text:
A Good Neighbour Letter of Concern About Parking Near New Downtown Development – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 5, 2021
Parking, everyone has an opinion on parking. Opposition to new developments, and adaption of existing ones, often focuses upon parking. The complaints are usually that there is already a lack of parking in the area or new residents competing for “free” on-street parking.
I wish to highlight a reasonable, brief, and to the point letter regarding a proposed development at 11 Robert Street in the Beasley neighbourhood of Downtown Hamilton.
Hello, I’m a resident who lives on Hughson St. North, right around the corner from this
potential development and I think it’s a great idea for this neglected spot. More density is
important and my partner and I think the scale of the development is great.
The concern I have is parking… where would these tenants + visitors park?
The area is already busting at the seams for space to park, especially when restaurants and businesses are fully running. It’s a constant fight to find a spot on the street. Not even a parking permit for Hughson St. N ensures that you and your kids can park near your home?!?
I can’t imagine what would happen if the even half of people in the 28 units required
parking!?! That’s an additional 14 cars vying for space. Sounds like a nightmare.
Is there a way to ensure people on Hughson St. North get spots and no one else do??
Or can the municipal lot be sold to the developer for parking?
Why doesn’t the developer dig down and add some spots? Or use one of those elevator car, stacking thingy’s??
Anyways, best of luck as you wrestle with this decision
Here is why this is a good letter to the Hamilton Committee of Adjustment regarding a new 28 unit building at 11 Robert Street with no parking.
The person states their interest and how the potential decision effects them.
In the opening paragraph, they begin with the positives of the proposed development and clearly express what they support about the development.
They state the reasons for their concerns regarding parking, and ask questions to see if they can find resolution to their concerns.
Parking in this area, the heart of the James Street North restaurant district and home to the Canadian Forces Reserve Armoury, is very competitive and in-demand.
But Joey, they ask is there is a way for them to get exclusivity to on-street parking on their street to the exclusion of everyone else. Is that not entitlement?
Come on Joey, there is no such thing as free parking, people should not expect to be able to store their car on public streets, and other similar reasons why on-street parking is not the best use of valuable land in a downtown area.
The reality as Downtown Hamilton transitions, on street parking will continue to exist on non-arterial streets as the transition to more people living without cars continues.
The letter writer asks legitimate questions. We need people to express themselves in our democracy.
Importantly, in the closing sentence, the write acknowledges the challenge facing the decision makers on the Committee of Adjustment – balancing various interests in a transitioning downtown.
Mid-density mixed-use developments on slender lots are needed to support this transition to a walkable community, complete with more grocery options and commercial amenities. Developments of this nature will bring rental housing on market, and will create some (arguably minimal) demand for parking.
Decision makers need to hear from competing interests to inform policies. Kudos to this letter writer for a honest and comprehensive letter.


text:
“Betrayal” Says Councillor Jackson of New Sherwood Lanes Plaza Development Proposal – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 12, 2021
The owner of the former site of Sherwood bowling lanes wants to build a 14-storey building containing 358 dwelling units with 112 stacked townhouses behind the building – a significant change from their original plan.
Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson says it is a “betrayal” by the developer and he is “vehemently opposed to this development plan”.
The site, 570 Upper Ottawa Street, is on the northwest corner of Upper Ottawa Street and Fennell Avenue.
The developer presented a different plan to the community in 2019.
This plan proposed approximately 300 units split between four buildings – two 4-storey buildings, a 7-storey building, and a 9-storey building. The developer promised to include a new bowling lane complex and commercial at the ground level.
Since that time, ground oriented housing has become more profitable with stacked townhouses selling for new record prices.
City of Hamilton staff are not supportive of the new proposal.
“The built form, height, scale, and density of the proposal does not appropriately integrate with the surrounding neighbourhood”, writes development review planner Tim Vrooman in a formal consultation review document.
