, general offices and some computer labs are air-conditioned. The Auditorium was recently upgraded with new seats and technical equipment. The building does not meet AODA standards. Some floor areas of the building are accessible only by stairs. Both a new elevator and several stair lifts will be necessary to provide access to all floors.

Burlington Central has a student capacity of 1271. The enrollment in 2010 was 715. In 2015 it was 595. The projected enrollment for 2020 is 593. The school lists 135 courses in its calendar. Central provides English Language and ESL programming. The courses are primarily focused on college or university bound students. The English as a Second Language programs for Burlington are housed here. They range from  basic  ESL  programs  to  academic  courses  adjusted  for  English  Language Learners (ELLs). The school is also the Centre for fee paying International Students. The Technical wing houses programs in Construction, Computer, Manufacturing and Communications Technology. In addition there is Technical design and prize winning Technical Design Robotics. Robotics is offered as a Dual Credit  course. There are 2 SHSMs serving 33 students. While the calendar presents a large number of courses, they are not always available when students need them. Burlington Central had 32% course conflicts in the 2016/17 school year, mostly in the senior grades. The alternative for students was e-learning or summer school.

The Burlington Central solution will appear in my summary of the Board’s decisions.

DR F.J. HAYDEN SECONDARY SCHOOL

 Dr. F.J. Hayden is Burlington’s newest secondary school. It is a 3-storey building which was opened in 2013. It is located in Alton Village, north of Dundas Street and south of the 407 ETR. The Alton area was developed fairly recently as a residential area with most of the homes being detached. Commercial activity is along Dundas Street. Hayden is currently the only school in Burlington which is well above capacity. It is expected to grow until 2021. In comparison with the other secondary schools in Burlington, Hayden sits on a rather small plot of land, 2.6 acres. When the school was planned, a shared facilities agreement was worked out with the City of Burlington. As a result, the school and community facilities were planned and built  at the same time. The school and Community Centre share parking, with a total of 404 spaces and 16 H.C. There were bicycle racks everywhere in front of the school. The school has its own playing field and track and its own multiple gyms but it also has open access to the Community Centre gyms and fields during the school day. Hayden is fully air-conditioned and has an elevator. The school meets all of the requirements of the AODA.

Hayden is a brand new place with new ideas about learning in full play, a school for the 21st century. It provides English Language and French Immersion programming primarily for college and university bound students. The school calendar offers 164 courses. The range of offerings in subjects such as History and Geography, as well as in subjects where the compulsory core demands more courses e.g. English, Math  and Science is very impressive. In 2016/17 the timetable conflicts were a low 11%. Hayden is a Wi-Fi school. The students use computers all day every day in all subjects although the exclusive use of computers, that is no books and no paper, has become a matter of some debate, including with some parents. The students we saw were clearly comfortable and happy in their school and with their teachers. The school building has academic classrooms and specialized rooms/shops for Technology, Cosmetology, Music, Family Studies, Art, Drama and Science. The Technical programs include Construction, Transportation, Communications, Computers and Technological Design. The school offers 2 SHSMs with 29 students enrolled. The school has a cafeteria but it does not have a dedicated school library. The Public Library is part of the Community Centre complex and, through the  shared facilities agreement, a teacher librarian works there but is part of the school staff. The school and Community Centre are attached so that movement between the two is indoors.

Hayden’s student capacity is 1194 but in 2015 it housed 1408 and the projection for 2020 is 1799. The short-term solution has been a bank of portable  classrooms which, to the irritation of the community, sit on part of the parking lot. A longer- term solution, to redirect the French Immersion program, is part of the Board’s decisions.

LESTER B. PEARSON HIGH SCHOOL

Lester B. Pearson was built in 1976. It is located north of the QEW between Guelph Line and Walker’s Line in a quiet residential neighbourhood of mostly single-family homes. The 2-storey school sits on a 13.88-acre site. There is an unused “porta- pack” addition on the grounds. Pearson has a well-kept playing field  and  track. There is a paved parking area for 216 cars plus 2 H.C. places. The school is a quiet, bright and comfortable place and one can easily see why it is valued by its community.

Pearson offers English Language and Late French Immersion programming. The focus is primarily on programs for college and university oriented students. The student capacity is 642, so Pearson was always intended to be a small school. Its enrollment in 2010 was 721. In 2015 it had dropped to 416 and is projected to decline to 353 by 2020. It is the only school in Halton to have late  French Immersion. The program starts in Grade 7 at Sir Ernest MacMillan Public School.  The school has academic classrooms and specialized rooms for Learning Resources/Student Success, Technology, Music, Art, Drama, Science and Computers. It has a Library, a cafeteria/auditorium and 3 gyms. The Technology offerings are in Construction, Communications and Transportation. The calendar lists 2 Dual Credit courses. There are 2 SHSMs serving 16 students. The school’s low enrollment has affected both staffing and course availability. There is a music room but no program. There is an after school Band in conjunction with M.M. Robinson. Pearson’s calendar lists 100 course options. In the 2016/17 school year timetable conflicts totaled 44%. Over 200 students, roughly half of the student body, were enrolled in e-learning courses. The school manages to meet the demands of the compulsory core, in part with e-learning, but the course offerings are thin. For instance Geography, academic and applied, is offered only in grade 9 and History offers only 4 course options, including both academic and applied from grade 10 to 12.

The school has a LULA elevator but would need further work to meet the standards of the AODA.

The Board decision was to close Pearson. The school is 1.9 km from M.M. Robinson.

M.M. Robinson High School

 M.M. Robinson High School was opened in 1963. It is located north of the QEW between the Guelph Line and 407 ETR. It is in a residential district of mostly single- family homes. The 3-storey school sits on 29.85 acres with ample paved parking,  304 spaces, and 5 H.C. It is adjacent to a City operated pool which the school uses. The school has its own playing fields and track. A recent renovation created a large entrance foyer, Drama and Music rooms and a very large elevator. The school is now 75% air conditioned, the remainder being the Tech shops. In the renovation a large wing was added. It is equipped for special needs education and also includes technical shops. The special needs wing has the necessary accessibility features. When I visited the school it was clear that there was no physical barrier to students leaving the special needs wing to access Essential Skills programs. MMR, as it is called, is a large, light filled and spacious second home for its students. The building meets most of the requirements of the OADA.

MMR is a composite secondary school which offers English Language, French Immersion and Technology programs for college and university bound students. In addition it has the full range of Essential Skills courses and Community Pathways programs. The latter programs support special needs students on the Community Skills and Employability tracks. They have access not only to their self-contained special needs and Essentials programming but also to workplace-oriented programs. CPP students are individually assessed for integration into the schools’ programs. The student capacity of MMR is 1347. In 2010 enrollment stood at 1173. By 2015 it had dropped to 730, and this is after the addition of the special needs students. The projection for 2020 is 633. In addition to the purpose built wing, MMR has academic classrooms and specialized rooms for Music, Drama, Science, Art and Computers. There are multiple gyms, a cafeteria and a Library. The Technical shops are equipped for Broad Based Technology, Construction, Communications, Manufacturing, Transportation, Robotics, Technical Design, Communications Technology and Hairstyling and Aesthetics. The calendar lists 6 Dual Credit courses and 6 OYAP programs. There are 130 students enrolled in 5 SHSMs. The schools’ low enrollment has affected staffing and course availability. Some specialized rooms and shops are not in use. The school calendar lists 161 courses. In the 2016/17 school year the timetable conflicts totaled 25%.

The Board’s decisions would change boundaries and program placement to re- direct students to MMR

Nelson High School

Nelson High School was opened in 1957. It is located south of the QEW between Walker’s Line and Appleby Line. It is in a well-established residential area of mostly single-family homes. The 2-storey school sits on a 17.39-acre site. There is ample paved parking, 225 spaces plus 2 H.C. The architecture of the school is very plain 1950’s style on the outside but the interior is bright and welcoming. The halls are wide and the classrooms spacious. The school has ample playing fields and a track and is adjacent to a City owned stadium and field to which the school has access. The Library, gyms, general offices and some computer rooms are air-conditioned. There are 2 LULA elevators, one providing access to the 2nd floor and the other providing access to a small music wing. This meets minimal AODA requirements.

Nelson High School provides English Language, French Immersion and Secondary Gifted Placement programs. The programs are geared to college and university entry. The student capacity of Nelson is 1341. In 2010 enrollment was 1436. In 2015 it dropped to 998 and is projected to rise to 1111 in 2020. Nelson has academic classrooms and specialized rooms for Art, Music, Science, Drama and Family Studies. There are multiple gyms, an Auditorium, a Library and a cafeteria. Technical shops are equipped to deliver Broad Based Technology, Construction, Computer, Communications and Transportation Technologies and Technological Design. The Music program is extensive and English, Mathematics, Science, History and Geography offer a wide range of options. There are 35 students enrolled in 2 SHSMs. The school offers a total of 136 courses. The drop in enrollment meant fewer teachers and tighter timetabling. In 2016/17 Timetable conflicts totaled 18%.

The Board’s decisions would expand and renovate the Nelson building to create a composite High School with a more diverse student population and facilities to meet all student needs.

ROBERT BATEMAN HIGH SCHOOL

Robert Bateman High School opened in 1970 as Lord Elgin High School. It is located south of the QEW between Appleby Line and Burloak Drive. It is close enough to Oakville that a small number of students from an area known as the Samuel Curtis Estate is directed to Bateman. The Bateman neighbourhood is another well- established residential area of mostly single-family homes. There is a shopping plaza, Appleby Village, on nearby Appleby Line. The 2-storey school sits on a 12.79- acre site. There is ample parking for 241 vehicles plus 8 HC. The school has a good playing field and a track and has access to an adjacent City owned pool. Bateman is a pleasant looking building although many of the windows are smaller than one expects in a school. The interior architecture of the school is different from the other Burlington high schools because Lord Elgin was built with a particular mode of teaching in mind. Elgin was designed as an “Open Plan” school. While Elgin did have some rectangular rooms with walls, it also had a number of large open spaces in which a several individual teachers would teach their assigned classes. The idea was that the teachers would also work as a team and “team teach”, when appropriate,  the entire large group as part of their team designed program. For a variety of practical reasons, which are not germane here, the Open Plan concept died quite rapidly, at Elgin and in boards across the Province, although in many schools some team teaching survived.

