 By Pepper Parr
July 5, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
One evening after a city council meeting a number of months ago, a member of council asked me: “How are your relationships with the members of council?
I was a little taken aback by the comment, because I don’t see myself as having a relationship with any of the council members. I have, on occasion had lunch with several of them, a drink at the end of the day with others but these men and woman are not part of my social circle.
 They are all running for re-election: should they all be re-elected? That is a decision you make – but only if you vote. I serve as an observer of what the seven members of council do and report on the way they handle the city’s business. I was fortunate enough to be able to sit in on all of the 11 half day sessions when the seven of them, along with all the senior members of the administrative side of the city corporation, developed the Strategic Plan.
I talk to the city manager and the general managers frequently and observe how they do their work. A combination of my age, my experience as an observer and the fact that I am the only outside observer who has attended city council meetings, advisory board meetings and most of the workshops held by the city, I have a unique view of the seven people on council and the senior staff. Other journalists cover Standing Committee meetings but none cover the Advisory committee meetings regularly.
Due to a health issue – had to have a hip replaced – I have not taken in the Standing Committee meetings live for the past five weeks but I have watched the webcasts and worked from that footage. There is however nothing as good as being in the room and watching how staff react to a comment made by a council member or how one council member interacts with another.
 One of the most revealing off-camera events was when Councillor Craven slid into the Council chamber, seconds after the vote on a very significant development in his ward. It is very, very rare that Craven misses anything that relates to Aldershot. That just doesn’t happen, but it was politic for him not to be in the room for what is referred to as the Bridgeview development.
Like anyone else I have favorites and work at making sure the likes and the dislikes don’t get in the way of what I do. My objective, and the purpose of the Gazette when it was formed, is to get the very best people leading the city. The decision as to who leads, is made by the people who vote. My job is to inform them, and do so in a manner that includes reporting the facts, putting those facts in context and then analyzing all the material and explaining it in as much detail and as entertaining as possible.
 What used to be 1028-Lakeshore-Rd.-was-demolished-in-1989. Note the second row of cottages in the background, which are-located along the-beach. Will the Beachway decision, made at the Regional level, become an election issue in ward 1? Every time the amount we pay the members of council becomes a public issue, there is a howl about the amount they are paid. Good people are entitled to a decent income; they have no job security and while there are stretches of time, when there isn’t much work to do there are occasions, when these people work very long hours and are expected to make decisions on some pretty weak data.
The members of council have to raise the money to get themselves elected and be careful, just who offers to donate to a campaign. They end up using some of their own money to get the job.
There is a certain amount of ego involved in running for public office; there are those who abuse the authority they have, some spend far too many years serving as members of council, while others fail to realize they are just not cut out for public service and don’t know how to bow out gracefully.
The personal lives of the members of council take a hit. They are on duty 24 x 7 and many feel their member of council is supposed to solve all their problems. One council member was out picking up garbage bags on Christmas Day.
Burlington’s council members are not yet at the front of the pack, when it comes to involving their constituents. The idea that the voice of the community is like electricity – always on and always providing the light and the energy with which council members direct their actions and decisions, has yet to become the norm in Burlington, but we are getting there.
There are members of this council that just don’t like people and are too frequently rude and impolite. We have members of council, who are not advocates of some of the services the city provides, and while they may be necessary and vital to some people – some council members see their personal views as more relevant than those of the people they represent.
 Councillors Sharman and Lancaster – both elected to Council for the first time in 2010 and both members of the Shape Burlington group – have either of them advanced the cause of citizen participation all that much? Some council members have grown into their jobs – others have been in their jobs too long. Public life is hard work; there are no courses to take to learn to become a good council member. It is the community at large, that makes good council members by calling them to account and expecting them to represent the core values of the community and to strive to be consistent and do their very best.
 Was the decision to sell a short stretch of waterfront property owned by the city and the province a mistake? Mistakes do get made – it takes a strong person to admit that a mistake was made and then fix as much of the damage as possible, and learn the lesson the mistake offered. This council has yet to show that there is a common purpose that they are collectively working towards – and I have yet to hear the Mayor admit that something was a mistake – an honest one, but a mistake nevertheless.
In the months leading up to the municipal election, we will review and report on what the members of your council have done for you. We will also interview every person that is nominated for office and strive to set out what the issues are for each ward, and what the key issues are for the city over all.
 Has the city got a firm grip on the air park matter? They have won all the legal battles so far, but the decision to hold on invoking a new site plan bylaw, when they learned the air park owner is going to present a site plan, has some north Burlington people scratching their heads. Burlington has some very significant challenges ahead of it. While we a wealthy city with many advantages, we have some major problems in attracting new business to the city; we have an aging population that will require more in the way of funding, and we have an infrastructure that was not properly maintained by previous councils and now need millions to repair roads.
 Approving the six story Maranantha project on New Street was a bold move. Was it the right move? We have several developers, who own large swaths of land, who want to convert much of that land from employment uses to residential, which is much more profitable for the developer but expensive for the city.
By all the standard metrics Burlington should be an ideal place for those high paying, high tech jobs and there have been some brought to the city, but there haven’t been enough of them.
The city finally has a reconstituted economic development corporation, but it took more than 18 months to change the leadership of that organization and hire someone with the depth and understanding needed to entice corporations to make Burlington home.
 Does the word “vibrant” really apply to the downtown core? Is there a lot more hard thinking to be done, to get a core of the city that works? We have a city that cannot get out of the travel by car habit, and a city administration that has yet to come up with the solutions, that will get people on to public transit. This at a time, when gasoline prices climb daily and the province is providing some of the best public transit scheduling.
 Know your ward; know the candidates and make an informed decision – your taxes pay these people – and these people set the tax rate. In municipal elections most of the attention focuses on the election of a Mayor: does the public want the one they have and is there anything better being offered. This year it does not appear that the Mayor is going to be challenged; he should be – he needs to be called to account for some of his decisions and a tough election race will make him a better Mayor if he wins.
Some ward council seats get very competitive – ward 6 is an example this time out, with at least six people running for the seat Blair Lancaster currently holds.
Ward 4 is going to be an interesting race – there are some fundamental issues related to conflicts of interest and this city has to decide, what is acceptable in terms of looking after one’s personal interests before those of the city, as set out in its Official Plan. The community has to make clear, what the core value is.
 The waterfront and the pier were issues in the 2010 election. With the pier officially opened for more than a year – its cost is now the issue – will the voters ask for more in the way of accountability and at least some transparency on how the cost ballooned so much? In 2010 the attention was focused on ward 2, where Marianne Meed Ward wanted to bring her populist approach to city council. Meed Ward used the Save our Waterfront Committee to very good affect as the lance with which she went after then Mayor Cam Jackson. Meed Ward felt the waterfront was not getting the attention it deserved, and that the city has made a mess of its legal problems over the pier. She believed the city could have and should have settled with HSS, the original contractor.
There was a settlement, but not the one the public was told they were going to get.
Elections are about choices. Choices can get made, when people have information and not have to look at the ballot and put an X beside the name they recognize.
We will strive to provide you with in-depth balanced portraits, based on what we saw and heard, of each person running for public office. Your job then is to cast a ballot.
 By Pepper Parr
July 5, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
Interim city manager Pat Moyle told council last week that the most important part of the resolution they passed – unanimously – was the direction for the Mayor to meet with the two newly elected Liberal MPP’s about the city’s desire to see some action from the province on the SLAPP legislation the province has been toying with for a couple of years.
 Mayor Rick Goldring met with the two MPP’s who represent different parts of Burlington. Gives them the Burlington story – but doesn’t buy them lunch. The Mayor got his instruction Monday night – and wham, bam alakazam – he has a meet with the two women on Friday.
 She celebrated a milestone birthday and a week or so later brought an end to seventy years of Tory rule in Burlington. Then she met with the Mayor – we don’t know what she did to him. Eleanor McMahon and Indira Naidoo – Harris both came to City Hall and met with the Mayor for about 90 minutes. The Mayor presented “The Burlington Story” followed by discussion about jobs and economic development; transportation, transit and transportation and where future residential growth will occur in Burlington.
The Mayor presented the resolution that Council passed. Mayor Goldring described the occasion as “ a great first meeting. I look forward to working with Eleanor, Indira and the whole provincial government in continuing to build a healthy, sustainable and prosperous Burlington.
It was indeed a good start. The previous occupant of the Burlington provincial seat managed to go close to a full term without ever appearing before council.
 By Pepper Parr
June 26, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Henry Schilthuis got his turn to tell the public what the Brant Street Pier settlement was all about. His picture was a little different than that of the Mayor and interim city manager Pat Moyle, who was acting as a spokesperson for the city.
“Quite frankly” said Schilthuis, in a prepared statement “ we believe this process could have and should have been avoided. We did what we had to do to protect our company, and feel vindicated in all we have done to achieve the settlement. We wish the people of Burlington much enjoyment of their waterfront.”
 Henry Schilthuis works from a nondescript office in Ancaster continuing the hard work, honest delivery approach of the 60 year old family firm. There were numerous occasions, when the dispute could have been settled. Former Mayor Jackson never liked the pier – it was a former Mayor Rob MacIsaac initiative, and anything that had MacIsaac’s finger prints on it, was not something Jackson could digest. He advised newly installed Mayor Goldring to tear the thing down in 2010
The settlement is complex, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who the winner was in all this.
The city sued HSS for $10 million – they didn’t see a dime of that money – despite the Mayor assuring the public on several occasions that the city was going to get back every penny. There were a number of council members, who were adamant throughout the past three years, that the city had a strong case and would prevail.
Councillors Craven, Taylor and Dennison who were at the table, when the pier idea was first proposed, didn’t say all that much in public during the 2011 and 2012 council meetings. There were a number, far too many, closed sessions during which council and its legal advisers had long conversations behind closed doors.
 It was a much more professional team on the city side, when the second attempt to build the pier started. Nothing was left to chance and the hard questions were asked every step of the way. Here city manager Scott Stewart and Craig Stevens meet with the steel beam fabricators to ensure that the job gets done right. When the Post made a Freedom of Information request the city objected, but quickly saw the stupidity behind that move and relented – letting the public know, that they had spent $1.3 million on legal fees to date.
The city recovered $1.5 million and is going to be allowed to keep $500,000 in hold back funds it has. This is all the city will see from the three law suits it filed. They sought $10 million from AECOM their project managers; they sought $10 million from HSS and they sought $3.5 million from Zurich Insurance, the HSS bonding company.
The pool of funds set up to make payments, appears to have gone to just the city and HSS. The total amount the city will see is $2 million, while HSS will see $2.4 million, which is made up of the $1.75 million cash payment and a total of $650,000 that will be paid to HSS by other parties.
Besides the $1.75 million it will be paid, HSS will be given an additional $650,000 – for a total net benefit of $2.4 million for HSS.
“I am proud” said Schilthuis, “ of this entrepreneurial and family owned company. Our concerns about the challenges facing the pier guided us in our actions. We maintained our position with dignity and grace – simply because it was the right thing to do. The result of this settlement is proof of this.”
“I want to thank all of our staff and our community. You stuck with us the entire time despite the stress and burden of this onerous ordeal. We have remained true to our values as a 60 year old company and that makes it all worth it.”
A proud man who stuck to his principles and did what he believed to be right and feels the settlement supports his decision to walk off a project, that could not be built with the plans he was given.
The current city council might look to the way Schilthuis handled himself, throughout what he called a “long and arduous ordeal”. City staff had no problem working with Henry Schilthuis – it was the politicians that made a mess of this one. Hopefully council members will reflect on how this worked out and be honest with themselves – this was not their finest hour.
 The pier in December 2011 stripped of all the steel Schilthuis installed – with nothing but the caissons in place. The trestle to the right of the pier was used for construction equipment to lay down the new beams. During the summer when people talk about how they want to vote come October – they might be persistent and consistent in asking the incumbents, what went wrong.
The $6 million plus that was spent would have done a lot for our transit system and road maintenance work, that we are so far behind on. Hold their feet to the flames.
 By Ray Rivers
May 28, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Margaret Wente, a columnist for the Globe and Mail, wishes that Bill Davis were running in this provincial election because he represents “the good old days”. But Bill Davis, the Conservative, in all his fourteen years as Premier never once balanced a budget. In fact he was the kind of spender Tim Hudak daily accuses Kathleen Wynne of being.
Davis used public resources to grow the province, opening up the public treasury to improve education, infrastructure, health care, public transit, the environment and electrical energy. Davis understood that growing an economy is like growing a business, the business of good government. You need to invest and sow seeds if you want to harvest and profit. And he understood that investing for the longer term, in areas like education, is important too.