Jackson is strongly disappointed in the change. “In my 30 honoured years on City Council I cannot remember another public meeting where the property owners/developers were so positively embraced and being welcomed by the overwhelming majority of signees at my meeting.”
He says he cautioned the developer against submitting the new proposal when they discussed the plan in October 2020.
Jackson says “is not only unsuitable and inappropriate and unreasonable for established neighbourhoods adjacent to it but quite frankly a betrayal to the warm embrace they received on November 18/19 [2019]”
He wants the developer to make changes including lower density and height for the development, the inclusion of a bowling lane as promised in 2019, marketing the units to seniors, using parking at the rear to buffer from neighbouring single-family detached homes, and ensuring commercial uses on the lower levels of buildings along Upper Ottawa Street and Fennell Avenue.
City of Hamilton urban design planner Ana Cruceru reviewed the file and writes in their report that the proposal does not meet city expectations for the area. “A building podium for the mixed-use building, in respect to Fennell Ave and Upper Ottawa St, should be defined through step-backs above the 3-5th storey, to respect the contextual low-rise character of adjacent streets.”
The 14-storey building will be the first application of the City’s tall building guidelines on Hamilton’s east Mountain. The proposed floor plates exceed the tall building guidelines for maximum floor plate size. “Where buildings are taller than 12 storeys, they will fit the tall building category which discourages floor plates larger than 750 square metres for residential uses.”
The proposed floor plates for the 13th and 14th floor is 1499 square meters.
Attempts to contact the developer were not successful.
Rezoning for the project requires Council approval. With Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson opposed, it is unlikely to be approved.
The developer could then appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. The LPAT is backlogged with appeals, and the process will take years with an uncertain outcome.

source: news-thepublicrecord

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
City Approves New Six-Storey Development at 11 Robert, but Appeals are Likely – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 5, 2021
How should new developments transition between the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan and the “stable” single detached homes just outside of the DTSP boundary?
How will new residential interact with entertainment districts, and existing live entertainment venues?
What about parking? When is it appropriate for smaller developments to have no parking? What about in areas where parking is very much in demand with on-street parking for single family detached homes in the Downtown?
These are some of the many questions Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment considered Thursday before approving a planned six-storey mixed use building with 28 residents units and ground floor commercial on a slender site at 11 Robert Street. The site is directly east of James Street North.
The developer proposes to have no parking, which was the focus of concerns from neighbouring residential homeowners.
City of Hamilton planning staff recommended approval, and all but one member of the Committee of Adjustment agreed.
The owners of Academia Hall Ltd at 240-242 James Street North hired Registered Professional Planner Terrance Glover of Urban in Mind to represent their opposition to the development.
Academia is concerned about access to their rear of their building where they have parking which is access by a lane-way running alongside 11 Robert, the density of the site, and potential for noise complaints from future residents in the proposed development.
The development “will cause undo hardship on surrounding businesses and neighbours”, Glover wrote in a report submitted to the committee. “[It] does not reflect the existing neighbourhood character and heights”.
Registered Professional Planner James Webb, representing Yoke Group which owns the property, noted Hamilton’s Design Review Panel reviewed the project in 2020 and stated their support of the project as appropriate for the site.
DRP members spoke positively of the project and the choice of exterior building materials.
Two neighbours spoke to the committee to express opposition based upon the parking situation in the area and that the proposal is over-intensification of the site.
City of Hamilton planning staff state the site should’ve been included in the DTSP zoning but a mapping error means it is not. Shannon McKie, Senior Project Manager for the urban planning section, states staff plan to bring forth a “housekeeping amendment” to bring it into the DTSP zoning.
A “housekeeping amendment” would be subject to appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
The site remains under the city-wide “Community Shopping and Commercial, Etc. (H)” zone. This zoning permits up to 4-storeys in certain circumstances.
If the site were in the DTSP, up to six storeys be permitted. However, due to the space constraints of the site, many of the issues of abutment would remains.