When the Elgin building was converted to traditional classrooms the hallways were placed around the exterior walls as well as in the interior. This means that most of the academic classrooms have no windows. The partitioning which was erected provides adequate rather than good soundproofing between classrooms and has  had to be strengthened in some of the special needs rooms. When Elgin and General Brock, a Vocational School, were merged to create Bateman in 2004, a wing was added to the school. The new wing was purpose designed to accommodate special needs students and a number of very up-to-date Technical shops. Some classrooms in the old wing were also re-designed. The addition, and renovations done to the original building mean that Bateman is compliant with the OADA. The school has a full sized elevator to the second floor and several accessibility features in the special needs wing. The school is fully air conditioned except for the Tech wing

Robert Bateman High School offers English Language programming, and Regional programming. It is the International Baccalaureate (IB) Centre for Burlington. It  also provides a wide variety of Self Contained Special Education programs which are also Regional. Bateman is a composite school which serves college and university bound students and Community Pathways students. Many of the CPP students are medically fragile. The student capacity of Bateman is 1323. In 2010 enrollment was 1261. By 2015 it had dropped to 799 and is projected to be 726 in 2020. Bateman has academic classrooms, and a large number of specialized rooms. There are rooms for Art, Music, and Science, There are multiple gyms, a Library and Auditorium/cafeteria. The Technical area offers a wide range of options: Broad Based Technology, Manufacturing, Engineering, Welding, Construction (including Robotics) and Transportation Technology including auto body. There is a restaurant quality kitchen for the Culinary/Food program. Health Care, Health and Personal services and Hairstyling and Aesthetics are also available. There is a LEAP outdoor activities program. Essential Skills courses are available in English (4),  Mathematics and Science (3). There are 4 OYAP Programs and 4 SHSMs offered. Bateman offers a total of 153 courses in its calendar . The timetable conflict rate is 21%, but over 50% of Bateman’s students are in tightly prescribed Regional Programs . This means that the course conflicts are experienced by the roughly 350 students in the English Language Program. The grade 9 and 10 program has a large number of required courses. The timetabling problem is most serious for grade 11 and 12 students who need both core and optional courses for university or college

SUMMARY OF BOARD PROCESS LEADING TO DECISIONS

 The Halton District School Board reviews its Long Term Accommodation Plan (LTAP) on an annual basis. Each new iteration is published and adopted by the Board.  The  LTAP  had identified low  enrollment  in  Burlington’s secondary  school since 2012-13. Enrollment in Burlington had been declining for several years prior to 2012. In 1999 Grades 7 and 8 students were added to Aldershot H.S. and in 2001 they were added to Burlington Central. In both cases the intention was to fill empty student places. The 2015-2016 LTAP identified 1748 empty student places in Burlington’s secondary schools. The number was projected to rise to 1919 by 2025.

On October 5, 2016 the Director of the Halton DSB presented to the Board of Trustees the Director’s Preliminary Report on the Undertaking of a Program and Accommodation Review for Burlington Secondary Schools, dated September 29, 2016. The Preliminary Report referred to Ministry of Education initiatives such as the School Board Efficiency and Modernization Strategy, the Community Planning and Partnership Guidelines and the newest Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline. The Preliminary Report provided data on enrollment and programming in each Burlington secondary school. Five of the schools were experiencing declining enrollment and were expected to continue to decline. Data trends on Small and Large Secondary Schools were included, in brief, in the Report. The premise of the Preliminary Report was that “by re-organizing the secondary Schools and creating larger grade sizes HDSB can improve program delivery and learning opportunities for all secondary students in Burlington.” The Report provided an overview of the Program and Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) makeup and PAR process. A list of 19 Options for discussion of the program and empty seats issues was accompanied by brief impact Analyses of each. One Option, #19, had been  selected as the “preferred/recommended option”. That was followed, in bold print by the following: “At this time one option is recommended. It is the intent this recommendation not to be presented as a final option but as a starting point for the review and discussions by the PARC.”

The Preliminary Report continued with brief notes on Transportation, Capital Investment, Timelines following a PAR, Community Planning and Partnerships, School Information Profiles and Consultation and Communications Plans. The Report states:  “The Board staff recommended option is not to be construed as  the Board of Trustees preferred or approved option.” The recommended option was:

  • To close Lester B. Pearson HS and redirect its students to M.Robinson
  • To close Burlington Central HS and redirect its students to Aldershot HS and Nelson
  • To change Dr. Frank J. Hayden SS program and boundary and move the French Immersion Program to M.M. Robinson HS and Robert Bateman, and to redirect a portion of English program students to Robert Bateman and,
  • Having added French Immersion to Bateman, redirect a portion of French Immersion students from Nelson HS to Bateman

The Director’s Preliminary Report was accompanied b y 8 Appendices one of which was a presentation given at a Board Committee of the Whole meeting, on the previous day, September 28, 2016, titled “Small/Large Schools”.

For clarity in this Report, I will consolidate the details of the Board’s outreach to the public over the course of the PAR and then describe the PARC meetings.

On October 19, 2016 the Halton Board approved a motion to commence a Program and Accommodation Review (PAR) process for all seven secondary schools in Burlington. The motion was based on the Director’s Preliminary Report. The Board also directed that a Program and Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) be formed which would represent the 7 schools under review. The next day, October 20, 2016, the Burlington PAR website went live on the Board’s website. The Director’s Preliminary Report was on the website as was a description of the purpose of a PAR and the proposed process. “Frequently Asked Questions” were posted on the website and were regularly updated throughout the PAR process. Board Communications distributed a news release on October 20, 2016 explaining that a PAR had been commenced and encouraging the community to attend November supplementary information nights. These nights would be “information only” rather than question and answer sessions.

An e-mail was sent out to all families of Burlington elementary and secondary students, via the Board’s Home Notification System, advising them of the initiation of the PAR, of how to keep track of the process and of the dates and locations of the supplementary information nights. The message emphasized that the staff recommendation was not a final decision of the Trustees, but a starting point for consultation. On November 9, 2016 the Board sent out a news release which the Burlington Post used for two stories on November 11 and December 2, 2016. The November 11 article included the statement that “Option 19 is not the final decision of the Board….(it is) to initiate the PAR process and gain input from the community.”

The Director wrote to Burlington High School students on October 27,2016 informing them of the PAR and inviting them to attend the information sessions and informing them of where to find the presentations on the board website. The letter states that the initial recommendation is not the final decision. The supplementary information nights ran between November 1, 2016 and November 16, 2016 in each of the schools in the PAR. The Director and Senior Staff members presented the information using 32 Power Point slides. The slides outline, mostly in plain English and with graphs, the enrollment situation of each school, the general program delivery consequences of low enrollment and the PAR process, including how to participate. The presentation and a video were posted on the Board website for those who could not attend. A flyer outlining the PAR timelines was handed out at the information nights.

The Board hired Ipsos Reid as a neutral third party to assist with the design and management of the Public Meetings required by the Board’s PAR Policy. Ipsos was also to facilitate meetings of the PARC and assist with meeting records.

The Program and Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) met on December 1, 2016 for an orientation session. The information provided at that session was used at the first Public Meeting.

The Board’s outreach to the public went well beyond the use of electronic and paper media. The first Public Meeting was held on December 8, 2016. The information sent out announcing the meeting made it clear that the purpose was information gathering, not a Question and Answer session. The Agenda included an overview of the PARC orientation session, the Director’s Preliminary Report, including Option 19, presentation of the School Information Profiles (SIPs) and the gathering of individual input on the PARC framework around 4 themes: Programming and Enrolment, Physical state of the 7 schools, Geographical and Transportation issues and Fiscal responsibility and future planning. The presentations were followed by a questionnaire, organized around four 20-minute sessions focusing on a distinct topic. Participants answered each question using an electronic clicker. Each segment concluded with a discussion. The first Public Meeting had over 300 people attend, but only three schools hit double digits in attendance: Central, Pearson and Hayden.

The Board held two more Public Meetings, on February 28, 2017 for schools in  North Burlington and on March 7, 2017 for school in South Burlington. About 400 people attended the February meeting and around 700 attended in March. These meetings used a “Town Hall” format in which members of the public could ask specific questions both about the Board’s situation and the options which were generated by the PARC. This was not large group Q and A. The media release, newspaper advertisements, and the e-mail to parents/guardians included the  format of the meetings and reminders about the Board website and its information. Nearly 30 Board staff were at stations around the rooms and were prepared to answer individual questions. The Options which were still under discussion by the PARC were posted at each station. The stations were staffed with HDSB experts in Human Resources, Facility Services, Planning, School Programs, Student Services (Special Education) and Business Services (finance and transportation). A handout “Guide to the Public Meeting/Open House” was given, by Board Staff, to attendees at the entrance. The Handout explained the meeting format and highlighted the Online Survey which had been developed and encouraged participation in it. It also presented the then timeline for completion of the PAR and in the middle spread sheet outlined the 6 Options which were still under discussion at the PARC. The Options were also posted on the Website.

In addition to the Public Meetings and Supplementary Information Meetings, on November 21, 2016, the Board hosted a live, online Question and Answer session for parents/guardians, students and community members. During the 1 ½ hour session the Director and the General Manager of Planning received and answered more than 240 questions. Questions which were not dealt within the allotted time were answered as part of the Frequently Asked Questions section of the PAR Board website. A video of the Question and Answer session was also posted on the  website.

Once the Director’s Final Report was made public, the Board scheduled two Special Delegations nights on May 8 and May 11, 2017. They heard 59 delegates  over the two nights. They then allowed 6 more delegations on May 17, 2017. All Board Meetings relative to the Burlington PARC, including the Special Delegations nights, were live-streamed and remain on the Board Website.

The PARC, as previously noted, met first on December 1, 2016, for an orientation session. Following Board Policy, it consisted of a Trustee as an ad hoc member and a Superintendent as Chair, both from an area which was not under review. From each affected school there was the Principal, as a resource person and 2 parents/guardians. One of the parents was nominated by the School Council Chair. The other was selected by the Superintendent from parents who had expressed interest. The selection process was intended to ensure that all affected geographic areas and programs were represented. The PARC invited the City of Burlington to name a representative. It named the City Manager. All Trustees were invited to attend PARC working meetings to observe the proceedings.

The orientation session presented the Director’s Preliminary Report as the PARC’s Terms of Reference. The PARC’s role was defined as advisory. It was to be the  official conduit for information shared between the Board of Trustees and school communities. The proposed timelines for the PARC and Public Meetings were accepted. While the PARC was to provide feedback on the options in the Director’s Preliminary Report, it could also provide different options. In providing information to the Board, the PARC did not need to reach consensus. PARC members were welcome to attend the Public Meetings.

The PARC Framework in the Board Policy lists 13 items which might be considered by a PARC. The first 3 are: Range of mandatory programs, Range of optional programs and Viability of Program-number of students required to offer and maintain program in an educationally sound and fiscally responsible way.