That is why I can’t support Tim Hudak. Even though we both obtained economic degrees at the same university, Hudak must have missed a few classes. I mean does he really want to be Mike Harris redux? Perhaps he is just stuck in time, given all those days he spent in the Harris caucus. Hudak’s promise to fire 100,000 teachers, nurses and civil servants has already sent shivers through the markets. And his war on trade unions would almost make Harris’s ‘Common Sense Revolution’ look like,,, common sense.
Harris learned the hard way that cutting taxes just makes the deficit bigger – which partly explains why he took so long to balance his budgets. By comparison, McGuinty’s growth program saw balanced budgets almost as often, despite the global recession which crippled our auto industry. And do we really want to further slash corporate taxes just so the big banks can make even greater profits?
Hudak’s so-called ‘million jobs plan’ has become the biggest joke in this election campaign. Wente’s reference to Hudak’s economic plan being described as “a load of ripe manure” pretty much sums it up.
And what has happened to Andrea Horwath. She turned up her nose at the kind of budget NDP’ers only dream of – the kind even Bob Rae had never introduced. Ms. Dithers, who took forever to decide to support the last budget, which gave her everything she wanted, was quick to reject this one because it offered the NDP too much. Having caused this election however, she has now decided to adopt essentially the same Liberal budget she’d just rejected as her platform.
Rank and file, and even her candidates, are disowning her. They are just as confused as she is about what she really wants. Lately and sadly, Horwath has reverted to just screaming corruption at the Premier. A false accusation since, while there may have been political pandering and some mismanagement during the McGuinty era, that is not corruption. We know that all governments, including that of good old Bill Davis, have also suffered their fair share of mismanagement and scandals.
Of course, the deficit is an issue and will need to be brought under control, and the debt paid down. But Ontario’s current debt is about the same as that of the federal government on a GDP basis, comparable by that measure to some of the other provinces and considerably lower than Quebec’s. Also, with the low interest rates we have been experiencing, debts and deficits are less of a concern, providing they are used to fund wise investments..
Had Mr. Hudak attended and paid attention to the economics classes dealing with fiscal policy, as I had, he would have learned that it is better to grow your way out of a deficit than to cripple the economy with tough austerity. The recent sad experience of European austerity is a good case study of just that. And if Mr. Hudak doesn’t believe me, he could always consult with that other economist, our PM, to learn about how growth has helped get the nation’s books out of the red.
 Energetic, engaging, open, stable and visionary. Some people think you need to change governments every couple of electoral terms, just to get a fresh start. Except that is not what the people of Alberta have been practicing for the last forty years. The ruling PC party there refreshes itself by changing its leader, usually before that leader reaches his/her best-before date. It is still democracy when you keep electing the same government, if only because the other parties are just too scary for you – as they are in this upcoming Ontario election.
Here in Ontario the PC’s once ruled continuously for 42 years with a number of different leaders at the helm. Kathleen Wynne has been Premier for a little over a year and has shown herself to be energetic, engaging, open, stable and visionary. She is as close as we get to Wente’s Bill Davis in this election.
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
Background links:
Wente on ghosts haunting Ontario
Bill Davis
Balanced Budgets
Alberta’s Elections
Tractor Pull
The NDP (Caplan)
Horwath’s Platform
Horwath’s Problems
Hudak’s Economics
Hudak (Caplan)
Hudak’s Million
Hudak’s Math
 By Pepper Parr
April 16. 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
While the current city manager is out looking for new digs in Calgary as he transitions from one city to another, the business of the city still has to move forward.
The Development and Infrastructure Committee released their 12th Update on Air Park matters earlier in the week. The appeal by the Air Park to the decision handed down in Ontario Superior Court will be heard on June 11th – quite a few people from Burlington will be trooping into town for that event; we understand that most of the ward 6 candidates will be in that courtroom in Toronto to take it all in.
 How much of the landfill on the Air Park property is toxic and how toxic? – are questions both the city and the residents want answered. The answers to those questions are tangled up in Privacy red tape. While all this is taking place both the city and north Burlington residents want to know – just what is in all that landfill that was dumped on the site in the past five years?
Everyone suspects there is some level of toxicity in that landfill. The city hired Terrapex to do some tests and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment got onto the property and did tests of their own.
In their appeal the Air Park took significant exception to the reports provided to the city by Terrapex and challenged some of the data.
At some point there will be a decision on what the Air Park has to do – at this point there is a decision from a judge saying the Air Park has to comply with the municipal by law. That decision stands until a higher court overturns it.
Will the city require the Air Park to remove all of the landfill or just some of the landfill or maybe the city will decide it can all stay in place?
What will determine the direction the city takes, assuming the Air Park appeal is lost depends on just what is in all that earth.
And other than the Terrapex report – we don’t know.
The Ministry of the Environment did testing but they haven’t released the information. Why? Privacy issues. Someone, believed to be the Air Park, has taken the position that the information is private and cannot be released without the permission of the person whose privacy is being harmed.
Many in the community find this both incredible and close to unbelievable. But it is a real problem for the city who now have planners working their way through the privacy process. Planner Mike Crowe started out by asking the MOE for the information; they said no and the city used the Freedom of Information process to get the information. When the MOE continued to say no – the city asked for a mediation – and that is where things are at the moment.
If a mediation fails the city can up the pressure and ask that their Freedom of Information request be adjudicated. It does get messy and very bureaucratic.
 Are these dead fish victims of a hard winter – or was there something in the pond water that did them in. The owner of the property is very anxious and wants to know why previous landfill testing results are not available. They see this as a matter of opublic health and not individual privacy rights. She called the Ministry of the Environment who had some of their people out on the property testing within a day. The belief in north Burlington is that the landfill is toxic, that the MOE knows it is toxic but can’t say so publicly because of the privacy mess.
But a request for testing of pond water that had hundreds of dead fish will give both the MOE and the property owner some additional data.
 That rise of land behind the pond on an Appleby Road property is not a natural feature – it is a 30 foot + hill made up of landfill that was placed on the land without proper approvals. Water seeping through that landfill flows into the pond. North Burlington residents aren’t stopping there. They have prepared a petition and sent it along to the MOE people. The petition is from the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition (RBGC), but they aren’t releasing the contents of that petition. One of the things they do want is better transparency from the MOE.
The MOE is prepared to meet with the community – but until the privacy issues are cleared up – there isn’t all that much they can do.
What we have is two level of bureaucracy fighting with each other over test data that is critical to understanding what the problems really are – with the owner of the property using privacy rules to keep the information confidential.
Messy.
The north Burlington locals don’t help their cause all that much when they withhold the contents of their petition to the MOE. What is it they want and is it reasonable?
Background files:
In the beginning the buck got passed around.
Record length city hall debate on Air Park site.
Air Park digs in its heals.
City seeks an injunction to stop landfill dumping.
Air Park sues the city – city takes off the gloves.
City wins Air Park court case
By Pepper Parr
April 9, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
“In the absence of effective leadership in ward 6” said Vanessa Warren “I have filed nomination papers and will contest the seat Councillor Blair Lancaster currently holds on city Council”, and the race for the ward 6 seat got serious.
Warren is the fourth citizen to go after the seat: James Curran, Angelo Bentivegna, Mina Wahidi have filed nomination papers and now Warren. All will have their names on the ballot in October. It should be the race to watch come the October municipal election.
 The community first got a look at Warren when she chaired the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition to stop the trucks that were dumping what she called “toxic landfill” on what she described as an unlicensed landfill operation known as the Burlington Executive Air Park on Appleby Line.
The issue first came to the wider community’s attention when the Gazette published a story on all the trucks that were on upper Appleby Line carrying fill into the Burlington Air Park site.
Citizens in the rural part of ward 6 were lived with the lack of response from their ward Councillor who seemed just too close to the owner of the air park.
Warren delegated very successfully to city council and just as effectively to the Region. She proved to be very forthright and to have done the homework necessary to get at the issues. It was Warren who dug up the fact that there was $4.5 million in mortgages on the air park property that she called the Burlington Airpark landfill dump.
Warren then become engaged in critical issues such as the LaSalle Park Marina expansion, the Mount Nemo Heritage Conservation District, the new Official Plan and the 2014 Budget, where she challenged a speaker for hijacking a public meeting. Burlington was beginning to see a very feisty advocate.
In her campaign media release Warren said she “seeks to radically improve on Blair Lancaster’s poor record of access and engagement at City Hall.” The white gloves were clearly off.
“We’re going to need really strong leadership to enhance the livability of our urban spaces while still protecting our green spaces.” said Vanessa who was a Burlington Green board member for a short period of time. She resigned all her community affiliations when she announced she was going to run as a candidate.
“I commit to being an unflinching listener, communicator, and leader”, said Warren. She has also committed to continuing to do her homework and let the people of ward 6 see what she has to offer.
With three other candidates in the race for the seat on council – it may well prove to be the most interesting election race in October – BUT ward 4 has some interesting developments. More on that situation at another time.
Who then is Vanessa Warren? She and her husband run two equine business operations; one in Mississauga that is one of that last public riding facilities left in the GTA.
Husband Cary has been farming at some level for most of his life – he is also a small craft pilot.
The Mississauga operation is on land they have rented for more than thirty years. An opportunity to buy a property in Burlington came their way and as Vanessa put it – “this was going to be our ‘pine box’, we expected to be on the Burlington farm for the rest of our lives.”
 The issue was the air park property – and the landfill that had been dumped on the site – hundreds of thousands of tonnes of un-inspected landfill. The Warren property is shown upper right with red lines. Vanessa Warren is a fair human being. Tough, – she doesn’t take a lot of nonsense from anyone but she is at heart fair. She has worked with animals for most of her adult life and understands the need for a firm hand as well.
 Vanessa Warren brings the discipline and focus required as a dressage competitor to just about everything she does. Here she works her favourite stead at a competition. Burlington first saw Warren when she delegated before city council on the number of trucks carrying landfill along Appleby Line to the Air Park site. She wanted to know what the city was doing about the traffic and the content of those trucks.. At that point the city wasn’t doing very much – but senior people on the administration side took the concerns seriously and began to look closer at what had been the prevailing view: the Air Park was regulated by the federal government – end of story.
This time the city looked a little deeper and brought in some advisors. While Burlington did it’s work Warren took her story to the Region and while she did a good delegation she didn’t get much in the way of support. Oakville Mayor Rob Burton gave Warren what amounted to a patronizing lecture and sent her on her way. Burton had no idea who had was running up against.
Warren looked to her community, worked with people to form an organization that could speak on behalf of the people in rural Burlington – and this was born the Burlington Rural Green Belt Coalition. It was a little bumpy at first but Warren brought strong administrative skills to the task and proved more than capable of listening to her peers and moving the ball forward each time they met.
Before long the city was in court with the Air Park owner and Warren felt her part of the job was done. She felt strongly that the community was poorly served by its elected representative and was active in helping people find someone who lived in rural Burlington to run for the council seat. She met with a number of people and there were solid meaningful conversations with several but nothing was panning out.
Warren had moved on. She became a BurlingtonGreen board member and was active in the working on the difference of opinion between the LaSalle Park Marina Association and the people who cared about what was happening to the trumpeter swans who had made a home for themselves at the marina. Warren also began to work with Councillor John Taylor to get him re-elected in ward 3. There was still no viable rural candidate for ward 6.
Warren maintains Taylor urged her to run for the seat; whatever it was – something changed her mind and we were advised several weeks ago that Vanessa would be declaring her intentions after a short trip south where she snorkeled and looked at fish.
Back in the country – the wheels began to turn and she was in.
While the air park has been the focus for Warren – she does not appear to be a single issue candidate. She is an environmentalist; BurlingtonGreen was a good fit for her and we saw some of the grit she has consistently shown when she complained about a speaker from the LaSalle Park Marina Association hijacking a public meeting that was supposed to be about the budget. At that same meeting she asked why the public was reading about decisions that had basically already made – she wanted the public to be involved well before decisions were made.
She did the same thing last week when she asked city council why they were deciding on the building of a new court house that no one knew anything about. Where was the community engagement, Warren asked.
Warren understands that the “next several years in our Ward are going to be critical ones. The urban areas in the ward are developing rapidly and we are at risk of outpacing our own economic development, infrastructure and transit planning. Growing and intensifying without a strong, integrated planning vision will mean disconnected, poorly serviced neighbourhoods. Upcoming Provincial reviews of the Greenbelt and Niagara Escarpment plan mean that our current rural protections could become less fulsome, and I want to ensure that our community’s formidable desire to protect its liveability, green space and agricultural economy is rigorously represented.”
Rigorous is a word that fits the Warren persona. There is nothing “wishy washy” about this candidate.
Yes – the airport runway ends a field or two away from the farm she works with her husband and one could argue that she has a vested interest. The small aircraft pilots who rent hanger space at the Air Park certainly think that is the case. The small engine aircraft aren’t a problem – it is the threat that there might be larger small jet engine aircraft using the runway – and that is an entirely different situation.