On parking, McKie explained the DTSP grants parking exceptions based on unit sizes.
There is no parking requirement for one-bedroom units under 50 square metres, the first 12 one-bedrrom units, and to incentive three or greater bedroom units the first 12 are exempt as well.
“The mixture of units that are being provided in the building results in a zero requirement”, McKie stated. “The parking regulations were established to try and incentivize a different unit mixology in residential developments. To have a mixture of one, two and three bedroom units.”
Clayton Payer, architect for the project from Lintack Architects Inc, stated at Design Review the building will be rental units and retained by Yoke Group. “They are going to retain it. It’s not going to be condos, it will be apartments.”
Academia Hall Ltd indicated they plan to appeal the decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.


text:
City of Hamilton Temporarily Without Heritage Planners as Two Leave for New Opportunities – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 1, 2021
Hamilton’s heritage advocates are worried that the decade-plus backlog of heritage designations will grow even longer with both of the City of Hamilton planning division’s heritage planners departing for new opportunities.
Janice Brown, speaking as a resident and not on behalf of the Municipal Heritage Committee of which she is a member, says she is “disappointed” City Hall lost two heritage planners during the past few months.
“This just puts us further behind”, she wrote in an email regarding the impact of the vacancies upon the work of volunteer citizen heritage working groups. “Without adequate and good staff, the current backlog of work continues to build.”
In December, one of the City’s two heritage planners was hired by the Province of Ontario. The other planner is starting at the City of Oakville next week.
“This situation is occurring at a time when all over the City residents are becoming greatly interested in preserving the City’s heritage and history, while the pressure on our heritage stock from development mounts incrementally as well”, wrote Ancaster Village Heritage Committee President Bob Maton in an email.
Hamilton’s Chief Planner and Director of Planning Steve Robichaud acknowledges the concerns of the heritage community and writes his division is working to recruit new planners.
“Over the last six to twelve months there has been an increase in the number of heritage planner opportunities across Ontario, both in the private sector and public sector”, Robichaud wrote in an email response to The Public Record.
Registered Professional Planners (RPP) are very much in demand across Ontario, and work-from-home opportunities means the City of Hamilton is competing more broadly to hire and retain RPPs than prior to COVID.
“In the interim, and to ensure that we can maintain essential heritage planning services such as Heritage Permit Review, Alissa Golden will be assisting the Planning Division.”
Golden is a well regarded RPP who was one of the City’s heritage planners prior to gaining a new role in the Tourism and Culture division. Golden’s present role includes working on various community cultural heritage studies.
Brown writes that Golden’s work is “invaluable” to volunteer working groups and to community ones as well. Brown notes that back-filling Golden into the planning role may result in delays to cultural heritage work, which “will not be able to continue … until she returns.”
Among the files at risk of being temporarily shelved is the Ancaster Heritage Inventory, as well as the Beasley and Greensville Heritage Inventory projects.
Maton emailed the City’s General Manager of Planning and Economic Development Saturday afternoon to expressing the concerns of heritage advocates regarding the vacancies.
Thorne responded five minutes later writing “we are moving quickly to fill our heritage planning positions. The recruitment effort already began prior to the positions becoming vacant, and we are hopeful we will have a strong group of candidates put their names forward.”
The City continues to conduct some heritage planning work.
Robichaud writes the Planning Division “has a co-op student who assists with inquiries and the processing of Heritage Permits.  The current practise of using external heritage consultants to undertake and complete the review of proprieties to determine if they should be recommended for designation will continue.”
[The co-op student is a university student, usually in a graduate level program]
He says the Senior Project Managers, who oversee all planning files with the three geographical groups of planning, are overseeing ongoing heritage work and continuing projects already underway which involve external consultants.


text:
Council Asks Province to Update Them on LRT Talks, and Bid Process – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 3, 2021
What is the status of Hamilton Light Rail Transit talks between the Province and Federal government?
Nobody at City Hall knows.