PARC Meeting #1 was held on January 26, 2017 at the Board Office. All  members were present. The General Manager of Planning and 2 of his staff members attended, as did the Director of Education. The Planners attended all meetings as resource people. The Meeting Notes record that the responsibility of the PARC was re-iterated. It was “to deliberate on options, drafted by HDSB staff and by PARC members themselves.” The PARC was then to develop a short list of options for the Director of Education. He in turn would make recommendations to the Board which would make the final decision.

Prior to the 1st Working Meeting PARC members were asked to complete a short online survey to gauge what they thought of the current 23 options. Only 7 members responded. The 14-parent/guardian PARC members divided around 2 tables of 7 with the Ipsos Facilitator and the Chair of the PARC moderating and taking notes. The discussion was also recorded. The topic of discussion was the 23 options. Other attendees named to the PARC such as the Trustee liaison, the Principals, and Board staff were observers/resource people. Members of the public were also present. By the end the discussions, 13 options were removed. The Meeting notes confirm that closing Bateman was discussed under 4 of the remaining options. The notes on 3 of the Options were revised following a PARC request on February 14, 2017. The revision records concerns around the relocation of Bateman’s special education students. The notes also record an extended discussion, under Option 23, of Special Education and Bateman. Pearson is identified for closure in 2 of the remaining Options.

The PARC requested more information on timetable conflicts at all of the secondary schools, numbers of students from 4 public feeder schools opting to attend  a Catholic secondary school, costs of building a new wing for Special Education (SPED) students and costs and logistics to move CPP/SPED program and equipment to another school.

The 2nd Meeting of the PARC was held on February 2, 2017 at the Board Office. Three parent members were absent, 2 from Hayden and 1 from Bateman. PARC members had been asked to continue to discuss, by email, the outstanding options and to propose new options. Thirteen new options were proposed. The Trustee representative was nominated to keep a speakers list to ensure that all PARC members had a chance to offer comments. There was a discussion about adding a meeting to the PARC schedule. With three members absent, at the request of several members, the group of 11 formed around one large table. At the outset of discussions for each new option, a Board Planner provided a synopsis of the consequences.

All options had been previously circulated to PARC members. Because the existing options had been discussed at the first meeting, the group decided to start with the new options. The Notes, again taken by hand and recording, show that most of the meeting was taken up with discussion of 2 new options, both of which closed Bateman. There are extensive notes on the pros and cons of this move and many questions and comments. Some members looked for more information and others wanted to know how transitions would be handled for special needs students. There seems to be no discussion of the program needs of Bateman students who are not identified for Special Education. The Bateman discussion closed and there are notes on a brief discussion of a new option, closing Pearson and Central. It is new because the boundary changes redirect students differently from Option 19.

The PARC requested information on OADA costs for the 7 schools. It decided to lengthen its meetings from 7-9 to 7-10 PM and to add a meeting to the schedule.

PARC members were requested to respond to an email from the Chair requesting input on the options not discussed at the meeting.

The 3rd PARC Meeting was held on February 9, 2017 at the Board Office. The Superintendent of Business Services and the Director attended. There was a new addition, Student Leaders as observers..

In preparation for the 3rd meeting, PARC members were asked to consider, by email, outstanding options and to propose new options. The outstanding options were in 3 categories: “No Closures”, “One closure” and “Two closures”. One remaining option proposed no closures. Five options proposed 1 closure and 8 options proposed 2 closures.

The PARC received 2 presentations in response to its questions. The Superintendent of Business Services, using Option 19, the closing of Central and Pearson as an example, discussed savings which could be achieved. There was then a discussion on staffing implications, busing and Portable costs. The 2nd presentation was on the  cost of making all Burlington secondary schools fully AODA compliant.

The PARC members were asked to pair by school and provide input on the outstanding options in two modes. Each option had foolscap paper. With reference to the 13-point PARC framework members were asked to write whether or not an option met, or did not meet the criteria. Any suggestions were to be written on the foolscap. In addition, there was a “dot-mocracy” exercise. Members were given 3 dots and asked to attach a dot to the three options which they favoured. Options which received 2 or fewer dots were removed from the list. This left 4 options. One was no school closures, one closed Bateman and 2 closed Pearson  and  Central. There was a complaint that, because the Superintendent had used Option 19 as her example of savings, the two exercises had been biased against Central. The notes state that this complaint was deemed substantial because comments on the foolscap reflected some of the presentation from the Superintendent of Business Services. The group agreed to leave option 23, which closes Bateman, on the list.

The Director had brought the student leaders to the PARC meeting. He talked to the PARC about interacting with student leaders when they went on school tours. One of the leaders spoke to remind the PARC members to not only think about finances but about what is best overall for the students.

The 4th PARC meeting was held on February 16, 2017 at the Board Office. The Chair and 1 parent member were absent. The Associate Director sat in for the Chair. Two Superintendents of Education and the Superintendent of Facility Services were present.

Again, the PARC had been asked for input, by email, on the 5 outstanding options, including option 23, which had not been discussed at the 3rd meeting. One additional option was put forward between meetings 3 and 4. The list was now: No Closure, 1; One Closure, 2 and Two Closures, 3.

The Superintendent of Facility Services spoke about the facility costs of the 7 High Schools. He had the difficult job of explaining 2 different sets of numbers. One set, which the PARC had, came from an older database which he stated was incorrect and no longer in use. He presented information from the database to which both the Ministry and the Board had transitioned. This data was current and considered accurate.

The PARC broke into 3 groups, organized as follows:

  • Group 1: Pearson and Hayden, 4 PARC reps
  • Group 2: Aldershot and Central, 4 PARC reps
  • Group 3: MMR, Bateman and Nelson, 6 PARC reps

Each was facilitated by a superintendent who took notes. The groups were asked to discuss the remaining options within the context of the PARC. What elements of the options addressed, or did not address the framework. How could a particular option be improved, for instance by Capital improvements, program improvements or transition planning? Should an option be removed from the list?

The Notes of the discussions indicate that the PARC considered each of the 6 options in detail. The Schools which are identified for possible closure in the 6 options are, by number of options, Nelson (1), Bateman (2), Central (2) and Pearson (3). The notes on several of the options indicate that the needs of Special Education students was part of the discussion. There is no record of discussion of the program needs of students who are not identified for Special Education. The 6 options were to be part of an online survey which the Board was going to release on February 27, 2017.

The 5th PARC meeting was held on March 21, 2017 at the Board Office. One parent member was absent. This was one of two meeting held in the same week.

The first part of the 5th meeting provided initial information from the Survey. The quantitative data showed that 1611 surveys were completed, but there had been some instances of surveys coming more than once from the same IP address. In the view of Ipsos these were not sufficient in number to invalidate the results.

The Committee was given course selection sheets from a selection of small and large schools in Halton. These highlighted the current timetabling and programming challenges facing secondary students. Simply put, larger schools could offer a diversity of courses in a face–to-face environment. Small schools had to rely on online courses, whether or not this mode of learning suited students. Small schools might also have to combine different grades and courses in the same classroom.

The PARC then engaged in a roundtable discussion. Each PARC member presented his or her personal view of each option. The sample course selections sheets led to timetabling and programming being the major focus of the discussion. The Committee discussed 3 of the options in detail. A recurring concern was students transferring to the Catholic Board if the wrong decisions were made. There are extensive notes on the needs of the Special Education students at Bateman.

The Committee was to continue the discussion at its 2nd meeting that week. They adjourned at 10 P.M.

The 6th PARC meeting was held on March 23, 2017 at the Board Office. Two parents were absent, one of whom sent email comments prior to the meeting.

The Chair discussed the revised timelines for the PARC. The minimum of 4 meetings of the PARC had been extended to 6. As a consequence, the timelines for the Director’s Report to the Board, in Committee of the Whole would have to be adjusted. Based on the other adjustments to the process which would be required, the report would go to the Board for final decision on June 7, 2017. The Chair also said that an additional meeting, to discuss Innovation, could be held on March 27.

The PARC was asked to focus on programming and the student experience. After some general comments from committee members, the PARC discussed the remaining options. The first option discussed involved closing Bateman and Pearson. The notes indicate that there was discussion of the special nature of the Bateman programming in that the Community Pathways students were integrated into the whole school rather than being confined their own wing. Some PARC members noted that specialized programs have been successfully moved in the past and can be again. The second discussion was of 2 similar options, both of which closed Central and Pearson. One of the options was the original Option 19b which closed Central and Pearson. There was general agreement that 19b, which closed Central and Pearson, be removed.

The Chair said that the Director would receive a report on the findings of the PARC with the 5 remaining options for consideration. The PARC had fulfilled its Terms of Reference.

The Associate Director presented data on regional/magnet programming. He pointed out that innovations should be seen through a programming lens, not as a means of filling empty spaces. He pointed out that only 55 Halton students attended regional programs in other boards. Students generally stay within their  municipality. So magnet programs will not fill the 1800 empty pupil places. And putting grade 7 and 8 in secondary schools fills seats but does nothing for programming for secondary students as their numbers shrink.

The 7th PARC meeting was on March 27, 2017. Three parents were absent. Two Superintendents       attended.        They were responsible for Education- Innovation/ingenuity and Education-IT and International Students. The  Director and Associate Director also attended.

The Director thanked the PARC members for their contribution to the PAR process.

There was an extended discussion of the current state of innovation in the Board. New ideas from the PARC members were discussed. The City Manager noted that higher density housing units don’t house many families with secondary students. He also commented on the risk in selling land when a school is closed because of the predicted exorbitant costs of land purchase in the future. The discussion went on for over 2 hours.

PARC members wanted the public delegations to be equitably allocated to ensure fair representation of schools and topics/themes.

The Chair and Trustee thanked PARC members and Board staff for their commitment to the process. The Chair formally dissolved the PARC.

The Director’s Final Report, with 18 Appendices, was distributed to Trustees on April 20, 2017. It was posted on the Board web site on April 21. This was standard procedure for reports which were to be discussed at the next Board Meeting. The Board met on April 26 with a single item on the Agenda, the Director’s Final Report. The Executive Summary of the Report contained the following Director’s Recommendation:

  1. Robert Bateman High School be closed June 2019 and students re-directed to Nelson High School and M.M. Robinson High
  2. The International Baccalaureate Program to transfer from Robert Bateman High School to Burlington Central High School, effective September
  3. Lester B. Pearson High School be closed June 2018 and the students be re- directed to M.M. Robinson High School commencing September
  4. French Immersion program to be moved from Dr. Frank J. Hayden Secondary School as of September 2018, beginning with the Grade 9
  5. Students from the “Evergreen” community (currently undeveloped) will be directed to M.M. Robinson High
  6. Aldershot High School will be explored as a site for a magnet program or themed

THE PETITIONS

 The petitioners and members of the public were heard at 2 successive meetings. The lead petitioners presented on the first night, followed by other supporters of the petitions. On the second night both petitioners and members of the public spoke.