Warren’s overriding question about the Air Park is this: What’s going on up there? Is was her questions that got the city into a court room where the won their case at the Superior Court level and are heading into an appeal that will be heard in June.
In the meantime Warren will run her campaign knowing that the illegal dumping at the Airpark has been stopped. Then, once all the appeals are done with the need to clean up the toxic heritage of a five year fill operation needs to start.
The community will hear about a candidate who would like to see “a new financial model for a liveable Burlington that grows in place – one that keeps an eye on the triple bottom line: social performance, environmental performance AND economic performance.
 Vanessa Warren with her nomination papers in hand. She may not be elected yet but she has figured out what the photo-op is all about. Is Warren as good as she sounds? We do know she was a reluctant candidate and that it was the performance of the sitting member, Blair Lancaster, which was a large part of the driving force behind the Warren decision.
In the next six months the people of ward 6 have an opportunity to listen and decide who they want to represent them. Councillor Lancaster has said publicly that she intended to run but has yet to file nomination papers.
By Pepper Parr
April 9, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
While not yet a candidate Bell Line resident Vanessa Warren let fly at a city council meeting Monday night.
She delegated to talk about the new court house to be built at Walker’s Line and Palladium Way..
 Vanessa Warren telling council they were not delivering on their promises. What Warren was doing was highlighting the significant lack of communication on the part of the city about a new Courthouse expansion and consolidation of both the Milton and Burlington Courthouses that is ready to proceed with a request for design/build/lease proposals. You could imagine my frustration at not having received any communication about this proposal from my local Councillor; nor have any of the dozens of what I would consider very engaged residents I have spoken with.
“It is clear from the report that, since 2006, it is has been well researched and well funded – and slated for vacant employment lands in the 407 corridor, it might also seem well planned…except for what I see as two glaring oversights.
The first oversight had to do with Community Engagement, which Warren reminded Council was
To fulfill the vision and mission of the Burlington Community Engagement Charter, that included Early and Widespread Notification
Warren added that the engagement charter was to celebrate its first birthday the following day.
Warren reminded Council they were about to confirm the location of this courthouse and seek an RFP for a design/build/lease arrangement for the next 25 years and beyond without even “brushing up against the first level of public participation on the list in its own Charter, which is to inform.
Warren brought to Council’s attention the “really poor transportation planning” for the Alton community when transit wasn’t even thought of until after it was built, and less than three months before the start of the school year.
I think everyone can agree” said Warren “ that that was an example of ad-hoc and backward-looking work and should have been a lesson well learned.
 Council sat stoically while Vanessa Warren reminded them that they were not living up to the provision of the Community engagement Charter which was to celebrate its first anniversary the next day. Warren wasn’t finished: She pointed out that one of the key criterion used to select the courthouse location was that it be “serviced by public transit”, presumably because many people who use the court system will have need of busing and other alternatives. She had wanted to put a map up on the screen in Council chambers showing that there were no plans for a bus route in place to service the court house that is to be move in ready by mid-2016.
It was at this point that the Mayor interrupted Warren and asked her to “make your comments specific to the Growth Management Plan” under discussion. The Mayor appeared to be having a problem with comments about the failure to live up to the committeemen to keep the public informed set out in the Community Engagement Charter.
Warren said later that she didn’t think the Mayor was right in interrupting her and that all her comments were very germane. She added that she felt most of the council members were “squirming in their seats”
“I spoke last week with Jenny Setterfield, Transportation Engineering Technologist at Burlington Transit, the point person on the City’s Transportation Master Plan and she was not aware of this project.
This all makes me very concerned: concerned that Council has failed to, at the very least inform the local community about what is taking place, and concerned that Council will once again be directing Burlington Transit to back-fill it’s development plans with three months notice.
We need really strong leadership to enhance the livability of our urban spaces while still protection our green spaces. This proposal – while overall being positive – has been approached the wrong way. You’ve only looked at one bottom line.
You should not be consulting after the fact and then ask residents to show up for the photo-op later. You consult in advance and you ensure that the big picture planning tools – like transit – are in place to ensure success.
I would suggest that approving the recommendations before you tonight will be a violation of your own Community Engagement Charter, and will only work towards creating a disconnected and poorly serviced City.
Councillor Paul Sharman asks Warren what some of her assumptions were while Councillor Lancaster listen as she is roundly criticized by a ward resident. Jeff Fielding the city manager did add some comment after the Warren delegation and pointed out that the location of a new court house had to be the result of a consensus of all four municipalities in the Region and that some issues had come up from one of the municipalities – he didn’t say which one – that would be reviewed April 14th. He added that there would be no problem deferring any decision by council until the next round of Standing Committee meetings.
Which was fine – but the comments didn’t deal with the fact that the public had not been made aware of the plans for the court house and any transit requirement has not even been looked at.
Warren had brought the issue to the attention of the people in her ward and the city at large.
That was Monday night. On Tuesday morning Vanessa Warren announced her intention to run for City and Regional Council in Burlington’s Ward 6 and said that after “four years of inaction, inaccessibility and poor communication from the incumbent, Blair Lancaster” she would run for the office.
By Staff
Photography by Oliver Hannak
April 4, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Things didn’t get off to a great start for the Burlington Vipers – the team Brandon Wagner, Burlington’s Paralympian, plays on – but he will be back at it on Saturday taking part in the three day National Championship tournament at the Haber Recreational Centre. The Burlington Vipers lost their first two games
 The 2014 Canadian Wheelchair Basketball League (CWBL) National Championship takes place April 4-6, 2014 in Burlington and are sanctioned by Wheelchair Basketball Canada.
The event is being hosted by the Burlington Vipers in conjunction with the City of Burlington. These Championships are the first national event to take place at the Centre which was built for just this kind of thing.
The place has eight courts where teams can play at the same time. The building, brand new, is squeaky clean with large plasma screen throughout the building.
Wheelchair basketball players do not have to be disabled – something I didn’t know. When any player falls over in their chair – and with the way these men and women go at it – there are a lot of tumbles, they have to get up by themselves. Men and women do play on the same team.
Every player is ranked, which is a number assigned to a player based on their level of physical functionality. It is basically a measure of their body trunk capability. The players are ranked by professionals who have experience with disabled people.
There are five players on the court at any one time – and the total value of the players cannot be more than 15 points. So a team that has some high ranking – a player is ranked between 1-5 and can be a 3.5 for example.
 If there are two players who have exceptional body trunk capability and they have ranks of 4.5 – nine of the 15 points available to the coach are taken up.
Off to a corner of the court two people sit at a table keeping a count of the points on the floor. They know the ranking of each player and are adding up their rank values every time a new player rolls onto the court.
A players ranking can charge but that doesn’t happen very often.
The tournament runs Saturday and Sunday. The schedule can be reached by clicking on the link.
Brandon Wagner is back on the court Saturday afternoon.
Background links:
Haber Recreational Centre deal put in place.
 By Pepper Parr
March 27, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
They are sometimes called “issue” politicians; people who had an issue with city hall and fought back to make something happen and went on to serve their communities very well as city councillors.
These “issue” politicians tend to have had some experience with local groups where they were one of the hundreds that serve in the trenches making thee wheels go round.
 Angelo Bentivegna expects to be a force if he is elected to city council. His learning curve will be steep. Angela Bentivegna is an issue politician.
An immigrant to this country, he arrived in 1957 and lived in Montreal, in a less than tony part of town, where he started working at the age of 14 selling newspapers at a nickel a copy outside the old CN yards.
He got a job after that in a restaurant, completed high school, where he met the woman he married and has been married since 1978. The two of them attended McGill University at the Faculty of Education; they both wanted to be teachers.
Bentivegna has been fortunate enough to find mentors; people who saw his capacity and his energy and developed his skills in the operation and management of different kinds of restaurants. He managed restaurants, opened up new locations for the Victoria Station operation as well as Kelsey’s where he was the owner of a franchise.
 Angelo Bentivegna tends to look people in the eye and listen carefully. When Cara bought out all the Kelsey franchises – Angelo found himself with a decent cheque in his pocket and an opportunity to strike out on his own. “I always liked the idea of working for myself and this was the time in his life when he could do that.” He said.
The restaurant business was the one thing he knew very well; he knew everyone in that business, which he explains is “really a very small community.”
Angelo and his wife both graduated as teachers – she stayed in a classroom, he roamed North America for different restaurant organizations. Angelo and Diane lived through all of the recessions – he can name every one of them.
With a strong restaurant management background getting into retail selling products that were a part restaurant business was a natural – they opened their first shop in 1991 on Fairview –and have been in that same plaza location ever since.
Bentivegna learned to roll with the changes in the retail world. They started selling cooking utensils and as consumer demand shifted – they shifted. Today the Mrs. B’s Gift House focuses on gift packages and biscotti baked daily.
In TEAR Diane, Angelo’s wife, thought there was something wrong with a consistent itch she had in her chest. The Bentivegna’s were fortunate – early detection resulted in surgery that rid Diane of the disease. The family was grateful and wanted to do something for the community; they decided they would purchase a Digital Mammography Unit with Biopsy attachment for the Joseph Brant hospital – price $450,000 which didn’t seem to deter the family. They organized their event, sold tickets, found sponsors and thought things were going just fine when they ran into a brick wall at city hall.
 If Angelo Bentivegna is elected to city council he will either have to get up very very early to make the biscotti – or this city will just have to go without. Beauty and the Bistro, the name of the fund raising event, was set up so that every penny went to the fund to pay for the Digital Mammography Unit with Biopsy attachment – nothing, not a dime, was paid to anyone. Angelo scrounged support from everyone he knew and in the restaurant world – he knew everyone. Ten restaurants were lined up to serve small portions of food at a gala event where the tickets were priced at $50 – “We wanted every to be able to afford to attend”, said B
He got a party tent supplier to help out, “borrowed 1200 glasses, table cloths – you name it and Angelo B found someone to ask to donate what was needed.The event was to take place at the Leggat automobile showroom on Fairview. That location was not zoned to hold banquets, which B wasn’t aware of but didn’t see as a problem.
The Mercedes-Benz dealership on the North Service Road was used for two fund raising events so B didn’t think he had a problem. That changed when he started trying to get some help at city hall. Angelo couldn’t believe what he was hearing – why not?
He recalls one day when he asked city hall receptionist if the Mayor was in – he wasn’t. None of the councillors were in either but he did manage to get through to the administrative assistant for Councillor Craven and she said she would help.
City planner Bruce Krushelnicki learned of the problems and help Angelo work his way through the complex process of getting a change in the zoning for the Leggat site on Fairview.
It took an appearance before the Committee of Adjustment to get a minor variance and an appearance before city council to get a $420 fee waived. Angelo B got his permits and the city got a new bylaw that meant no one else would have to go through the same hoops ever again. Bylaw 2020-327 solves that problem
Angelo found getting information and clear direction at city hall confusing and frustrating – he didn’t think it was supposed to be that hard and around last Christmas began to think in terms of running for a seat on city council and working towards bringing about a change.
 People can expect to know just where Angelo Bentivegna will stand when there is an issue to be addressed. Angelo Bentivegna is certainly persistent. While he apparently didn’t understand the rules and there may have been a touch of impatience when he was at the counter at city hall he kept at it and finally found someone who would help and eventually got what he needed for his charitable event.
In an early draft of the platform Angelo Bentivegna is going to run on he says he is:
Passion, persistence, and productive, that’s who I am.
I listen…. We come up with a plan and we get to work.
I will have no excuses…and will admit when I need help.
I will commit 100% of my time as a full-time Councillor.
Expect this from me: One voice, one ward, our community, our great City….that is what I will embrace.
The challenges for ward 6 as Angelo Bentivegna sees them are:
The Airpark on Appleby Line. He doesn’t have any plans as to what should be done with the property once the various court appeals have been heard. He has begun to make inroads with the people who are directly impacted by the air park however B lives south of the 407/Dundas divide.
Many feel that it is time for someone who actually lives in the rural part of the city to sit on city council but B thinks he can overcome that problem by reaching out and being available to people. He is very critical of the practice Councillor Lancaster had of holding her ward events at the Air Park.
Transit is a stated issue but there are no policy outlines as to what he thinks the solutions are nor does he define the problem. The city’s aging population and the needs of our young families that need more programs for young children are subjects B wants to focus on – but nothing specific here either.
Ensure that we save the lakefront but no suggestions as to what should happen to the Beachway.
There isn’t a motherhood issue that Angelo B doesn’t touch on in his campaign outline. “We need to protect where we live, work, play and how we grow in the future”, is the clarion call.