Robert Bateman High School Petition

The letter to the Minister from Denise Davy, Lisa Bull and Stephen Beleck claims several breaches of Board Policy. The petitioners state that their review of the process documents the breaches. The following is quoted from the letter:

  1. The board’s policy states: Processes for decision making including those related to program accommodation, school boundary reviews, school closures/consolidation will be timely, inclusive, transparent and open. This review documents cases where inclusivity was not followed for students/parents with disabilities.

 2:The board’s policy states: There must be no fewer than ten (10) business days between the date of public delegations and the final decision of the Board of Trustees. The final vote by the Board of Trustees was June 7, 2017. That same night there were public delegations made to the

  1. The board’s policy states: The final decision regarding the future of a school or group of schools rests solely with the Board of Trustees. This review details the involvement of a City Councillor providing instructions to a HDSB Trustee during the June 7, 2017 final vote for closure of Robert

A note is hand printed on the letter stating that the petitioners’ review, which is attached to the letter, contains 27 points/areas where the HDSB did not follow its a Accommodation Policy. Some of the additional points are that school communities did not have a clear understanding of the process, that the PAR process did not include feedback from teachers and that the Director’s Final Report did not contain information from the delegations.

When I met with a number of petitioners, over two evenings, they spoke of how much they value the inclusive atmosphere of Bateman. They gave me additional print material on the value of their school. They wanted the Board to look at boundary changes rather than closing their gem of a school. I should point out the Bateman petitioners were almost entirely focused on the special needs/CPP students and their program. My notes do not record any discussion of the needs of students in the English Language program or the IB.

Petitioners felt that the CPP students were not sufficiently included in the PAR process. Only 30 out of 300 the CPP students responded to it and only 48% of the other students. But the school administration made appropriate efforts to  encourage student participation. On November 25, 2016, during Period 2, all students were invited to complete the student survey. CPP students had their usual assistance from EAs and teachers. The survey was voluntary. The school cannot be faulted for allowing students to make their own decision about participation.

A number of petitioners felt that teachers and staff should have been allowed to participate in the process. At the very least, the teacher/staff survey should have been available to the PARC. A petitioner said that there was not enough time to delegate and another complained that only 2 or 3 Trustees responded to her emails. There were complaints about the PARC member who was a parent and also a City Councillor. Because of some behavior in both the Gallery and at the Board table during the June 7th meeting, that petitioner felt strongly that electronic communications with Trustees should not be allowed during Board Meetings.

Petitioners were concerned about the transition for medically fragile CPP students. They would like, but do not have, a guarantee that teachers and education assistants will move with these students. The Chair of SEAC stated, “I was appalled by the lack of understanding and ignorance of PARC members about Special Education.” She believed that the letter which SEAC sent to the PARC was not given the attention it deserved. A student petitioner noted that a detailed plan for a massive transition of vulnerable kids was not yet available.

Two petitioners addressed specific program issues. A representative of the Trade Association for the Welding Industry spoke of the nature of today’s welding trade and the very delicate work that welders now do. He said, “The program at Bateman has significant value in fostering student achievement.” As the only program between Bateman and the US border, it has significant value to the industry. He was certain of the program’s value, but less certain that the Board would transfer it to Nelson. A parent had a lovely story about her son and how the Bateman program works. The boy is ADHD and autistic. When he started at Bateman he wanted to do Essentials and the culinary program. Bateman allows rotation through the Technical programs so he is now starting to learn welding. His 2nd rotation is in woodworking and it turns out that he has real talent in this field. His mother talked of the trinket box he made for her. When I remarked that I would love to see it she emailed a picture of boy and box the next day. And yes, he has talent. But she worries that Nelson may not have an integrated program.

Several petitioners would like the Minister to order a new PAR process under the new PAR guideline which is at the consultation stage.

The Board’s Response

 The Board sent multiple notices to parents, students, community partners and the broader community to alert them to the Burlington PAR. Notices of all meetings related to the PAR were posted on the PAR web pages on the HDSB web site. All materials, such as the Director’s Reports, and Power Point presentations were posted there. The PARC Notes/Minutes were posted. The system tracked the number of page views/hits by month: November 2016, 4593, December 2713, January 2017, 4307, February 13096,March 14266, April 11495, May 4449, June 3220. All venues for meetings were fully accessible. The Principal of Bateman requested teachers and EA’s to assist CPP students to fill in the student survey if they wished to do so. Parents were  regularly  up-dated  on  the  Home  Notification

 

  1. The Burlington Post published 23 stories related to the Burlington PAR between October 2-16 and June 2017. News reports on the PAR process were also covered by the Hamilton Spectator, CHCH TV and the online publication, the Burlington Gazette. The Board believes its broad dissemination of information on the PARC, across a variety of media, was inclusive, timely, transparent and open.

 

  1. The Board has a separate by-law (Delegation By-Law) that allows up to six delegations at Board meetings where decisions are being made. This practice has been in place for the Board for the last 15 years, and is not exclusive to the PAR. The Board would have been in violation of the Board’s Delegation By-Law should they not have heard the 6 delegations on the night of the Trustees’ decision. The Board notes that some of the delegates heard on June 7 were in favour of the decision. The two specially designated delegation nights for the PAR were on May 8 and May 11, both of which are more than 10 business days from the day of the final decision (June 7). As such, the Board has not violated their PAR policy by abiding by their long-standing Delegation By-Law.

 

  1. The PARC, once constituted, invited a municipal councillor or delegate to join it. The Mayor appointed the City Manager. Marianne Meed Ward’s membership on the PARC was not in contravention of Board policies. She was identified as the designate by the School Council Chair of Burlington Central HS as she is a parent at the

 

  1. There were many ways in which teachers were able to give feedback during the PAR process. Senior Board staff attended school staff meeting to give updates on the PAR and to respond to There was a staff specific online survey. The Director provided continual updates to Family of Schools system administrators. School administrators met with senior board staff regularly to share updates. The Director provided monthly updates with staff unions/federations.

The Board’s Delegation By-Law states: Employees of the Board, representatives of employee groups shall not utilize delegations to the Board to express their views relative to their employment or professional interests.”

 

  1. The Director’s Final Report did not contain information from the delegations. The Board states that the delegations from both public delegations nights were recorded and live streamed. The Trustees were able to hear all of the delegations and special accommodations were made for the “overflow” of attendees at these meetings. These videos are available on the Board’s website. The Board Meeting after the public delegations was also live-streamed.

The Board Responses to most of the additional claims in the Bateman Petition is that they are not about breaches of policy but about processes or decisions which the petitioners do not like or with which they disagree.

Lester B. Pearson High School Petition

 1:The letter to the Minister from Steve Armstrong claims a number of breaches of Board Policy. Mr. Armstrong starts, as did the Bateman petitioners, by questioning the Board’s commitment to its policy of “timely, inclusive, transparent and open” processes for decision making including those on “program, accommodation, school boundary reviews and school closures/consolidation. He then claims a number of policy

 

  1. The PAR Policy clearly states that PARC will provide feedback to the Board of Trustees. The primary method of interaction with Trustees was by emails, most of which received no response of a short acknowledgement indicating receipt. There was no presentation, dialogue, or documents created as an output by PARC

 

  1. Board policy states that the Board will “share relevant information with the public…(to allow) opportunity for input. But some community members, when they sought information which they thought relevant to the PAR, met roadblocks and one had to file a Freedom of Information

 

  1. PARC members took seriously their responsibility to interact with their communities but were excluded from some processes which might have helped the conversation. Examples are that PARC had no input into the student and teacher/staff surveys. The PARC was not given access to the latter

 

  1. By Policy, one of the Board’s conditions for approving a PAR is that “reorganizing involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities for students.” The petitioner questions the accuracy of the Burlington enrollment projections and the information in the SIP’s. He attacks the Board’s failure to look at boundary changes which would rebalance the student population. He points out that only 1 of the original 19 options for discussion involved no school

Mr. Armstrong’s letter lists a number of procedural issues relative to how the PARC worked including how minutes were dealt with, what communication was appropriate with individual Trustees, and the role of the Municipality in the PAR process. He then finishes with 2 more claims of Policy breach:

  1. Board Policy states ”The Director will present the Final Report, including the compiled feedback from the public delegations, to the Board of Trustees.” His Report was deficient in that it did not provide that
  1. Board Policy states “There must be no fewer than ten (10) business days between the date of the public delegations and the final decision of the Board of Trustees.” Public delegations were heard on June 7th, the same evening as the final decision was

At the Petitioners Meetings the Pearson Petitioners shared some issues with those from Bateman but had their own perspective on the PAR. They see their small school as very suited to many students who are uncomfortable in large institutions. At Pearson, everyone knows everyone else. They found the process very divisive.

They saw much of the dialogue being framed around utilization when the real problem was program. They also felt that there was no open dialogue on the financial cost of the decision. In their community they had little co-operation from the principal in obtaining mailing lists. In addition there was no input from teachers. And there was no direct interaction with their Trustees regarding the PARC so they didn’t know what the community thought. For one PARC member the real eye opener was his tour of all of the schools.

One petitioner had delegated at the June 7th meeting and was sure that the Trustees did not have time to process the 16 pages of information which he provided. A petitioner noted the lack of any risk analysis in the Board’s decision. He questioned the reliability of the Board’s growth projections. Other petitioners returned to the issue of teachers and EAs moving with their students.

One of the under-currents in PARC discussions was the newest school, Hayden SS. Boundaries for other schools changed when Hayden opened. Both petitioner groups had opinions. One petitioner stated that the question of overutilization at Hayden was never discussed by the PARC. The 12 Portables at Hayden were a Health and Safety issue. Another had investigated the decision to build Hayden. He believed that Hayden should never have been built. He had made FOI requests of both the Board and the Ministry in his research.

The Pearson petitioners wish all 7 schools to remain open until Burlington’s population growth numbers are more certain.

The Board’s Response:

 Note: I will not repeat a response if the issue is identical to one of Bateman’s.

  1. See Response 1 to Bateman
  1. The PAR Policy places a Trustee, from another area of the Board, on a That Trustee’s role is to act as liaison between the PARC and the Trustees.

The person is expected to keep the Trustees up-to-date on the ongoing discussions of the PARC. Trustees also had access to the PARC Minute/Notes. The PARC feedback is to the Board as whole, not individual Trustees.

  1. All requests for information regarding the PAR need to fall within the purview of the PAR. Information requested from a member of the public was related to business case submissions for the Dr. Frank Hayden SS Capital Priority submission to the Ministry. As well there was a request for the agreement between the City of Burlington and HDSB from 1977 regarding community uses of Lester B. Pearson HS and more specifically the co-op nursery school located in the facility. Freedom of Information requests were made and information was provided whenever asked. No appeals were launched.
  1. The Ministry Guidelines and Board Policy affirm that the PARC assumes only an advisory role. This was clear in the Terms of Reference presented to the PARC at the Orientation Meeting On December 1, 2016. The PARC did receive the student survey. The teacher/staff survey was heavily redacted to ensure respondents could not be identified. The results were provided to the decision makers, the Board of
  1. Prior to Board Approval of a PAR, the Director, must present a preliminary report. One or more of the following must be present:

The school or group of schools has experienced or will experience declining enrolment where the On the Ground (OTG) utilization rate is below 65%.

Reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities for students.

Three Burlington High Schools met the first condition: Robert Bateman, M.M. Robinson and Lester B. Pearson. As well, the Director’s Preliminary Report discussed the issues associated with small secondary schools and indicated that reorganizing the schools could enhance program and learning opportunities for students.

  1. See Response 5 to Bateman
  1. See Response 2 to Bateman Petition

The Board Responses to the claims in the rest of the Pearson Petitions are that the claims are not about policy but about processes or decisions which the Petitioners did not like or with which they disagree

Ipsos

When I met with the Ipsos facilitator he said that the level of partisanship and personal interest in the PARC had surprised him. There was tension in the PARC from the beginning. He helped set up processes in line with Board Policy. He noted that he had attended each meeting and that at each one, a colleague as well as a Board staff member had taken notes. He said that he had made it clear to the Board what the survey/questionnaire could and could not do. It could validate what was happening in the community. Any more intensive consultation with the community would have been a qualitative exercise. But these are labour intensive and therefore expensive. His view was that the PARC members were very involved with their communities. He noted that there were several well-connected people on the PARC, people who went on their own to the media.

THE TRUSTEES

 The HDSB, in designing its PAR Policy, decided that one Trustee would be named to the PARC and act as liaison with the other Trustees. I therefore met briefly with her to get her perspective on how the liaison function had worked. She said that generally it had worked well. She thought that the expanded timeline worked well and would not go back to 4 meetings. She also believed that no current or former local politician should be on a PARC. A former Trustee was a member in addition to the City Councillor. She said that the staff bent over backwards to ensure that everyone had a voice and “they have not been thanked.”

I also met briefly with the Chair of the Board to ask about 2 specific issues, the use of email during Board Meetings and the decision to have a Parliamentarian available for advice during the June 7, 2017 Board Meeting. She said that at present there were no rules about email activity during meetings but that there had been some discussion of it as an issue. She received emails, which, as she was chairing the Meeting, she ignored.  Board members received over 700 emails during the course of the June 7 Meeting. The Parliamentarian was brought in because a Trustee had served notice of her intent to move a Substitute Motion to replace the Motion in the Director’s Final Report. While the Chair had been trained in parliamentary procedure by the expert who came to the meeting, she believed that having expert advice during a relatively uncommon procedural move would be helpful to all of the Trustees.

Immediately following the above two meetings I met with the Board of Trustees. They were unanimous in the view that the single Option as a starting point was a huge problem. They noted that the Director kept reminding the school system and the public that the Recommendation was only the starting point but he was not heard.

Other than that, there was little real agreement. For instance, one Trustee thought that the local Trustee should be a member of the PARC while another thought that people external to the school should work with the school representatives because the school reps find it difficult to look at other options. The latter Trustees wanted to get people who know planning into the process and didn’t seem to realize that the Board had expert planners on staff. Some thought local politicians should not be members of a PARC. Others said that if they were parents it would be anti- democratic to exclude them.

One Trustee described the PARC members as “traumatized” by the end of the process. One made the point that the PARC should be able to have closed working meetings, with a note taker, but no attribution of comments or ideas to particular speakers. This Trustee thought that all of the necessary information was there for the PARC and that the Notes were well done. She thought that a brainstorming meeting between the Director and the Trustees, prior to triggering the process would have been helpful.

A Trustee said that she thought the process was innovative and creative. She was referring to the outreach to the community in the Director’s online Question and Answer session. She liked the Town Hall idea and noted the huge staff turn out for it. She also noted that the process “sucked our board staff dry”. In her view, any revision of the PAR process has to attend to what it does to staff workload. She also noted that the FOI requests were sometimes onerous.

A final comment was that the Trustees expected the Director’s Report on Delegations to be very high level; a summary of the major points made.

The Student Voice

 I met with 2 secondary school students, one of whom was a Student Trustee during the PARC, and is still a Trustee. The other was the regional representative for Burlington on the Board’s Student Senate and President of the Student Council at his school, Nelson. The 2nd Student Trustee during PARC has left home for university.

The Student Trustee did not attend any Private Sessions of the Board. The Board wanted her to work with students so that they could express their views on the PAR. She handled email questions from students. The Associate Director would get her the answers and she would reply. She felt that Student Trustees have always been listened to by staff and fellow Trustees. The Student Trustees did meet with the Student Senate. She is an IB student in Oakville and believes that the IB program is moveable. In her opinion, IB students need to be able to choose from a breadth of courses with qualified teachers. The range of IB courses at Bateman is limited and she said this at the Board Meeting. She did worry at times when she spoke up but things were fine.

The Student Senator said that he received all of the information the Trustees had. The Director and the Associate Director met with all of the Burlington Student Council Presidents to try to alleviate fears. As far as students were concerned, the PAR was much more important than the other big issue, French Immersion. The latter was ignored during the PAR. He is now on the Integration Committee and has met with the President of Bateman to try to deal with concerns.

Both said that the PAR had been a huge amount of work.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE PARC

 When I met face to face with the PARC, most members thought that the single opening Recommendation, which closed specific schools, was a disaster. It undermined any attempt to act for the whole community by pitting two schools against the others. Then, as the PARC dealt, in public, with other options other communities got upset. A member noted that the process brought out the worst in the group and in the community. Social media was abusive, nasty and mostly false. But, most members also believed that some recommendations were necessary as a starting point.

Many of the points raised by the petitioners were raised again at my meeting with the PARC. One said that the PARC was the worst thing she had ever done. She felt that there was no real discussion and no opportunity to refute positions. Her points were focused on the needs of the Special Education students. She had wanted highly detailed information from staff on how the transition would work, especially for CPP students in years 6 and 7 of the program. Another said that she didn’t know that program was an issue until almost the last meeting. A third member thought that boundary changes were the solution but that they got focused on the 1800 empty seats. The boundary change idea was repeated by several other members.

Some members commented, for and against, the structure of the Public Meetings. The most constructive comment was that an introductory session, with all present, would help people to understand an unfamiliar format of “information stations”.

Another member said that the meetings were chaotic. A member thought that the PARC could have helped design the methodology of the meetings. Other members thought that the Town Hall style worked well and enabled more people to get information.

The comment was made that the PARC was not given enough numbers to see how students were disadvantaged in the smaller schools in terms of program choice and availability of program. More time should have been spent on this. ( NOTE: that PARC member is identified, in the Notes, as absent at the 2 meetings which worked on program issues) Several members wished that the PARC had some meetings in private. A number also thought that they should have been able to have meetings in their schools specifically for parents. One PARC member complained that the Board did not ask the Municipality to take a position on the initial recommendation. She believed that the City Councillors and Trustees should be compelled to participate in

PARC processes. Another member did not agree with the involvement of either City Councillors or Trustees.

One member pointed out that lots of things did go well but it is easier to criticize. He thought that the Director and the Board went above and beyond anything he had seen before in trying to get information out. The Board did its best in the circumstances.

Other relatively minor issues were raised. Two people expressed concerns about process for approving Minutes and the question of corrections being made. One said that the idea of innovation was starting to take hold. One said that two composite schools will be beneficial to the community. The Chair made the point that the Burlington PAR was very ambitious since it covered 7 High Schools. He pointed out that every meeting went overtime and said that the creativeness of the group was vast.

EMAIL and G-MAIL

 During the course of my Review a number of participants had access to Tom Adams’ email address at the Ministry. Mr. Adams forwarded to me all correspondence which was relative to the Burlington PARC. In addition we opened a g-mail account to receive comments from the public.

During my meeting with the PARC, people were very civil to each other. On the following day, the email and g-mail comments started to arrive. They highlighted what I had heard verbally, the PAR process had been deeply emotional and divisive in the community. One PARC member stated that there was substantial discussion of the special needs kids during the PARC meetings, so much so that it was difficult to get to the English Language programming issues. That person did not speak up the night before because it would have caused another uproar. Another member emailed on the PARC’s discussion of special needs students. This person pointed out that the Notes show that there was discussion at every meeting. Not only that, but a former Trustee and Chair of SEAC was a PARC member. In those roles she had helped design much of the Board’s approach to programming for special needs students. “Her expertise guided many of our discussions at the PARC.” Another member wrote that there were constant demands for additional or new information from PARC members. Board staff did their best to provide what they could but the new information often pulled the conversation “deep into the weeds”. That member also said that early in the process the closing of Bateman rather than Central was discussed. That escalated divisions in the group. Board staff navigated this conflict skillfully, but from that point on there was little if any chance of reaching consensus and meetings often became chaotic and unmanageable.

Members of the public used the g-mail account to say what they would not say in a public meeting.

Two parents, who had attended all of the Meetings of the PARC and who had delegated to the Board, wrote to me. One said that she was disappointed in the PAR process because of the behavior of her fellow parents and the Burlington community. There was a lack of respect for the established process. ”I heard, read and witnessed heckling, threats, unsubstantiated accusations and bullying behaviour” by parents and PARC members. The second parent, the mother of 3 sons who receive special education support, regretted how hostile and judgemental people became in the name of saving their school. A third parent avoided the petitioners meeting. “I was glad to avoid another meeting where there are some people who seem to blame individual community members for the final recommendation and make threats and insults.” A parent who attended one of the Petitioners Meetings supported the Board decision, but did not speak because those who disagreed with the petitioners in public were subjected to ridicule and unpleasant characterizations of themselves. He had followed the PAR process closely and believed that its purpose was to improve equity of opportunity. The Board decision did that. In his view any delay in implementation would be damaging to students in the smaller schools.