Angelo Bentivegna has had his share of recognition for his community work. He was a finalist for the Business Excellence Award given by the Canadian Italian Business Professional Association. “I lost out to Angelo Paletta and I can live with that said Bentivegna
He was recognized by the Chamber of Commerce and awarded the Mayor’s Community Business Service Award in 2011
Add to that the:
Chamber of Commerce award winner of Best Retail/Wholesale Business. -2001
President’s Award for Burlington City Rep Hockey Club – 1991
President’s Club Award – Victoria Station Restaurants – 1979
President McGill University Student Faculty of Education-1976
His most recent community initiative is Chair of “Beauty and the Bistro”, a community wide, three-year fundraising initiative to purchase a Digital Mammography Unit with Biopsy attachment for Joseph Brant Hospital.
Angelo is a member and supporter of the “Gift of Giving Back” the largest community initiated food drive in Canada led by Jean Longfield one of the Directors of the Burlington City Rep Hockey Club.
Welcomed fans and guests during the OHL Memorial Cup 2011 twelve day event, managing and co-coordinating “Hockey House” activities from beginning to end at the Hershey Centre in Mississauga for the St. Mike’s Majors.
-Initial Charter Member of Lion’s Club Foundation for Guide Dogs in Oakville…’09
Burlington City Rep Hockey Club – Vice President… 94-present
Burlington Cougars Jr. A Hockey Club Executive 2001-2003
Burlington Tourism Supporter..08-present
Parent Council and later President of Notre Dame Catholic H.S. Parent Council 1991-2001
Created a WinterLude Fundraising Program for Notre Dame High School raising funds for computers and the library program 1991-2001.
Involved as Parent Liaison on Strategic Planning Committee with Halton Catholic District School Board 1991-2001.
Volunteer for the CIBC Run for The Cure Hamilton Burlington Chapter.
Angelo B appears to have touched all the bases – can he reach out far enough to touch the hearts of the people in ward 6. It should be an interesting race. There is an additional candidate running in ward 6, Jim Curran with a fourth candidate expected to declare early in April.
 By Pepper Parr
March 27, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The city will be taking its best minds and prettiest faces to Queen’s Park to tell our story and present our case for more support from the province.
Burlington is sort of like that bright child that doesn’t get into trouble, runs its operations well enough ad gets forgotten. Burlington doesn’t do drama or crisis. Everyone likes everyone Burlington – it is the greatest place to live – so what’s to worry?
There are problems – and the city wants the province to be more aware that we are here, have a great story to tell and when we have problems – we’d at least like Queen’s Park to be aware of them.
When the discussions were taking place about IKEA taking up residence on the North service Road between Guelph Line and Walkers Line city hall staff ran into all kinds of problems with the Ministry of Transportation over just when and how the QEW might get widened. We wanted to know what the MoT could do for us in the way of help with the interchanges on Walkers Line and staff found that there wasn’t a lot of help coming in.
Burlington realized it didn’t have a presence in the minds of the decision makers at Queen’s Park so we decided to put together a team of people who would GO train it to Toronto and meet with the provincial government
 If you haven’t asked to be part of this panel – don’t complain and say city hall doesn’t listen. As part of the preparation for that event city manager Jeff Fielding used his most recent communications tool – Insight Burlington – to ask his panel of more than 500 people what they thought the city should talk to the provincial government about.
There were six questions – four related to transportation and two related to employment.
The computer application that has been developed is kind of slick. The questions are set out on the left hand side of your computer monitor. On the right there is a row of boxes – one under the other with the words 1st choice, 2nd choice – right through to the 6th choice.
All you had to do was drag the question on the left to a place on the right – which was how you ranked the questions – showing which you thought was the most important to the least important.
The only thing missing was an opportunity to put in thoughts that were your own. There could have been a box to type in a comment or a question that could have been asked.
 There are times when city hall staff would like public opinion quickly. The Insight panel makes that possible. The members of the panel got an email yesterday afternoon and were asked to click on a link that took them to the survey. It took just two minutes to complete the survey. Sometime at the end of the day or early tomorrow Fielding will get a report from his team that will tell him what the community thought he should do.
It is quick, short and gives city administrators a very valid sample of what the community thinks.
The program that runs behind the questions gets an even distribution from each of the six wards, a balance of age, gender and income. All that data will have been collected earlier when the members of the panel were put into the system
Fielding would like a bigger panel and he wishes the members of council has been more diligent in promoting the idea. He believes that over time people will hear about the panel and want to become part of it.
 The beauty of this service is that the city is able to get opinions very quickly – and they don’t know who you are – they just know that you are of a certain age, which ward you live in, if you are a home owner or an apartment dweller. The will know if you drive a car or are a transit user or both. But they don’t know who YOU are.
If you would like to become part of the panel – log into the web site and answer the questions – remember – they don’t know who you are. The data collected is not kept at city hall. All they get are the results of the survey.
If you believe in a democracy and want to be of service to your community – became part of the panel. Some people have mentioned that they applied and were told they were on a waiting list. That would have been because there were too many people, say, of a certain age group which would skew the sample population.
While this is an extreme example: if 56% of the population is female but 80% of the people who applied were male – the results would not be reflective of the city. So some of those male applicants would get put on a waiting list and when the number of female applicants in the same age grouping increased they would be added to the survey panel.
What is vital is that the sample be reflective of the city’s population.
It will be interesting to hear what the city got back in the way of rankings to the six questions that were asked.
Background links:
City to create an opinion survey panel.
City recruiting panel members.
 By Pepper Parr
March 23, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Denise Davy, a mother who lost a son in a railway crossing accident, became a tireless advocate for change and took her concern about the lack of safety barriers at railway crossings in Burlington to city council. She managed to bring about changes – there are barriers now in a number of places where people foolishly scoot across railway tracks, including ward 4 councillor Jack Dennison who publicly set an example he showed be ashamed of – but apparently isn’t.
 There is now a sturdy fence at this rail line. Davy, a former Spectator reporter, who now runs a writing and editing business, took her cause to the Regional government; she took it to Mississauga and got invited to a Roundtable held by the Member of Parliament for Halton, and also the Minister of Transport, Lisa Raitt. Here was someone who could do something.
Davy understood that she was to be one of a number of people taking part in a discussion about safety features along the railway tracks. She was amongst some pretty important people:
Attending were: His Worship, Gordon Krantz, Mayor of Milton; Andrew Siltala, Senior Manager, Economic Development, Town of Milton; Bill Mann, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Milton; Jean Tierney, Senior Director, Corporate Safety and Security, VIA Rail Canada; Susan William, Regional General Manager, Central, VIA Rail Canada; Greg Percy, President, GO Transit; Paul Finnerty, Vice President, Operations, GO Transit; Michael Farkouh, Vice President, Safety and Sustainability, Canadian National Railway; John Orr, Vice President, Eastern Canada, Canadian National Railway; Randy Marsh, Manager, Community Relations, Canadian Pacific Railway; Andy Ash, Director, Dangerous Goods, Railway Association of Canada; Brad Davey, Executive Director, OntarioConnex; Eve Adams, Member of Parliament, Mississauga-Brampton South and a Representative from the Halton Police.
 Simple message bearing a lot of the pain that results from a needless death at a place where rail tracks were easily cross. No more at this crossing. There wasn’t a hope in hades that Denise Davy would have ever been able to pull a group of people with the kind of clout this crowd had. Davy saw herself as one of the group and was a little stunned when after a few words from Minister Raitt, she turned to Davy and gave her the floor. It wasn’t what Davy was expecting but she dove into her story, her experience and explained for the hundredth time that education alone does not work – barriers have to be put up – and if those barriers are expensive then we have to find a way to pay for them.
She worked at dispelling the myth that most of the people who lose their lives on railway tracks are suicides – the people in the rail transportation business have words to describe them: deliberates and accidentals. To Denise Davy they are all lives that were needlessly lost.
She points to the way the public safety people reacted to motorcycle people who used to drive without helmets – we passed laws requiring motorcycle people to wear helmets and we reduced deaths. We are in the process of putting in stiffer penalties in place for those who text and think they can drive at the same time. We learned she said that public education didn’t work in those situations and we know it doesn’t work to prevent rail crossing deaths. If it is going to cost money – then we have to find that money.
There weren’t a lot of concrete suggestions thrown out by others; mainly they went around the room and talked about what they’re currently doing, which included everything from public education to putting educational campaigns in the schools.
 A fence that cannot be easily climbed with a notice and a contact number for those under severe emotional stress is now in place at Drury Lane. Now for the rest of the Region and then the rest of the province and then the rest of the country. Davy said she listened and commented then said that the problem was clearly none of the things they were doing are working because people are still being killed.
Raitt proved to want to be more proactive than many expected. She made it absolutely clear according to Davy, that this is an issue for her, that she is concerned and glad that it was brought to her attention and said that it should be included with an overall review on rail safety. She is going to connect with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Rail Association of Canada and get the conversation going on the issue with them as well.
She also wants to go big with something on rail safety week which is April 28. It was mentioned a few times by various people, that the area around the GTA has the highest number of accidents in Canada.
Raitt gave Davy a printout that listed 29 accidents and incidents in Burlington, Milton and Oakville between 2009 and 2013. The total for Halton for same period was 46.
The tragedy came right to the doorstep of the Friday Roundtable in Milton. Passengers on the Lakeshore West GO line got the following message: Due to a police investigation of a trespasser fatality at Clarkson, train service on your line is suspended between Port Credit and Clarkson until further notice.
Davy had not seen the message as she was preparing to drive from Burlington to Milton for the Roundtable. “That is unreal. How many more people have to die before something is done!!! My heart is breaking reading this.” All the pain, the grief, the sorrow and the hurt came flooding back and the realization that the anniversary of her son’s loss was less than a week away.
Trooper that she is, Davy attended the meeting and left with a platform created for her by the Minister of Transport to get the message out. The matter of rail crossing safety was not on the agenda said the Minister – and added that “it is now”.
 Denise Davy rests a little easier knowing that fences like this at places where rail lines were once easily crossed might eventually get put up across the province. Raitt is planning something for the week of April 28th – Rail Safety week in Canada. The rail car disaster in Lac Megantic is the high-profile event – but Denise Davy now has a platform she can work from. She said after the Roundtable: “ I know change can’t come right away and the fact that I was given a platform to speak to such high level officials who are in a position to make change was a huge step forward.”
“The main thing” said Davy is “to watch where it goes from here. I am going to plan something for April 28 and told everyone in the room I would be open to working with any of them to do something on that date.”
Before Denise gets to April 28 – she first has to deal with March 27th.
Background links:
Single citizen get rail crossing safety improved.
Rail crossing deaths brought to attention of council.
 By Pepper Parr
March 17, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Information is power. Knowing what is happening gives the person with the information an advantage over the person who doesn’t have that information.
City hall has tons of information – getting at it is not always easy.
 The city recently released a report, it was put together by Andrea Holland of the Clerks department and covers almost every sin imaginable when it comes to what information there is, what you can have, what you can’t have and how you get it. It’s not exactly an easy read but the information is there.
Transparency, accountability and privacy are common themes today. The City of Burlington is committed to fostering a culture of transparency, based on the principle that city information:
Must be provided to the public, limited by a few exceptions
Should be released proactively and responsibly.
Early in this decade the provincial government created the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; FIPPA for short. The purposes of this Act are,
(a) to provide a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that,
(i) information should be available to the public,
(ii) necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific, and
(iii) decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government; and
(b) to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and to provide individuals with a right of access to that information.
The province then created a sub set for the municipal sector and called that MFIPPA. In order to provide clarity around the FIPPA legislation with regards to records of members of council and the protection of personal information contained within those records, staff have prepared a reference guide – Access, Privacy and Records, A Guide for Council. It is to provide you with information to make informed decisions about the personal information you have within your office.
 The guide was prepared in consultation with staff and members of council to ensure that the information provided was clear and informative. Further research was conducted on Information and Privacy Commission orders that have been issued with respect to councilor records as well discussions with staff from the Ministry of Government Services.
The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) came in to effect on January 1, 1991. It applies to all municipalities in Ontario, including local agencies, boards and commissions, school boards and police services.
MFIPPA has two purposes:
Allows every person to request information from a municipality
Describes how the municipality must respond to requests, step by step
Lists limited and specific situations where access must not or may not be granted
Allows individuals to access and correct their own personal information
Requires that municipalities protect personal information in their care
Establishes rules for how personal information must be managed, including proper collection, use and disclosure
Compliance with MFIPPA is overseen by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC). If a requester is not satisfied with the quantity or quality of information released by a municipality in an access to information decision (e.g. adequacy of a record search, information withheld under an exemption), or if an individual feels that their privacy has been breached while interacting with a
municipality, appeals and complaints may be made to the commissioner. Following an investigation, the IPC will then issue a public order or report describing the circumstances of an appeal or complaint, and what must be done to resolve the matter.
Transparency, accountability and privacy are common themes today. The City of Burlington is committed to fostering a culture of transparency, based on the principle that city information:
Must be provided to the public, limited by a few exceptions
Should be released proactively and responsibly.
This report explains how MFIPPA applies to elected officials at the City of Burlington, and provides guidance for how to comply with the Act in daily practice.
MFIPPA and the City of Burlington:
The City Clerk has been delegated with the responsibility for overseeing and administering MFIPPA within the municipality. Within the Clerks Department, the Records and Information Coordinator is responsible for the receipt and processing of access requests, providing advice and consultation to corporate staff, serving members of the public, and advocating for privacy and confidentiality throughout the organization.
FOI request process:
1. A request is received via mail, or in person at the Service Burlington counter. Requests must be accompanied by a legislated $5 fee.
2. The records and information coordinator sends a search memo to all affected departments and staff, which may include individual members of council.
3. Within 7 days, the affected departments and/or individuals provide unaltered and entire records to the records and information coordinator, along with recommendations on release, for analysis.
4. The records and information coordinator analyzes each record to determine whether or not it should be released under MFIPPA. At this stage, the Clerk’s department may seek an opinion from the City’s legal counsel.
5. When analysis is complete, a release package is prepared and approved by the City Clerk. Records may be released in part or in full, or withheld in their entirety, in situations where all responsive records are exempt from disclosure, or where no records exist.
6. All records pertaining to the request are securely stored in a locked cabinet in the Clerks Department until the required retention period has expired.
What is a record:
MFIPPA defines ‘record’ as “any record of information however recorded, whether in printed form, on film, by electronic means or otherwise.” The definition is broad in order to include the full range of possible information formats.
Under MFIPPA, councillors are not considered to be officers or employees of the corporation and records related to interactions with their constituents as elected officials (constituency records) are therefore not covered by MFIPPA and therefore not accessible under the Act. However, if a member of council holds corporate records  created by the City of Burlington, or is discussing city business, or where they relate to city business such as communicating directly with City staff, that information may be accessible under MFIPPA.
Councillor Assistants are considered to be City of Burlington employees, to which MFIPPA access provisions do apply.
 Constituency records:
Records of a councillor acting on behalf of a constituent and representing their interests are not accessible under MFIPPA. This includes all content, opinions and personal information contained in any correspondence to and from a constituent, i.e. name, phone number, email and mailing address. For more details on what constitutes personal information, see Definitions below.
Examples:
Correspondence from a constituent concerning a pothole in their neighbourhood
Email from a constituent requesting that the councillor attend a community event
Correspondence between a councillor and a private sector company
City business records:
Corporate records include information that is related to the business of the city, its agencies and boards, and may be requested through MFIPPA. All corporate records related to city business are also governed by the City of Burlington records retention by law 97-2005 and amending by-law 62-2013.
Examples:
Email sent to city staff and members of council, including carbon copies (cc).
Councillor records that advance the interests of the city.
Councillor forwards request for pothole repair to Roads and Parks Maintenance.
Roads and Parks Maintenance receives a request sent via email directly from a constituent to repair a city owned asset.
Email from a citizen, forwarded to a city department by a Councillor’s Assistant for follow up
Records related to a Council member’s involvement with a City agency, when acting on behalf of the city.
 Email:
Email between Council members and city staff is typically accessible under MFIPPA. Other email contents which are not generally accessible under MFIPPA include:
Citizen contact lists, addresses and phone numbers stored in email systems (hosted and on site, i.e. Outlook; Constant Contact.)
Emails between a member of council and a constituent or local business
Personal emails sent from one member of Council to another.
When a FOI request is received for councillor records, all requests will be analyzed on their own merit and a decision will be made whether the records are subject to MFIPPA or not, and if they are, a further decision will be made to release or withhold. Each request represents a unique set of circumstances that will need to be considered.
Councillor records management: During the term of office and when re-elected.
At the start of each term of office, members of Council will receive training on MFIPPA as part of Council orientation.
Corporate records related to city business must be retained and disposed of according to the City of Burlington records retention by-law.
Confidential and Transitory information, including draft or working documents and duplicate copies, can be securely destroyed in a locked shredding bin or with a cross-cut shredder when no longer required. On-site shredding services are highly recommended for secure disposal of personal, confidential and sensitive information.
Constituent records fall under the sole custody and control of the member of council. Even though MFIPPA does not apply to these records, each councillor should take steps to safeguard any personal information that is in their possession from unintended use or disclosure.
Constituent records can be treated as “General Correspondence” for retention purposes, with a suggested retention period of Current + 4 years.
 Any constituent records and/or personal information that has been collected by a member of Council or received through the Councillor’s office, including contact details, that resides on city email or other city-owned resources, can not be shared or used for any purpose without the individual’s prior consent. Similarly, contact information cannot be shared with election teams without prior consent to do so from the individual. The voter’s list is not intended for use related to constituency business.
Before leaving office, a councillor may forward any outstanding constituency matters or ward-related documents to their assistant for future follow up with a request to the affected constituent for approval to send the unresolved matter to the incoming councillor.
Private or personal contacts saved in Outlook folders must be destroyed.
 If an elected official wishes to retain a copy of any records associated with their time in office, contact the City Clerk.
Any records and documents retained by former councillors must be kept according to the City of Burlington records retention by-law. Electronic records should be encrypted, using one of several methods available.
When there is a change in office, the Councillor’s assistant should send an email to all current recipients of the Ward newsletter, offering a clear option to opt in and continue receiving the newsletter, or to opt out from future communication.
One example is provided below:
“As you may be aware, a new Councillor will be in place for Ward X as of December 1. If you wish to continue receiving the Ward X newsletter, please opt in at the link below.”
Collection, use and disclosure under MFIPPA
MFIPPA includes specific requirements for how municipalities collect, use and disclose personal information.
Every time that personal information is collected by a municipality, notice must be provided to the affected individual(s) which states:
The legal authority to collect
The purpose(s) for which the personal information will be used
The title, business address and telephone contact for an officer or employee who can answer questions about them collection.
MFIPPA prohibits the collection of personal information unless the collection is:
Expressly authorized by law, or
Used for the purposes of law enforcement, or
Necessary to the administration of a lawfully authorized activity.
 The personal information collected by an institution may only be used under the following conditions:
With informed consent from the individual
For the purpose for which it was obtained or compiled, or for a consistent purpose.
A municipality is not permitted to disclose personal information in its custody or under its control, unless the person to whom the information relates has consented to its disclosure, or in a few other limited circumstances described under the Act, for example: when there is statutory authority to disclose for law enforcement purposes.
Example:
The name and address of a citizen signing in at a public meeting can only be disclosed if the citizen provided consent,or if the possibility of disclosure was indicated in a written collection notice posted at the meeting.
The use and disclosure of personal information must always be consistent with the original purpose for which it was collected.
A consistent purpose is defined under MFIPPA as something an individual might reasonably have expected. Reasonable expectations are typically established in collection notices.
Under MFIPPA, councillors do not have any special right of access to records held by municipalities, including the personal information of citizens and employees.
In other words, members of council may only access information that would not normally be exempt from disclosure under MFIPPA. The same is true for former members of council or employees who, at one time, may have had access to records in the performance of their duties.
This approach is intended to protect members of council and the City of Burlington from the following risks:
 Contravening MFIPPA
Breach of privacy or confidentiality
Negative media exposure Example:
Members of Council cannot access contact information listed on public meeting sign-in sheets unless the attendee has consented to that kind of disclosure in advance.7
Records of unsuccessful tender submissions for a city construction project are reviewed and redacted according to MFIPPA exemptions before being received by a member of council, if requested outside of standing committee and council documentation
Councillors may have a right of access to certain types of information that would not be available to the general public, if they require the information in their capacities as members of council in order to carry out duties related to that function.
Councillors who wish to request information from the City of Burlington outside of their official capacity may submit an FOI request to the Clerk’s department at any time.
Access to personal information:
Where a councillor acting in their official capacity seeks access to personal information held by the city (for example, the personal information of an employee), information may only be obtained if the individual has provided prior consent.
The Mayor, as Head of Council, is considered an “officer” of the City. The Mayor’s records that relate to the mayoral duties, as opposed to constituency or personal papers, are considered to be in the City’s custody or control and therefore may be requested under MFIPPA.
 Examples of mayoral duty records, which may be accessible:
Notes taken at Burlington Hydro meeting, while acting in official capacity
Speech delivered at opening of new recreational facility
Staff within the Office of the Mayor are considered to be in political positions, to which MFIPPA access provisions do not normally apply. For example, an email sent from the Mayor to one of their staff members would not typically be accessible under MFIPPA. However, if city staff are copied on the email, it could be accessible.
Any time that the Mayor or one of his or her staff forwards a customer service or constituency matter to city staff for follow up, that record may also be requested under MFIPPA.
This is in contrast to staff working within Councillor offices, who are considered to be City of Burlington employees to which MFIPPA access provisions do apply.
Definition of personal information:
“personal information” means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including,
(a) information relating to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital or family status of the individual,
(b) information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved,
(c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual,
(d) the address, telephone number, fingerprints or blood type of the individual,
(e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except if they relate to another individual,
(f) correspondence sent to an institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to that correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,
(g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individual, and
(h) the individual’s name if it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual.
There you have it. Not the kind of document you will take to the beach to read in the summer – but it is the kind of document you might want to refer to – and it will be on the Gazette website for a long time – until it is revised.
In the past these rules have not been fully observed. with an informed public – we just might see better compliance.
 By Pepper Parr
March 12, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
There is news and then there is news. There is what media people call “fluff” stories that really don’t say very much, have absolutely no impact but make the people who send them out feel warm and fuzzy.
Then there are news items that are significant, play up an event or offer information that has people saying to themselves – now that mattered.
Yesterday two such news items drifted into the Burlington Gazette. The city has, once again been ranked the fifth-best city overall in Canada, including the third-best place to raise children, the second-best place for new immigrants and the third-best place to retire. The top five cities on the list are St. Albert, Calgary and Strathcona in Alberta and Ottawa and Burlington in Ontario.
Mayor Goldring said the expected: “ I know members of City Council join me in expressing our absolute delight that Burlington tops the list of mid-sized Canadian cities. We are a physically beautiful city with great weather” – this on a day when the city got 12 cm of snow, with another 4 cm expected later in the day.
 In their media release MonySense magazine added: “That said, Burlington is one of the more expensive cities in our ranking. The average home costs almost $500,000, which is four and a half times the average family income. Still, this city earns high marks for low unemployment, pleasant weather, low crime, high incomes and, notably, great transit. While traffic can make the commute to Toronto a pain, the province’s GO train service makes up for this. Lee-Hutchinson pays $450 per month to travel to and from Toronto where she runs a photography and production company with her husband. It’s pricey but that buys her time to relax by reading or watching movies.”
Earlier in the day we were told that Hatch Mott MacDonald had earned a National Recognition Award for exemplary engineering achievement: the King Road Grade Separation Project in Burlington, Ontario.
 Five million pound concrete box slides underneath railway tracks at King Road. “What might have been a lengthy, complicated effort: said the media release “ to create a new railroad underpass beneath a busy roadway in a densely populated area was completed in just 72 hours. A 2,500-ton reinforced concrete “box” was built adjacent to the crossing, then resourcefully rolled into place during a weekend rail service outage. The four rail lines were back in service at the start of the workweek.”
“The project marks the first time an accelerated bridge construction project of this scale has been completed in North America. It serves as a valuable example to other transportation agencies facing time and space constraints in their own infrastructure improvement programs.”
“The project was one of 143 engineering projects judged by a panel of more than 25 engineers, architects, government officials, media members, and academics. Criteria for the awards include uniqueness and originality, technical innovation, social and economic value, complexity, and success in meeting goals.”
For those who watched the event – it was broadcast live over the internet – all 72 hours – with people sitting in a grandstand the city set up – it was an amazing event. To watch that 2,500 ton cube of concrete slide into position was a marvel.
THAT was something to blow our horn about. Burlington’s engineering department was in the thick of this project that got started when the city successfully pursued CN Rail to a federal regulatory commission that decided CN Rail had to pay for the bulk of the work. Years of planning got the city to a Friday afternoon of a holiday weekend when the last train rolled through the tracks that crossed King Road.
72 hours later – at just before 5 in the morning, the first of the commuter trains rolled through – the project was complete.
Background links:
King Road grade separation completed in 72 hours.
 By Pepper Parr
March 11, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
This is part 1 of a four-part series on the concept of Mobility Hubs; a concept the public has been discussing during two public workshops. We start with the down town hub and follow-up on the Burlington, Appleby and Aldershot GO station hubs.