MY OBSERVATIONS

 My responsibility was to examine the petitions and determine whether the issues raised constitute violations of the Board approved Program and Accommodation Review Policy. I have reviewed the petitions, met with the petitioners, Board Administration, the Facilitator, the Trustees, the Principals, student representatives and the PARC. I have also read all of the minutes, appendices and reports pertinent to the Burlington Secondary PARC. In addition I have watched the videos of all of the Board Meetings, including Delegations Nights, related to this PAR. I have received additional material from petitioners and interested parents, all of which I have read.

The Burlington Secondary PARC took place over one school year, from October 19, 2016 to June 7, 2017. The School Councils of all of the schools under Review were informed immediately of the Board’s decision. The Burlington PAR website went live on the HDSB website. It had the Director’s Preliminary Report and a full description of the PAR process. The Board Communications staff distributed a news release announcing the beginning of the PAR and providing the dates of the November supplementary information nights. E-mail was sent to all families of Burlington elementary and secondary students via the Board’s Home Notification System. It told families that the PAR had begun and told them how to track the process on the Board website. The Board’s PAR Policy: Procedures, 1, requires that at least I of 5 conditions be met before commencing a PAR. In this case, two had been met.

Condition 1: The school or group of schools has experienced or will experience declining enrolment where the On the Ground (OTG) utilization rate is below 65%. The Director’s Preliminary Report states that both Bateman and M.M. Robinson have reached that threshold and that Pearson is close to it.

Condition 2: Reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities for students.

The dates of all public meetings and PARC meetings were widely disseminated. Agendas were clearly outlined. The type of meeting, e.g. information only or Town Hall style was described using the print media, the Board website, social media and widely disseminated print notices. The Board offered one more public meeting than Policy required. The 7 Supplementary information Sessions (1 per school) were beyond requirements as was the Director’s Live, on-line Question and Answer session. The community was invited to continue submitting questions to the on-line site. They were answered by staff. It is reasonable to say that parents and the public had ample access to the process itself and to very detailed information about it from beginning to end.

The secondary enrolment data for Burlington support consolidation of some of the student population in order to provide a stronger education program. The two schools which are to be closed have different problems but, in each case, students are at a disadvantage because of shrinking numbers. This is true for all students attending Pearson. In the case of Bateman, the English Language program students and the grade 11 and 12  IB students are seriously disadvantaged.

The Halton District School Board’s Program and Accommodation Review Policy is consistent with the Ministry of Education Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline. It is comprehensive and written in plain English. Initial Procedures are finely detailed, the requirement for School Information Profiles and the rules for the formation and working of a PARC are clearly outlined. In the case of the PARC there is substantial detail. Public Meeting requirements are described. Requirements for the Director’s Final Report are laid out as are the rules for Public Delegations to the Board. The respective roles of the PARC, the Senior Administration and the Trustees are described in plain language. It is clear that the decision making power is vested in the elected Trustees.

Observations: Robert Bateman High School

 Robert Bateman High School is one of the two schools to be closed as a result of the Burlington Secondary PARC.

The Petition claims that, while the Board policy promises that processes for decision making…. will be timely, inclusive, transparent and open, there were cases where inclusivity was not followed for students/ parents with disabilities. One of the examples used is that the student survey was not adapted to the needs of special needs students. Another was that a parent had difficulty reading the print on some of the posters at a public meeting. Another is that the PARC members did not use microphones so, sometimes, the public could not hear what was being said.

On the issue of the student survey I believe that the Principal of Bateman took appropriate action by scheduling time for the survey and requesting teachers and EAs to assist the special needs students in filling it out. One must remember that the survey was optional and it would have been inappropriate for teachers to pressure students to engage with it.

The small print issue may have been difficult for an individual but I do not think that it had any bearing on the outcome of the PAR. I do not believe that the use of microphones would have been appropriate. The room in which they met is not huge. Being “broadcast” would have made difficult conversations even more so. In addition, I did note that on one of the Delegations nights the Board had an American Sign Language interpreter available for one delegate and that her special needs daughter was assisted by staff to use her communications device to express her feelings.  The Board was compliant with its Policy.

 The Petition claims that Board Policy states that there must be no fewer than ten

(10) business days between the date of public delegations and the final decision of the Board of Trustees. The final vote by the Board of Trustees was June 7, 2017. That same night there were public delegations made to the Board. The Board has a Delegations By-Law which promises the public the opportunity to delegate on the day decisions will be made. This conflicts with the PAR Policy. In the strictest parliamentary terms, By-Laws trump Policy. But By-Laws and Policy should be consistent and complementary. The position of the petitioners is that this breach is major since the Board did not have time to absorb the new information, which might have led to a different decision. I watched, on-line, not only all of the meetings at which the Board discussed the Director’s Final Report, all of the Special Delegations and the June 7th Meeting. There have been accusations that the Board did not understand the issues and was not well informed. As I watched the Trustees question and debate it was clear that they had a very good grasp of a very complex Review. The delegations on June 7th provided little in the way of information that had not been heard on the Special Delegations nights. And those nights were marathons. I also note that several of the delegates on June 7th are now petitioners. The Delegations By-Law should be amended to except the PAR process from the particular Delegations rule. Having gone well beyond the paper trail to understand this PAR process, I believe that, while the Board was in breach of its Policy, the breach had no material effect on the final decision

The petitioners claim that Policy states that while the final decision on the future of a school or group of schools rests solely with the Board of Trustees, a City Councillor provided instructions to an HDSB Trustee during the June 7, 2017 final vote for closure of Robert Bateman. I have seen the news clip of the text messaging that was going on at meeting. It is clear that more than one person in the Gallery is sending messages. When I asked the Chair if there were any rules about emailing and texting during Board Meetings she said that there had been some discussion but that there were no rules. There is nothing in the PAR Policy on the subject. The Trustee who received the messages says that they were about procedure, not how to vote.

The Board system showed that Trustees that evening received over 700 emails. The Chair ignored hers as she was chairing a difficult meeting. I personally would ban the use of emails and text messaging devices during meetings. At the least they distract the user from the discussion and debate and at worst border on rudeness. The rules of decorum, to use an old fashioned word, are something that the Trustees themselves must grapple with. The frenzy of messaging on June 7th allowed the question of Board independence from outside instruction to become a public issue. But there was no verifiable breach of Policy.

 Petitioners remain concerned about the transition of medically fragile CPP students. They refuse to believe that the final decisions of the Board will maintain the Bateman program that they value so much. But part of the final decision is a commitment to build new facilities at Nelson which will be fully AODA compliant and which will replicate or bring up to today’s standards, the facilities at Bateman. The Board has pointed out that it has long experience with this sort of transfer and that transition planning has started. It is currently involved in similar transitions in other parts of the Board. In Burlington itself, M.M. Robinson has the integration of CPP students and their program well underway. The Petitioners have been totally focused on the special needs students at Bateman. The Board must pay as much attention to the English language program needs and the needs of the IB students.

The Board has found it difficult to keep the IB numbers up and has kept the English Language program alive by refusing to approve students in the Bateman catchment area for Optional Attendance at Nelson although this is common practice across the Board. Over 100 students per year make this request. These students deserve a fair and equitable education. But their voices have been largely silent and their parents’ views have not been heard in the PARC process.

The final decision of the Board, by a vote of 10 to 1 was to close a school which was on the list referred to the Director by the PARC. I find that the process was fair to all of the Bateman students and that the process was timely, transparent, inclusive and open.

Observations: Lester B. Pearson  High School

Pearson HS is the second Burlington School to be closed.

The petitioners focus their complaints around the “timely, inclusive, transparent and open” processes promised by the Board.

The petitioners claim that while the policy states that the PARC will provide feedback to the Board of Trustees, the primary method of interaction with the Trustees was by email, most of which received no response or a short acknowledgement. There was no presentation, dialogue, or documents created as an output by PARC members. The intent of the Board Policy is that the PARC will communicate to the Board as a body corporate, not to individual Trustees. There is nothing in the Policy which defines what form the PARC “feedback on the options” will take. Given the failure to reach any consensus in the PARC it is not surprising that it did not produce a document. It did, through the information in the Notes of Meetings and the refining of the Options down to 5, provide what feedback it could. There was no breach of Policy.

The petitioners claim that Policy requires that the Board will share relevant information with the public to allow opportunity for input. But some community members, when they sought information which they thought relevant to the PAR, met roadblocks and one had to file a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. The petitioner who filed the FOI request sent me the full record of his interaction with the Board, including some of the FOI materials. The Board did meet his request but one can see why the initial reaction was to question the requests’ relevance to the PAR. The petitioner wanted detailed information starting with 2007 decisions, from the Board and the Ministry, about the decision making process and the funding process for the building of Hayden SS. He wanted to build the case that the PAR should have been done in 2008. That Hayden would then not have been built and that this PAR would have been unnecessary. He believes that there was a Policy breach in the 2008/2009 school year. The problem with his position is that it has little relevance to the reality the current Board has to deal with. There was no breach of the current Policy.

 The Petitioners believe that they were excluded from some of the processes of community involvement. They use as examples that they had no input to the student and teacher/staff surveys. It might have been more inclusive to ask for PARC input, but there is nothing in the Policy that required the Board to consult on how it will consult its students and staff. The Board was correct in not sharing the teacher/staff survey with the PARC since there seems to have been a good chance that respondents were identifiable. In any case, there was no breach of Policy.

The Petitioners claim that the Board failed to look at boundary changes which would rebalance the student population. They do not trust the Board’s enrolment projections. The petitioners are correct that only 1 of the original 19 options for discussion involved no school closures. The petitioners’ rebalancing would produce schools of around 750 students. It is clear to me that all this would do was spread course conflicts and timetabling problems across all of the schools. In any case, it was the Director’s job to give the best possible advice to the Board. This is a complaint about his choices. There is no breach of Policy.