There are a handful of subjects getting talked about at city council and at public meetings that have the potential for a huge impact on the kind of Burlington that is going to exist in the city’s midterm future – 8 to ten years out.
 The suggestion that the John Street terminal be torn down to save $8000 a year in operating costs moved the discussion on transit and mobility hubs into new territory. We saw the thin edge of those discussions when Burlington Transit suggested closing the John Street terminal to save $8000 a year. That suggestion got turned down – the decision wasn’t unanimous.
The three discussions taking place are:
1: What are we going to do with public transit.
2: An overall Master Transportation Plan
3: The creation of Mobility hubs.
The John Street terminal became a budget issue; the transit people wanted to remove it while the recommendation in the draft Mobility Hub document said – “a strong transit presence was necessary for the downtown mobility hub.” The left hand didn’t seem to be talking to the right hand.
 The Big Move conversation was an important part of the province beginning to tackle the problem of moving people efficiently. The public review of the Mobility Hub concept for Burlington came about when the province, through Metrolinx, created a plan they called The Big Move. The province had come to the realization that better ways had to be found to move people. The congestion on the QEW was beyond being tolerable and traffic within the city was plugging up at major intersections frequently. Solutions were needed. The Big Move got the discussion started provincially now it is taking place in communities across the province. Because Burlington is in the process of reviewing its Official Plan moving people had to become part of that that conversation.
When the public consultation on the mobility hubs is complete a directions document will be sent to the team working up the next version of the city’s Official Plan, which is a document Burlington is required to review and revise every five years.
 The discussion was about four possible mobility hubs – one at each GO station and a fourth downtown. Mobility hubs are urban growth centers and major transit station areas with significant levels of planned transit service with high residential and employment development potential within an approximately 800 metre radius of the rapid transit station.
Hubs are seen as a gateway for visitors to a city. The objective of a hub is to create a seamless integration between modes: walking, cycling, transit and private vehicles with a mix of uses that support a healthy neighbourhood in attractive public spaces.
The need for these studies came about when Metrolinx, an agency of the Government of Ontario was created to improve the coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. The organization’s mission is to champion, develop and implement an integrated transportation system for the region that enhances prosperity, sustainability and quality of life. Metrolinx launched The Big Move, a Regional Transportation Plan to allow people to use public transit to travel easily from Hamilton to Newmarket to Oshawa. It’s the final piece in a three-part approach by the province to prepare the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area for growth and sustained prosperity.
Metrolinx is a part of the provincial plan that includes the Greenbelt, which protects more than 1.8 million acres of environmentally sensitive and agricultural land in the heart of the region, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, a plan that coordinates population and job growth.
The The Big Move – identified that the province’s transit and transportation problems as regional in nature and across municipal boundaries. The solution required the coordination and integration of transit and transportation systems in order to allow growth to happen and help people and businesses move more easily throughout the region.
In 2009, Metrolinx merged with GO Transit, the regional public transit service. The organization grew further with the addition of two more operating divisions – the Union Pearson Express in 2010 and PRESTO, an electronic fare card that allows riders to transfer seamlessly across multiple transit systems, in 2011.
Burlington is now applying Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines, to identify and address opportunities and constraints of Burlington’s mobility hubs and major transit station areas. The thinking that comes out of the public meetings will inform the integration of mobility hub objectives and policy directions in the Official Plan and, where applicable, inform directions for the City of Burlington’s Core Commitment, Transportation Master Plan, Community Trails Strategy, Community Energy Plan, and others. Ideally, the community will propose Placemaking – streetscapes, branding, programming; Land Use – mix of uses, employment protection, infill; Built Form -height, massing, facades; Open Space and Circulation – transit, cycling facilities, new and improved parks.
The thinking for Burlington was four different mobility hubs: a downtown hub that would appear to center on John Street between John and Pine and then a hub at each of the GO stations: Burlington, Aldershot and Appleby Line.
We start this with a review of the thinking that has been done on the Downtown hub:
 Boundaries set out for the Downtown mobility hub. For each situation the planners set out a mission statement and then provide comment on the opportunities and constraints with each situation; land use within a specific area (800 metres); and the existing built form.
Land Uses as set out in the draft document of a downtown hub would encourage mixed-use (retail, office, residential) infill with transit-supportive infrastructure on vacant and underutilized lots (Lots 4 and 5 subject to additional study).
 This graphic shows some of the constraints as well as the opportunities for a mobility hub in the downtown core. Along John and James Street, new development should reinforce a strong transit presence through attractive waiting areas, ticketing functions and supporting retail.
The idea would be to concentrate the greatest densities in close proximity to the transit station at John Street and along the key transit corridors to protect adjacent residential neighborhood’s and heritage buildings.
At the edge of the Primary Zone, the height, mass and design of buildings should be controlled to provide appropriate transitions to adjacent stable residential neighborhoods, Martha Street and Hurd Avenue.
Maintain and promote a transit presence at the Burlington Transit Terminal. Explore opportunities to redevelop the area as a mixed-use area, with transit – supportive uses at grade (i.e. cafes, plazas, retail, etc.) while retaining part of the site for complimentary transit facilities.
Develop Brant Plaza to ensure new buildings support the mobility hub vision, including pedestrian supportive streets and height limitations to adjacent properties.
The built for the downtown mobility hub would reinforce nodes at Baldwin Street/Victoria Avenue and Brant Street and on Lakeshore Road at the key Downtown intersections.
 Would a downtown mobility hub result in greater density on the east side of Brant Street? Would traffic from the core work itself to the Burlington GO station? Where Tall buildings (> 10-storeys) are provided, typically on Brant Street/Lakeshore Road. they should be designed and massed to protect and frame views of Lake Ontario.
At Brant Plaza, new buildings should create a mid-rise (6 to 10-storey) character along Brant Street that compliments the uses south of Caroline Street. At the rear of the site, height limitations are encouraged to provide a transition to the residential dwellings along Wellington Avenue and Emerald Crescent.
 Would the west side of Brant Street south of the Brant Plaza be kept at a smaller scale? Would this create the kind of traffic that transit needs to justify the amount being spent on bus operations in the city. Does transit even have a future in Burlington? Mid-Rise and Tall buildings should be subject to front and rear-yard angular planes to reduce their perceived mass and minimize shadow and privacy impacts.
The report also asks that more efficient alternatives to surface parking, including above and below-ground structured parking where feasible, and on-street parking.
The Open Space and circulation thinking would Reinforce Brant Street as the primary Downtown main street leading to the waterfront. It should be a ‘complete street’ with equal consideration given to all modes of transportation, including transit, pedestrian, cyclists, and vehicles.
Promote Brant Street as the primary connection between the Burlington GO Mobility Hub and the waterfront. Support this role through streetscape initiatives, active ground floor uses and street-related infill that builds on the continuous pedestrian-supportive main street.
Promote pedestrian-focused street design on Brant Street and John Street to balance the multiple roles of the street as a vibrant place and connector.
Create a linked network of cycling connections to promote active transportation to and throughout the Downtown. New Bicycle Priority Streets are encouraged on local streets to provide continuous connections.
The draft document suggests extending the Centennial Bike Trail to connect to Brant Street as part of the Downtown Core Commitment.
As you read this over and look at the graphics – is this a Burlington you see in your mind’s eye; is this the direction you want to see the development of your city going in?
 Planners work from deep experiences bases but they need the thinking of the general public. While the public meetings on these hubs have come to a close there will be an additional opportunity for comment when the planners take their report to a city council Standing Committee, expected before the summer. There is never enough public input on projects like this in the early stages.
In the past Burlington has not had the kind of news media that provided this kind of background and explanation in context. Traditional print media rarely has the space to provide the illustrations.
The thinking behind the Burlington, Aldershot and Appleby GO stations follows in separate articles.
Background links:
John Street terminal not going anywhere right now.
 By Pepper Parr
February 27, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Sometime next Tuesday afternoon city council meeting as a Standing committee will recommend the current operating part of the 2014 budget. Traditionally that recommendation goes to city Council about ten days later for final approval and the tax rate is then set.
Citizens then have an opportunity to delegate before city council and attempt to plead for changes to the budget.
People in Burlington will not have an opportunity to do that this year. Council voted on Thursday to have the Mayor call a Special Council meeting immediately after the Standing Committee meeting and approve the budget immediately. There will be no opportunity for the public to delegate because they will not know when the meeting is taking place.
Councillor John Taylor moved a motion on Thursday that the budget be made final at a scheduled council meeting on March 17th. There was very little debate on the motion and Councillor Taylor wasn’t particularly direct or forceful with his comments. Councillor Meed Ward was direct; the city manager didn’t seem to care if the date was set back to the March 17th
The vote lost 4-2; Mayor Goldring had left the Standing Committee shortly before the vote.
What is disturbing with the vote is that Council is being very deliberate in not ensuring the public has some opportunity to read about the contents of the budget; go on-line and watch parts of the debate if they wish. It is almost as if this council has something to hide and at this point we don’t see that as the case.
It is a complex budget; we still don’t know what they plan to do with the $2.6 million 2013 surplus which they call retained savings. Staff had difficulty getting some critical reports before the Standing Committee on time – which meant the public didn’t get much opportunity to inform themselves. The transit advocates are close to spitting nickels over what they call the transit shenanigans.
The report on what the snow levels are to be before equipment is put out on the road was late – part of the reason for that was due to snow still falling.
 “I don’t want to hear anymore delegations” said Councillor Jack Dennison. Councillor Dennison said he didn’t want to hear any more debate on spending decisions; Councillor Sharman felt the public had had more than enough opportunity to make themselves aware of what council is doing. Not quite sure how he arrives at that conclusion when council has yet to make many of the budget decisions. Councillor Lancaster has never been a big fan of meeting with the public.
The public was given just the one opportunity to look at the budget in an open public meeting when they met at the Art Centre in January. . At that time people complained that they didn’t see anything before the meeting and that all they were able to do was respond to what was put in front of them.
There were close to 100 people at that January meeting which was held south of the QEW. Burlington now has a brand new campus in Alton Village where a second public meeting could have been held. The finance department staff chose not to do so this year but have indicated they will do so next year.
In 2010 Burlington received the Shape Burlington report; a document put together by the late John Boich and former Mayor Walter Mulkewich who were supported by a strong committee that, believe it or not, included Blair Lancaster and Paul Sharman before they were elected to council.
 Councillors Sharman and Lancaster: both part of the Shape Burlington committee who seem to have forgotten what the report was all about – civic engagement The Shape Burlington report made it very clear that Burlington suffered from an “information deficit” – the public just didn’t have the information they were entitled to – city hall wasn’t making it available.
When the report got to Council it was unanimously adopted – then apparently forgotten.
An informed public can make informed decisions and given that it is the public’s money that is being sent giving them an opportunity to make themselves fully aware would seem reasonable.
It is sort of like the cashier not letting you see the tape with all your purchases on it but just grabbing your cash and ringing up the sale.
The public is entitled to better treatment and if democracy is to prevail the elected officials should ensure that the public has more than adequate opportunity to inform themselves.
Odd that the four people who voted against giving the public time to review the budget decisions plan to ask the public to re-elect them to office in October.
Background links:
Just the one public meeting on the budget – comments are telling.
Shape Burlington points to “information deficit”.
 By Pepper Parr
February 26, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
One doesn’t often see exceptional cooperation between a developer and the city’s planning department. A proposal from the Hamilton District Christian Senior Citizens Home Inc. to put up a 148 unit, 6 storey apartment building for seniors on property assembled at 3260-3306 New Street somehow managed to go through two Public meetings – this second one lasted three hours and city council made a wise decision that is going to positively impact the lives of a lot of people. We may well see more proposals like this one.
 The developer came in asking for out – saw that wasn’t going to work and came back with a seven story proposal. That didn’t work either. The massing of the building on a street that just doesn’t have any high buildings was too much for everyone – even the planners. The original proposal was for an 8 storey, 176 unit apartment building which got cut down to 7 storeys when the developer realized that a totally different approach was needed to the look of the building and the impact it was going to have on the neighbourhood.
It was at this point that the developer began to have deep discussions with the planners – how does one get away from that massing with a 7 story structure that is five to six lots wide? Out of those discussions came the 6 storey design with a wide opening between the two.
With a much more satisfactory design that still wasn’t enough to change the minds of most of the people who delegated.
 The six storey version of the project did away with the massive look of the building Graham Tower just plain doesn’t want a 6 storey building next to his house up – it’s too high and not compatible with the existing neighbourhood – and that is true. The planners tried to explain that communities change and that this was an appropriate change for this community.
Ward 2 Councilor Marianne Meed Ward wanted something that was at the four storey range. Ward 1 Councilor Rick Craven pointed out that when a six storey structure was proposed for Plains Road was announced there was exceptionally strong opposition in the Aldershot community. Today, said Craven, everyone says this is the route to go.
When Maranatha first went to council in December 20, 2012 the proposal was for an eight story structure – and it was a pretty brutal looking building. A community meeting in January 8, 2013 at Central Public library attracted 80-100 people.
The developers behind this project currently manage a 3-storey, 63 unit seniors apartment building that backs onto the General Brock lands – some of which is owned by Burlington and the rest by the school boards.
The property at 3260 New Street, to the immediate west of the proposed development, contains an 3-storey, 63 unit seniors apartment building.
It is easy to confuse the two organizations discussed at the meeting. Maranatha Homes is under different ownership than Maranatha Gardens
Maranatha Homes is a not-for-profit Christian aging-in-place community that aims to provide a variety of affordable and interconnected housing options including affordable rental units that will provide a variety of assisted living services and facilities to meet the social, therapeutic, and recreational needs of the residents.
 Cumberland would serve as the common entrance point to the two projects both managed by the same people. The set back from New Street is substantial and the two levels of underground parking means the grounds won’t look like a parking lot. Maranatha Homes was built under Section 27 of the National Housing Act and was administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing (CHMC) until 2001 when the administration of housing was downloaded to municipalities through the Social Housing Reform Act.
CHMC currently holds a mortgage on 3260 New Street, the Homes, with an expiry date of August 1, 2026.
Maranatha Homes, Residence and Seniors Care was approved as a charity on December 27, 2012.
The original plan proposed a stepped building that was 8 storeys on the west side, stepping to 7, 6, 5 and 3 storeys at the east side. The last revision was for a six storey apartment building, containing 9- one bedroom units, 116- one bedroom plus den units and 23- two bedroom units on the assembled lands that will consist of two towers connected from floors 1-3 with a separation at the 4th floor to reduce the impact of the building massing. The existing driveway serving the Maranatha Homes building, south of Cumberland Avenue will serve as the main signalized access to the site.
There will be two levels of underground parking along with surface parking that will be shared by both Maranatha Homes and Gardens visitors.
Proposals like this have to go through all kinds of hoops – there is the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications that are subject to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Places to Grow), the Region of Halton Official Plan (ROP), the City of Burlington Official Plan (OP), and Zoning By-law 2020.
 The issue for Burlington and this city council was – what kind of housing do we want for the seniors in the community who want to “age in place”. Many seniors (there are already more than 100 people who have asked to have their names placed on the waiting list for units in the building) want to move out of a house that requires upkeep they can no longer manage but they want to remain in the community where they are comfortable, where they are active in the community and close to family. The problem was there just wasn’t much in the way of housing for these people.
Burlington currently has 9,000 people over the age of 80 – which represents 4% of the population. That number is projected to triple in 30 years. Burlington has more seniors (as a % of the population) than any other city in the GTA. More than 17% of the current population is over 65.
It doesn’t take much more than a grade 5 math level to figure out where we are going. Knowing that today – we can plan for tomorrow. That point didn’t seem to have any traction in the minds of most of the people who spoke last Monday evening.
The choices seemed to be – learn to live with a larger than normal structure in an established community or begin thinking of other ways to house seniors who want to move out of the single family structures they are currently in and no longer want to maintain. With 148 units available and more than 100 people on the waiting list – the market seems to be saying something.
Mayor Goldring felt the development was a great idea that met the needs of a growing senior’s population. The development is in ward 4 but Jack Dennison, the councilor for the ward, had little to say. Dennison had come up against the residents at the community meetings – he knows when to keep his head down.
Councilor Taylor hardly spoke.
Councilor Sharman saw it as a good project.
These apartments are not going to be cheap: There will be 140 one bedroom and one bedroom with a den that will measure 79-98 m2 and be priced at $2074 a month.
There will be 8 two bedroom units that are between 103 and 130 m2 priced at $3677 a month.
 Question were raised by some concerning adjacent road network capacity was it capable of absorbing the additional traffic generated. The capacity of a typical urban travel lane is 800 vehicles per hour. New Street has two lanes in each direction, therefore the capacity of New Street is 1600 vehicles per hour in each direction.
New Street is serviced by Burlington Transit’s Route 10 with bus stops on both the north and south side of New Street; the New-Maple route provides cross-town connectivity to the downtown bus terminal, Mapleview Mall, Burlington Go Station, Appleby Mall and the Central Park area which includes a large concentration of community services.
The site is located approximately midway between Guelph Line and Walker’s Line where there is a variety of neighbourhood conveniences. The site is also located a short distance by car (1.7 km) or bus to the Central Park area which includes a large concentration of community services geared at different demographics including the Burlington Seniors Centre, the Central Public Library, Burlington Music Centre, the Burlington Curling Club Central Arena and the YMCA.
An apartment building use differs from a retirement home whereby it does not supply meals to occupants in a common kitchen and dining facility and where other communal facilities may be provided. The proposed use will contain apartment units with their own kitchen facilities.
Maranatha Homes property and Maranatha Gardens lands will be under the same management but different ownership.
The people behind this development are not getting and discounts or special deals. They will pay all the fees and charges that every other developer pays as well as be required to provide the city with securities to ensure that the work is completed.
City development charges may be payable, Educational Development Charges are payable; Regional Development Charges and Surcharges are payable
As progressive as the project is – there was and still is – some very vocal local opposition to the project. Graham Tower lives in the home on the east side of the project – and he just plain did not want a large building next door to him and he feels the development will impact very negatively on the value of his property. The developers staged the height of the east side, have plans for trees – Tower wasn’t happy and is not likely to ever be happy.
Anup Ogale, who lives on Pine Cove gave the most detailed delegation. He mentioned a sink hole that would hold the Titanic; an engineer spoke later and explained it was a hole in a drive way and was found to be above ground that had utilities running beneath it.
He added that the building was going to be set on bed rock and if there was any “quicksand” in the area it would not be underneath the structure.
 Both the Maranatha Homes and the Maranatha Gardens back on to the Brock lands – residents managed to convince themselves that something was up for the development of that property. The proposed development faces New Street with a substantial set back from the road. Mr. Ogale had done quite a bit of research; each matter he brought up was answered by the planning staff. What planning staff could not do was fully explain why they would not go for eight storeys or even seven storeys but would accept six. The planner explained that he felt that was an appropriate height for that location – and the area residents just weren’t buying that argument.
A Myers Lane resident, whose name we shall withhold, managed to embarrass both herself and anyone who knows her, with comments during her delegation that were just plain rude and disrespectful. Mayor Goldring mentioned that he drives by the site most days on his way to city hall and he had not found the traffic to be impossible. He signaled the committee chair that he wanted to speak and the resident cut in and told the Mayor to wait – she was speaking.
Asked by the committee chair to respect the process the resident said “you respect us… we voted you people in and we can vote you out.”
 It went downhill from there. The resident pointed to council and said “I see all kinds of attitude here .. it seems as if you have decided and that you know what is best…No you don’t” and with that the delegation walked away from the podium.
She did return to answer a question from Councilor Meed Ward who wanted to find out just what it was the woman was opposed to; with that she returned to the podium and said: “We don’t want the re-zoning”. That was certainly obvious.
The Standing committee voted 6-1 to accept the staff recommendation; Meed Ward, who wanted four storey structures and perhaps a bigger footprint, did not vote the recommendation. This item comes to city council March 17th – the question is will it move on to the Ontario Municipal Board. It shouldn’t.
 By Pepper Parr
February 22, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
A report from John Duncan, Transit Manager was what staff call a “walk on” – wasn’t prepared and circulated much in advance and the public didn’t have much time to read and review the document that focused on the November 3, 2013, a significant change to the Transit route network was implemented in order to address the following concerns raised by council and transit users:
Late night service;
Extended holiday service;
Increased frequencies on high demand routes;
Improved service to employment corridors;
Improved connections to GO rail service; and,
Route inefficiencies.
City council was having a problem with transit and the public was divided: people would complain that they saw buses going up and down the streets empty, transit riders complained about the poor service and the transit advocates said the problem was underfunding.
Council and the city finance people were looking at the amount of money being spent and a system that didn’t appear to be delivering what was needed.
The then director of transit advised the city she wanted to retire which left things in a bit of an awkward state as the city transitioned from one transit director to the next.
Mike Spicer, who was on staff at transit was appointed the new director of transit. He needed some time to get a stronger grip on what had been happening and then to assemble the staff he felt were needed to implement the changes. Spicer has been the voice for transit at committee meetings.
City manager Jeff Fielding directed Spicer to modify the routes and get more coverage with the same fleet. The transit users felt the changes were close to draconian. Fielding wanted more data so fact based decisions could be made. The public would watch council chatter away for an hour over the five or six complaints over service on a particular bus route yet pay little attention to the several hundred people using the route.
 Last November the transit people introduced a new schedule with a lot of changes – and that took time for people to adjust to the different routes and schedules.
Transit had to find efficiencies in order to fund improvements and provide service in other areas of the Transit network; that meant reallocate existing available resources. This was accomplished through the reduction or elimination of service on some routes, based on underutilization.
Change to anything does not come easily. While the service change allowed Transit to establish a baseline service that could be built upon when future funding becomes available they also generated a substantial number of complaints: 270 that can be directly attributed to the November 3, 2013 service changes. That is 270 in a two month period for a service that carried an average of 175,000 passengers a month. That figure climbed to 350,000 during November and December.
 The amount of money Burlington pumps into its system is far less than Oakville – and it shows in the service we offer. Transit staff are struggling with what’s coming at them. The changes were made last November and they are now monitoring the usage and looking for ways where, based on the traffic count, changes can be made. What transit had to get away from was reacting to a couple of dozen complaints and having council beat them up all the time.
Spice, director of transit explained that there had been:
Limited time for transit users to become familiar with the network;
Seasonal changes effecting transit use; and,
Limited data collection window – less than three months.
Transit staff engaged from the DeGroote School of Business to assist with survey work to further understand the travel patterns, in the south-east section of the transit network, where significant changes were implemented resulting in the greatest volume of service type concerns.
 At busy holiday shopping periods buses get trapped in Maple View Mall – killing schedules. City is in talks with the Mall management. Traffic in and out of Mapleview Mall has been a disaster for transit. “when we get in there we can’t get out sometimes” explained Spicer at a committee meeting. Our buses get trapped in the mall which throws our schedule out of whack.” Transit is negotiating with the mall to see if they cannot find “bus only” access points to the mall property. Those talks do not appear to be going al that well. Time perhaps for the Mayor to pay a friendly visit to mall management; if he doesn’t hear the words transit users need – he has a “bully pulpit” he can use.
As part of the budget preparation process Mike Spicer was directed to reinstate service frequencies that were removed from underutilized routes. Because the changes in November 2013 were a reallocation of existing resources, there would be a cost associated with increasing service frequencies. Add to that the lack of additional buses or operators currently available – making it tough to get back some of the services that were cut. Spicer was between a rock and a hard place.
The transit team prepared two scenarios that identify the resource needs to reinstate service frequencies to previous levels in underutilized routes.
In Scenario “A”, Spicer reported there would be no discernible increase in ridership. Scenario “B”, showed the potential for a rise in ridership – the table sets out the approximate costs and revenue associated with each scenario:
|
ScenarioOptions
|
AnnualHRCost
(Operators)
|
AnnualOperatingCost
|
CapitalCost
(BusPurchases)
|
AnnualRevenue
|
Total
|
|
(A)Increasefrequencies
duringoffpeakservicehours
|
$481,528
|
$211,475
|
$0
|
$0
|
$693,003
|
|
(B)Increaseoverallservice
includingfrequenciesandroutes
|
$1,084,592
|
$548,938
|
$1,470,000
|
($245,000)
|
$2,858,530
|
Not hard to grasp what the issue is for council – where do they find the additional $2 million.
 The revised routes are not meeting their forecasts yet but it is a bit too early to have sound data. Burlington isn’t a city that makes heavy use of transit; partly for historical reasons, partly because the service isn’t all that good and partly because council doesn’t believe their constituents are prepared to pay for the service.
Early in the term of this council there was a fight over the level of service in ward 5 – Councilor Sharman territory. For a while there was a battle of petitions with the transit users gathering 250+ names to continue with a service while the councilor’s followers came up with less than 50 names on their petition. The service was changed despite the lopsided numbers and there is now no longer a bus service along Spruce Avenue – which happens to be the street the council member lives on.
Spicer makes on additional telling comment in his report: A funding source has not been identified to reinstate or supplement transit service levels. The report adds that there just isn’t enough data in yet to know what needs to be changed and doesn’t support throwing money at a problem that isn’t as clear as the transit advocates want people to believe it is.