The Petitioners claim that the Director’s Final Report was deficient in that it did not provide the compiled feedback from the public delegations to the Board of Trustees. The Director’s Report has one paragraph on the delegations. The current Board adopted a new Policy on delegations which does not require that delegates submit written presentations. I was told that a number of new Trustees thought that the previous requirement for written copies of presentations was “undemocratic”. The Board live-streamed every delegation and the videos remain on the website. Some delegates did provide written texts, others held up posters, some spoke from notes and left nothing behind. The Board is a statutory public corporation and therefore subject to the Freedom of Information Act. An FOI request for 10-year-old material was made during this PARC. I think that the lack of, at the very least, written summaries of presentations made the Director’s task of “compiling feedback” very difficult. I also believe that with the constant change in technologies the videos could become as obsolete and unwatchable as the old video tapes. This could present difficulties in the future with FOI. The real question is whether or not the absence of written detail on the delegations in the Director’s Final Report left the Trustees uninformed. The Trustees are insistent that they not only paid attention to the delegations but that many of them watched them again as they prepared for the final decision. In any case, they had expected only a very high level summary from the Director. There was a breach of Policy. The breach made no material difference to the final decision.

 The Petitioners claim that the Board breached its Policy by hearing delegations relevant to the PAR at the June 7th meeting when the decisions were made. Policy demanded that there be an interval of no less that ten (10) business days between the date of the public delegations and the final decision of the Board of Trustees. My comments regarding this item in the Bateman petition stand. The Board was in breach of its Policy, but the information provided on the 7th was largely repetitive and that which was not would have made no material difference to the final decision.

The Pearson petitioners found the process very divisive. They had wanted input from teachers but that was denied. They had difficulty communicating with their community. And they felt that the real issue was program, but that was not talked about enough.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Program and Accommodation Reviews are invariably time-consuming and complex undertakings. In the case of the Burlington PAR it was a Review of seven secondary schools. The schools’ diverse programs and diverse student needs had to be understood. In addition, the question of empty student seats and the effect of that on program delivery had to be dealt with. This resulted in substantial quantities of data which had to be absorbed, dissected and debated over four months of the 2016-17 school year. The PARC did spend part of two meetings looking at the reality of course selection and timetabling in both large and small schools in Halton. At both meetings there was extensive discussion of the needs of Bateman CPP students. But one does sense some frustration at the limited time spent on the needs of students in the English Language Program.

As I listened to the various participants in this PAR it became clear that one of the problems the PARC had was that they were trying to discuss contentious issues in a gold fish bowl. Some members of the public clearly thought that their role was to interfere and instruct rather than observe. In addition members were definitely harassed using social media. I recommend that the Board amend PAR Policy 3.1 so that the Working Meetings of the PARC are private meetings. I further recommend that the Notes and Minutes of these meetings be made public with no attribution of specific remarks or motions to the individual member.

Among PARC members there was some initial confusion and ongoing discussion about how decisions would be made and records of meetings corrected. It was always clearly stated that their role was advisory rather than decision-making. The Chair’s interpretation was therefore that no motions or votes would take place.

Neither did the group have to reach consensus. With respect, I suggest that the Chair misinterpreted how an advisory committee, or indeed any Board Committee should operate. While it cannot make decisions for the Board, an advisory committee should be able to move motions and vote on what it will provide as advice. The records of the PARC meetings are clear and detailed and labeled Minutes/Notes. I was told that the group had agreed that they would be “approved” by email.  This has long been an accepted practice. I also have a record of two separate changes which were made at the request of a member. But there are no real Minutes.

Minutes are not “detailed” as the PAR Policy describes them. According to Robert’s Rules, which the Board uses, a Minute is a record of a decision which has been made by voting. Motions alone would be insufficient for a PARC. The Committee needs a detailed record of discussion to move issues from one meeting to the next. I recommend that PAR Policy 3.1 be amended to clarify that detailed Notes will be taken during PARC Meetings and that the advice which the PARC forwards to the Board should be approved by Motion according to Robert’s Rules.

 Board staff went well beyond anything I have seen before in their outreach to parents and the public. The main complaints about communications seem more about the style of some of the meetings than about the total effort. Some members of the public expected Question and Answer sessions whereas the meetings were clearly advertised as designed to provide information. I recommend that if the Town Hall format is used again, and many people liked it, that there be a brief session where attendees gather to get an explanation of how the evening will work and who will be providing information.

 

I recommend that any Poster Style information be in plain English, without the use of acronyms or education jargon.

 I also recommend that, at public meetings, cards be made available on which the public may write ideas, suggestions or questions to be answered on the Board website.

 A number of petitioners felt that some principals were more co-operative than others in assisting them to contact parents and that this disadvantaged some schools. I recommend that the Board’s instructions to principals about who may have access to information such as email addresses be posted on the Board website should another PAR be required in the Board.

 Many petitioners wanted teachers and EAs to be involved in the PAR process and claimed that the Board had forbidden their involvement. It is true that Senior Administration had told school staffs not to get involved and the Board’s Delegations By-Law does not allow staff to delegate in anything to do with their professional interest. One petitioner gave me a document which he stated came from the Board. In fact it was advice from the Secondary Teachers union (OSSTF) to its members on how to behave when school closures are under discussion. It advises teachers to let the local union leaders communicate any concerns to the Board. It specifically says that teachers must not have conversations or email, chat room or social media discussions with parents or students about a PAR. They should refer students and parents to school administrators. I agree with the positions taken by both the Board and OSSTF.

 CONCLUSIONS

 School closure decisions are best made at the local level because school boards understand the local community and the needs of all of the local students. Elected school boards are directly accountable for meeting student needs.

I greatly appreciate the advice and input from the petitioners. It is clear that they are devoted to their children and care deeply about their education. I also want to thank the Board, both Administration and Trustees, the Principals, the Ipsos Facilitator, the Student Representatives and the PARC for their assistance.

I understand the depth of feeling in the Bateman and Pearson communities about the decision to close their schools and transfer their students and programs.

Nevertheless, I believe that the Board has acted responsibly to resolve multiple problems in terms of fair and equitable program delivery to all Burlington secondary students. They have also removed most of the empty seats.

The Burlington PAR , while it was divisive, was also very open to the community:

  1. The PARC process did allow for extended discussion as both the meeting length and the number of meetings was
  1. The Trustee liaison attended all PARC meetings. Board Planning Staff were present at all meetings to provide information and advice. The Director attended several meetings as did many Trustees. Trustees and Senior Administration participated in all of the Public
  1. Senior Staff visited every school to inform teachers and staff. There were 7 Special Information meetings, one in each school, to inform the public. And the Board heard 59

I have viewed almost 24 hours of Board Meetings at which the Director’s Final Report was discussed and debated. I believe that the Trustees were attentive to the petitioners and the issues they presented. The meetings in total show Trustees who are confident that a good Transition Plan for special needs students can and will be developed. They know that such a plan is being successfully implemented at M.M. Robinson. They also grapple, through questions and debate, with the broader issue of the program needs of all Burlington secondary students. The final decision, while difficult, was made following a transparent process by well-informed Trustees. The final vote to close 2 schools was 12 to 1. I note that the two Student Trustees voted in favour of the Director’s Recommendation.

Based on my review and consultations, I conclude that, while there were violations of the Board PAR Policy, they were such that they had no material effect on either the deliberations of the PARC or on the final decisions of the Board.

Respectfully submitted,

Margaret Wilson

 

 

Return to the Front page

Two sides of the minimum wage issue - facts and vested interests collide in the public debate.

opinionandcommentBy David Goodings

January 10th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

We live in an age of misinformation and partisan grandstanding. The latest examples—and there are many—have to do with raising the minimum wage in Ontario to $14.00 per hour at the beginning of this year and to $15.00 a year from now.

Articles on the minimum wage hike tend to be either pity-the-poor-workers or pity-the-small-businessperson. In the first category the authors stress fairness to workers and criticize businesses that can survive only by paying poverty wages to their employees. The second category emphasizes the likelihood of huge job losses and sympathizes with small businesses trying to survive in a highly competitive economy.

tim-hortons-workerHow does one navigate through these troubled waters? Let’s start by trying to find answers to a few key questions. First, does the overall economy suffer? Secondly, who benefits and who loses? Thirdly, have the media been responsible in reporting the situation?

To answer the question about the overall economy and potential job losses it is necessary to look at employment data gathered by Statistics Canada or its counterpart in other countries. Fortunately, economists have not been idle in doing this. Numerous studies [1] [2] have found that increases in the minimum wage have had no measurable effect (after a few months) on the level of employment. This finding is not something that can be altered or fudged according to one’s political bias; employment data are as factual as the data on graduation rates from high schools.

Regarding who benefits and who loses, the minimum wage earners—more than a million in Ontario—have much to gain, though they will still be below the official poverty line, even working 40 hours a week. The economy also gains because people with low incomes spend any extra money right away, benefitting the local economy. The losers are small business owners who, for whatever reasons, are unable to raise their prices. (Tim Horton’s franchise holders are forbidden by their parent company, Restaurant Brands International, from raising prices.)

going-out-business-closed-signOf course, if they find it necessary to raise their prices, so will their competitors, so they are not at a competitive disadvantage. Nevertheless, some small businesses may close or reduce the number of employees or reduce their hours and benefits. While that is regrettable, it may indicate that those businesses were operating unsuccessfully in a competitive market. The minimum wage increase may have the effect of eliminating some businesses that are not viable.

Finally, with regard to the media, it appears that many newspapers and other sources have tried to report both sides of this contentious issue, though I believe they have given more coverage to the plight of small businesses because the business community makes by far the most noise.

There is another aspect of the media response, however, that is troubling, namely, that news reports and headlines are sometimes alarming and lacking in context. An example is a recent research report from the Bank of Canada that predicted a slowdown in job growth amounting to 60,000 jobs across the country. This is a predicted loss of jobs being created in the future, not a loss of existing jobs. How was this reported? From the CBC: “Minimum wage hikes could cost Canada’s economy 60,000 jobs by 2019.” And from the front page of the Toronto Star: “Wage hike could cost 60,000 jobs, Bank of Canada says.”

These look like bad news stories, but what is missing is the fact that the Bank’s overall conclusion is positive, because “the 0.7 per cent increase in the level of aggregate real wages more than offsets the 0.3 per cent decrease in total hours worked.” An illuminating analysis of the Bank of Canada’s report has been given by Michal Rozworski of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. [3]

small business graphicThe above example shows the importance of context. There is also, of course, the “spin” that editors put on news stories or opinion pieces. For some, Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberal government are, finally, doing the right thing by helping the working poor in a meaningful way. For others they are simply opportunists with an election coming in five months’ time.

My opinion, for what it’s worth? One should weigh the benefits for over a million workers—less worry about paying the rent and feeding the kids, less reliance on food banks and unhealthy food, greater ability to pay for prescription drugs, afford transit, and see the dentist about a painful tooth—against the difficulty faced by a relatively small number of business people unable or unwilling to adapt through raising prices. It’s definitely time for a change.

Goodings David

David Goodings

David Goodings was born in Toronto and studied mathematics and physics at University of Toronto and Cambridge.  He was a Professor of physics at McMaster University for thirty years and has been a resident of Burlington since 2001.  He is an active member of Poverty Free Halton and Living Wage Halton. Married to Judy for 37 years which may be why his favourite piano piece is:  Ain’t Misbehavin’ by Fats Waller.

Sources:
[1] Minimum wage hike won’t bring ‘doom and gloom’, economists say. Open letter by 40 Canadian economists endorses proposed provincial wage increase. Sara Mojtehedzadeh, Toronto Star, July 4, 2017.

[2] Wage Mythology. The minimum wage and the impact on jobs in Canada, 1983-2012, by Jordan Brennan and Jim Stanford. Report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, October 2014

[3] Media get it wrong on Bank of Canada minimum wage study. Michal Rozworski of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in Behind the Numbers:
https://behindthenumbers.ca/2018/01/05/media-get-it-wrong-on-minimum-wage/#.Wk_CMOZvTts.facebook

Previous article.

Return to the Front page

Other than a description the planners don't seem to have very much to say about Mid Rise residential and what will be permitted - the ward Councillor certainly has something to say.

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

January 9th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

Part seven of a multi-part editorial feature on the precincts and mobility hub being planned for the downtown core

The Mid-Rise Residential Precinct is a new precinct created out of the existing Downtown Residential Medium/High Density Precinct in the Official Plan. The Mid-Rise Residential Precinct is intended to reflect the existing built form in the precinct.

Draft Intention Statement:

The Mid-Rise Residential Precinct will primarily accommodate existing residential developments consisting of 11 storeys or less. The precinct will serve as a transition from adjacent tall building precincts to established low-density residential areas. Limited development opportunities exist within the precinct, which will achieve a high degree of compatibility with the adjacent St. Luke’s and Emerald Neighbourhood Precinct as well as other established residential neighbourhood areas outside of the Downtown Mobility Hub.

Mid Rise residential precinct

Mid Rise isn’t so much a geographical location – it is really a collection of locations that are going to have some development principles attached to them.

“While the framework for Mid-Rise Residential is generally intended to reflect the existing built form, some new policy directions are proposed that will achieve a maximum building height of 11 storeys; provide opportunities for limited infilling of existing mid-rise residential developments including the integration of new ground-oriented housing formats such as adding townhouse podiums at the base of existing buildings; introduce permissions for commercial activities at grade and require Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and mitigation measures within new development.”

Those bones are pretty bare; nowhere near enough detail for such a sensitive part of the city.  The Art Gallery will at some point undergo a major redevelopment which could be decades away.

Lakeshore Road in this part of the city needs room to breath – 11 storeys doesn’t seem to be a fit.

A considerable amount of property has been acquired by a developer

Burlington street accumulation

The data shown to the right is not relevant however the property addresses are believed to still be in the hands of the developer.

Councillor Meed Ward has some concerns with the proposals. She will be bringing forward a motion to add the North West corner of Burlington Avenue and Lakeshore Road to the Special Planning Area, and limit this area on both sides to 3 storeys

The bottom of Burlington Avenue and Lakeshore is in the precinct (pink area on the attached map). There are townhouses on the West side and single family homes on the East side (some divided into multi-dwelling units). The  current zoning is 11 storeys. The proposed zoning would retain 11 storeys, with a Special Planning Area on the East side reduced to six storeys (thatched pink on the map with the arrow denotes Special Planning Area).

Meed Ward believes “both sides of this intersection should be treated the same, and with reduced height.

Burlington street

There are a number of really fine homes once owned by prominent people who made the city into what it has become. There is a balance to this part of the city that need not be disturbed.

“Burlington and Lakeshore is a gateway to the St. Luke’s Precinct of predominantly single family homes where we don’t want intensification. Allowing 11 storeys on one side of the street, and six on the other, would create pressure to extend growth up the street. Reducing development to three storeys on both sides would better complement and transition to the St. Luke’s Precinct, and is similar to the transition from Brant St to St. Luke’s where the height is three storeys along Locust – the new Bates Precinct.”

 

Part 1  Evolution of precincts and hubs

Part 2 Brant Main Street

Part 3 – Parks and promenades

Part 4 – Bates precinct

Part 5 – Cannery precinct

Part 6 Old Lakeshore Road

 

Return to the Front page

Old Lakeshore Road - a piece of land with much of Burlington's early history. There was once a Water Street.

News 100 yellowBy Pepper Parr

January 8th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

Part six of a multi-part editorial feature on the precincts and mobility hub being planned for the downtown core

The Old Lakeshore Road Precinct is an existing precinct that is being carried forward into the draft New Precinct Plan for the Downtown Mobility Hub.

Old Lakeshore Road precinctIt has always been a controversial piece of land with much of it now in the hands of developers.

Draft Intention Statement:

The Old Lakeshore Road Precinct will continue to serve as an area for mixed use mid-rise developments consisting primarily of residential uses, which are pedestrian-oriented and transit-supportive while achieving a high standard of design. Modest tall buildings may be accommodated where such developments achieve strategic public and city building objectives including the provision of public waterfront access and views to the Lake Ontario, among others.

The current policy framework remains unchanged through the proposed draft new Precinct Plan. An additional policy direction is being recommended through the Mobility Hubs Study process to allow for the future undertaking of a separate Area Specific Plan (ASP) process to review existing height and density maximums as well as the conditions for land development within the precinct based on the achievement of key city-building objectives.

The complexity of this area (Conservation Halton setback requirements, discussion of the closure of Old Lakeshore Road, land assembly) plus the City’s new tall building guidelines necessitate a future review of a narrower scale and geography. The Old Lakeshore Road ASP’s city-building objectives would include new pedestrian connections and park spaces along the waterfront; the creation of a new view corridor from Martha Street and Lakeshore Road to the Lake and a detailed study of the shoreline and its impacts on development in consultation with Conservation Halton.

Old LAkeshore precinct continues to be "the jewel" that has yet to find a crown.

Old Lakeshore precinct continues to be “the jewel” that has yet to find a crown. This view is looking east with the Ascot Motel and Emma’s Back Porch on the right.

Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward made great use of the Save our Waterfront community group to advance her political interests – quite successfully. She focused on what could happen within the Old Lakeshore precinct and the construction of the pier and caught the public’s attention.

Meed Ward has been the only member of this city council who has consistently focused on the waterfront and worked tirelessly to save as much of it as possible.

SOW images for fottball

At one point during the 2010 election Meed Ward published a graphic showing what she saw as an option (a terrible option) the the piece of land sometimes referred to as the “football” – small piece of land between Lakeshore and Old Lakeshore Road.

The Construction of the Bridgewater development which is on the western edge of the precinct radically changes what can be done with the land.

There was a time when it might have been possible to turn that part of the city into something that could benefit from some creative thinking – we appear to be losing that opportunity.

Part 1  Evolution of precincts and hubs

Part 2 Brant Main Street

Part 3 – Parks and promenades

Part 4 – Bates precinct

Part 5 – Cannery precinct

Return to the Front page

Dates and details on the schedule of public meetings on the draft Official Plan.

News 100 blueBy Staff

January 5th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

It was never going to be an easy piece of municipal legislation to get passed by Council.

It is a misunderstood document that forms the foundation of how the city is going to grow. Many think that everything in the Official Plan can never be changed – it isn’t that kind of a document.

The Official Plan evolves – it takes wisdom and experience to ensure that the Plan meets the needs of the city.

The public response to the current draft of the Official Plan has been what should have been expected.

Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward. Unbeatable? Some Tory's seem to think so.

Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward intends to put a motion before city council that would have the approving of a new Official Plan deferred until after the October municipal election. Unbeatable? Some Tory’s seem to think so.

Experienced bureaucrats understand that the public has to be fully informed and listened to; city Councillors need to be fully tuned into what their constituents think and feel. Four of the current council have been in office more than ten years – two have been in their seats for 20 years – part of their job is to educate their constituents – whatever education they did didn’t stick.

So now we have a public that is not happy; a council member who is going to ask that passing the Official Plan be put off until after the next election in October.

The Planning department has set out the next series of public meetings.

OP meet graph part 1

 

 

OP meet graph part 2A meeting to recommend adoption of Burlington’s new proposed Official Plan will be scheduled for a committee meeting during the first week of April.

On Nov. 30, a staff report providing an overview of the proposed new Official Plan (PB-50-17), and a staff report with an overview of the proposed new Downtown Precinct Plan (PB-81-17), were presented to Burlington City Council as part of the Planning and Development Committee. Public delegations were considered during the afternoon and evening sessions of the meeting and a subsequent meeting was held during the afternoon of Dec. 1 to provide members of council the opportunity to ask questions of staff.

At the conclusion of the meeting, City Council made the following recommendations:

• Direct the Director of Planning and Building to consider the feedback received through the statutory public meeting process related to the proposed new official plan (version November 2017), and to make appropriate revisions prior to bringing forward the recommended proposed revised new Official Plan for Council adoption; and
• Direct the Director of Planning and Building to advise council at the earliest opportunity of the nature and scope of recommended revisions, including timelines for delivering the revised new official plan.

Mary Lou Tanner, Deputy City Manager said in a media release:  “Following the Nov. 30 Planning and Development committee meeting, city staff and council have heard from the community that there should be more opportunity to influence the process and outcome of both the development of the new Official Plan and the Downtown Precinct Plan. These meetings will provide opportunities for more discussion.”

Burlington aerial

Official Plan is the city’s community vision

An Official Plan is a statutory document required by the Province of Ontario that describes a city’s land-use strategy. It addresses things that are needed for a growing city such as the location and form of new housing, industry, offices, shops, and anticipated needs for infrastructure like streets, parks, transit and community recreation centres.

Burlington’s proposed new Official Plan is the city’s community vision and will guide decision-making on how we use land, manage growth and invest in infrastructure to 2031 and beyond.

The policies in the plan reflect the key directions in Burlington’s Strategic Plan 2015-2040, approved in April 2016. Through the strategic plan, Burlington City Council has made the decision to grow up in key parts of the urban area of the city instead of growing out.

Under the proposed new Official Plan’s current growth management strategy, only five per cent of Burlington will experience significant growth. The majority of this growth is targeted in the areas around the city’s GO stations and in downtown Burlington. These areas are called Mobility Hubs.
2016 Census data shows:

– Burlington’s population is growing. Between 2011 and 2016, Burlington grew by 7,535 people – a 4.3-per-cent overall growth rate.

– The average housing price in Burlington is $632,556, which represents an increase of 177 per cent since 2001.

Return to the Front page