Prior to the November 2013 service changes, a number of public engagements, notification and education initiatives were undertaken. These included:
Public information sessions on September 7th and 8th of last years at the Burlington Mall; the Bfast people (Burlington For Accessible Sustainable Transit) say these session were a bit of a joke. Transit used Social Media – Twitter; Local television and newspaper; the Transit website; Email alerts to subscribers; Bus destination signs and posters; items in the City Update; Media releases along with Transit Operator bulletins, postings and letters.
Add to that a group of 20 Transit Operators who engaged the public to review and discuss the service changes prior to implementation. And yet there is still a significant amount of dis-satisfaction over the levels of service.
Transit staff are not recommending any change or increase to transit service levels until sufficient system use data can be collected for analysis and a growth strategy can be prepared for council review and approval.
 The 270 complaints recorded don’t appear to be very high – not until they are put into perspective – the number is for a two month period only. A couple of members of council had a little trouble digesting the fact that the transit service will be paying bus cleaners $65,000 a year. They will be defined as “mechanic’s helpers” and will also fuel buses and do other related work. Councillors Dennison and Taylor choked on that rate of pay. Director Spicer explained the situation he was in with the outside bus cleaning firm and council went along with him.
This looks like one of those situations where everyone has to wait until there is sufficient data – and that takes time. Once the data is in hand, transit would be well served to hold a Saturday workshop that is broadly promoted where the data can be discussed by staff and the people who use the busses.
In the past we have seen public events on transit with few, in one case in Aldershot no one showed up, in attendance. People later said they didn’t know the event was taking place. Far too many bureaucrats rely on social media believing that is the answer to all their information and communication needs. What amazes us is that transit doesn’t use the bus drivers to promote the meetings. Why not have the bus drivers hand out transfer size piece of paper to each passenger as they get on the bus – talk about having your target market right in front of you.
It would be effective and a lot cheaper than advertising or taking up space in city publications that are poorly read.
Transit is said to be in transition – many are not sure it is transiting in the right direction.
Background links:
What kind of transit service will the city have for seniors?
Bfast wasn’t impressed with the last-minute transit report.
 By Pepper Parr
February 21, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
James Smith, the man who led the Friends of Freeman Station to where it is today and a leader in the transit advocacy community and one of the better delegators in the city did a no,no,no at the Thursday Standing Committee reviewing the current portion of the city budget.
Smith was one of five people delegating on two late arrival staff reports that impact the budget and was delegating on the transit report, which wasn’t all that bad a document.
 The late Les Armstrong, one of the strongest advocates for the Freeman Station revitalization chats with James Smith on the right. Smith took to the lectern and didn’t start with his usual polite “how ya doin” introduction but said he was going to depart from his prepared remarks and speak extemporaneously and then asked if the people who wrote the transit report were on crack cocaine?
Some in the council chamber wondered if Smith thought he was delegating at Toronto city council. He continued in the same vein until committee chair Meed Ward stopped him in his tracks, read him a portion of the riot act and Smith retracted the remarks.
None of his Bfast (Burlington For Accessible Sustainable Transit) colleagues could understand why Smith behaved as he did. “He wasn’t speaking for us” explained Bfast chair Doug Brown.
Any plans Smith had for a run against Councillor Paul Sharman in ward 5 now need a serious re-consideration.
The lingering question over the exceptionally poor behaviour is – why?
 By Ray Rivers
February 18, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
“The single most important thing the government can do to secure Ontario’s prosperity is to eliminate the deficit.” This statement appears at least three times in the 2013 budget document, as if to leave no uncertainty that Ontario’s ballooning debt is front and center of all policy. That debt now has risen to match that of the federal government as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) – approaching 40 percent.
 John Robarts – one of the best Premiers the province ever had: knew how to balance a budget. I grew up observing John Robarts, nicknamed ‘the Chairman of the Board’ for his commanding leadership of Ontario. He presided over unprecedented economic development, with up to 8% growth rates during the 1960’s. He gave us our single-payer health insurance, modernized the public service, introduced bilingualism and education reform and was known for his balanced budgets.
His successor, Bill Davis, on the other hand, governed the province form 1971 to 1985 but never once balanced a budget. David Peterson eked out a small surplus in his last year in office and we all know that Bob Rae’s NDP never even came close. For all his big talk, Mike (the knife) Harris managed only four balanced budgets before quitting politics, leaving his next inevitable deficit for Ernie Eves to announce. Then Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals registered three balanced budgets in a row during their first eight years in office.
 Bill Davis had problems learning how to balance a budget; never really did learn. In fact, if we add up the budgetary performance of all governments over the last forty-two years ago, going back to when Bill Davis became Premier, we’d find that the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives delivered exactly the same number of balanced budgets – four a piece. And, the Tories held power for five more years than the Liberals over that time frame. Thus, this myth that Conservatives are somehow better at managing the deficit is pure and utter rubbish. This is also true for the federal political parties.
John Robarts benefited from a truly progressive income tax system where the wealthy paid their fair share, and the middle class prospered. Mike Harris, by contrast, made huge cuts in income taxes and paid for them by slashing public programs – primarily welfare, health care, education and municipal services. Given the magnitude of Harris’ austerity program, he should have been able to balance all of his budgets, had he just not cut income taxes as he did. As the current federal finance minister is fond of saying – there is no free lunch.
 Dalton McGuinty balanced some budgets – but budgets weren’t his downfall – the gas plant fiasco did him in. McGuinty raised taxes modestly on coming to office, introducing the Health (insurance) Premium. But then he further cut corporate and personal taxes, ironically, at a time when the economy most needed more tax revenue to deal with the consequences of the 2008 global meltdown. As a result the provincial debt which has nearly doubled since 2004 is now a priority for Premier Wynne.
 Bob Rae couldn’t catch a break anywhere and had the misfortune of getting hit by an economy no one was able to manage. The lack of any experience running a government didn’t help. Balancing a budget requires tough choices, compromise and determination. Bill Davis had the good fortune to inherit a well-run and funded government, yet failed to keep his expenses in balance over his fourteen year run. Mike Harris squandered the benefits of his austerity measures and Bob Rae, stuck with Ontario’s worst recession since the nineteen-thirties, couldn’t get a break.
McGuinty inherited Harris’ tax regime yet still pulled out three surpluses, even as Ontario became a have-not province in the federation. Unlike Harris, however, he actually expanded the effectiveness of public service. Health care waiting times fell from being the longest in Canada to the shortest; high school graduation rates jumped from 68% (2003) to 83% (2011) ; school test scores rose to among the highest in the country; and poverty levels dropped.
High public debt limits the ability of a government to respond to circumstances, such as the economic collapses in 1990 or 2008, with the wherewithal to effect a swift recovery. And paying interest on that debt is money which cannot be used for some other economic purpose. John Robarts followed the Keynesian economic model, which asserts that debt be paid down in good economic times – but Keynes became a pariah in the eighties. So today both Ontario and the federal government are running debt levels at over a third of our GDP – levels which are high, if not dangerously high for the eventual rise in interest rates.
 Mike Harris balanced some of his budgets – but was known more for the significant damage done to the province’s education system and reducing the wrong taxes for the wrong reasons. To address this, Ontario could go back to the austerity of the ‘Mike the knife’ days, closing hospitals and laying off nurses; increasing class room sizes and laying off teachers; selling off crown corporations and assets; and deferring essential infrastructure like bridges, highways and public transit. We recall stories of classroom wars, cardiac patients dying in hospital hallways awaiting critical surgery, and tires flying off trucks on our highways during the good old Harris days.
Alternatively we could just let the debt continue to rise until it becomes difficult and costly to borrow any more, blindly mimicking what we witnessed with the Greek economy last year. Or, we could go back to paying our way as we go. We could bring back the kinds of taxation policies which would grow the middle class – the ones which enabled John Robarts to fund Ontario’s high growth in the sixties, without the need to run up deficits and the debt.
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
Background links:
2013 Ontario Budget John Robarts Bill Davis McGuinty and Harris Education in Ontario
Finance Minister’s Address Ontario’s Fiscal History Public Debt Canadian Public Debt
 By Pepper Parr
February 17, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Marianne Meed Ward set the scene when she explained as Chair of the Community and Corporate Services Standing Committee that they were there to “listen today”.
This was the day council members were going to hear delegations. There were 12 of them and at ten minutes each we knew we were going to be there for a while. Several were exceptionally good – all added to the process in a measurable, meaningful way and at the same time gave us an insight as to how your council works on your behalf.
Culture, economic development, caring for the community and transit got coverage. In this series we will run three articles and focus on what happened and what it all means for the economic and social health of the city.
 Culture was clearly the biggest concern: with delegations from the Art Centre, who had a very spiffy presentation, Sound of Music, who finally shared their audited financial statements, Heritage Burlington who came up with a new logo that cost less than $2000, which made Councillor Dennison smile. And then the decision as to whether or not to hire a full-time Cultural Manager to implement the Cultural Action Plan council had already approved.
We will focus on culture in this piece and follow-up with two additional pieces on Economic Development and services to the community.
 Great crowds, great weather, great music – Burlington’s Sound of Music Festival – a standard since before 1996 The Sound of Music wants $44,000 from the city in addition to the $54,101,00 that is already in their base budget. Council appears ready to go along with getting those additional dollars. Dave Miller, Sound of Music Executive Director said in his delegation that he wouldn’t come back looking for money for five years if the city agreed to put the additional funds into the base budget. That`s the kind of deal this council just might take him up on. Miller has been at this Council almost since they were sworn in. He has been relentless.
While the event is probably the largest that takes place on the waterfront, Dave Miller didn’t get much in the way of respect from this city council. In this his third year before council seeking financial support the SOM hasn’t managed to convey the size of the economic impact the event has on the city. Council can’t see beyond the more than half a million dollars they have on their balance sheet. Miller hasn’t succeeded in convincing this council that the funds are vital – all it takes is one year of bad weather and the SOM would take a huge hit.
 They come in droves for the biggest free music festival in the province. Miller pushed all the usual keys: the excellent ratings from visitors, the quality of the performances, the demographics, the accessibility of the event, the awards they continually get; the constant improvements they make to the environment with their clean up practices and that the SOM is a fun safe event. He trots out cute pictures of kids and talks up what the event does to Burlington’s profile and the support the event provides for emerging bands. He was talking to people who are deaf to the upside of what the SOM does for the city. Council sees all that money on the balance sheet and drools.
Miller adds that the SOM is the driving force for more than $6 million in economic activity with 45,000 of the attendance defined as new visitors to the event; 40% are from outside Burlington and according to Miller 80% of the people attending have been to the event before. Something in those numbers doesn’t quite add up – but that’s not the point. Try taking it away: What would happen if the SOM folk decided that they have been at it for many years and need to take a break for a year and re-think what they are doing and how they do it? This council would howl.
 What Miller hasn’t managed to do is make the city his partner. The SOM doesn’t have a champion, a true spear carrier on council. An organization with 800 volunteers, a very strong balance sheet and a solid record of achievement deserves the nomination they got from the Chamber of Commerce as a best business operation.
The SOM financial statements point to;
$35,900 + that they pay the police security
$13,946 + they pay the city for permits
$22,381 they pay the Parks and Road Maintenance for material, equipment and repairs to the park grounds.
The SOM pays the Performing Arts Centre $8,300 + for the use of their space.
The event results in $8,000 in parking revenue plus a significant boost in parking tickets.
SOM says they add $15,000 to transit revenue.
The Sound of Music has a strong story on the performance side as well. In 1997 there were 47 performances – in 2013 there were 100. Attendance in 1997 was 90,000 that number rose to 215,000 in 2013
The city`s financial contribution rose as well; from$25,000 in 1997 to $54,000+ in 2013. In terms of what portion of SOM revenue came from the city – that number slid from 13% in 1997 to 4% in 2013.
Miller has been at this since 1996 when he joined as a volunteer and earned the position of Executive Director some time after that. Miller gets paid but doesn’t have a pension. SOM has more than 800 volunteers, many that use their vacations to “do the festival”.
Miller keeps wanting to grow the event – which led to Councillor Lancaster asking last year when was “enough enough?” There has been some reluctance to see the event grow to anything bigger than it is which suggests Miller and his organization have some relationship building to do.
Miller needs the funding from the city to qualify for funding from other levels of government. Governments ted to want everyone to be in the tub at the same time, sharing the same bar of soap.
 The Sound of Music Festival parade gets the annual event off to a strong start. Sound of Music for 2014 will begin June 7 with the parade that will have a slightly different route and then moves into their usual four-day event that brings great music to the city and hundreds of thousands of people to the waterfront – and loads of revenue for almost everyone in the city.
And yet the Sound of Music can`t get a miserable 4% of their budget from the city. Not coming up with the cash is sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water – isn’t it?
|
|