Council unanimously passed a resolution today asking the Ontario’s provincial transit agency Metrolinx and the Ministry of Transportation to attend an upcoming Council meeting to provide an update.
Currently, City Hall only knows what the media is reporting.
Negotiations are occurring between the provincial and federal government with LiUNA’s infrastructure arm, Fengate Capital, to finance a shortened LRT line between McMaster University and Gage Avenue.
“I find it almost embarrassing that there is this discussion going on there, outside of Council, that does not include Council, that has not included Council”, stated Ward 15 Councillor Judi Partridge, who is a vocal opponent of the LRT project and moved today’s motion.
“We have LiUNA out there … negotiating on behalf of Council … I find very embarrassing.”
Mayor Fred Eisenberger confirmed he is not involved in the negotiations.
“These conversations are happening between the Province and the Feds”, stated Eisenberger. “The Province put forward the LRT project as one of their priority projects … that has ensued in terms of additional discussions with the federal government.”
“It is my understanding, at this point, that no agreement has been made and no funding has been put on the table. That is a conversation that is ongoing.”
Hamilton City Manager Janette Smith says she is seeking information, but has not heard from the Province.
“I want to let Council know that I have reached out several times to senior officials at the MTO to ask them about what are the next steps.”
Smith continued “I know what you know, in terms of their press release out that we’ve been included as part of those five projects being submitted to the feds, and I keep hearing information is coming information we’re coming in, nothing has come to date.”
Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark expressed concerns regarding the City’s procurement process rules that LiUNA is involved in negotiating when City rules require competitive open bids.
“I do not understand what LiUNA is doing because this is supposed to be an open bid that will happen through an RFP [Request for Proposals] process”, he stated. ” I’m not sure exactly how a finance and union can be negotiating with the federal government on funding when we are committed to an open RFP process on any of these things. It is very confusing.”
Clark says there needs to be answers regarding the current state of the LRT project.
“The sooner the federal government, provincial government and the municipality can come to an agreement on what is on the table, and what council needs to consider. I think the better would be for everybody.”
Clark is on the record opposed to the project.
Eisenberger stated the current situation is “overtly caused by the province cancelling this project in the first place.”
He says as a reason of the cancellation, there are no City of Hamilton staff assigned to the LRT project.
“Conversations have been stilted by virtue of the fact that we don’t have anybody that is in the know consistently talking with the federal and provincial governments other than the city manager and myself.”
Ward 5 Councillor Chad Collins, who is now opposed to LRT, stated “my opinion at this stage is that this is a provincially driven project”.
“They’ve unilaterally changed it, they’ve unilaterally sent the funding request to the federal government. I think we certainly need answers why that’s occurred”
Collins continued, “I’m not certain there’s support on council or in the community for revised project. I’m anxious to hear how they perceive this project going forward without any City of Hamilton support.”
“There’s obviously lots of conversation now about with those investments be better served investing in our city wide transit system.”
Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, who voted in favour of LRT, stated “It does concern me that I hear all this discussion going on about reduced route down to Gage Park.”
The original project was 100% provincially funded, Ferguson reminded Council adding he wishes to know if federal funding will require a municipal contribution.
“I’m just curious to know, are they now going to be looking to the City for millions of dollars too?”
Eisenberger responded he has a “pretty strong, in fact” mandate to implement LRT based upon his election win.
“Just so you know that whenever I’m asked about this project, you will know that I’m fully supportive,” Mayor Eisenberger responded. “I ran on a mandate to do this in the last election.”
“This is a provincially driven process at this point, they cancelled the project, it came back and put a task force in place”.
To close his response, Eisenberger stated “In answer your question, Councillor Ferguson, whenever I’m asked, it’s no capital dollars from the City of Hamilton.”
Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann, a LRT proponent, agreed Council needs to be updated on the project.
She noted “the province cancelled the original LRT project and now has brought forward a different iteration that we as Council are only hearing about through media.”
Nann says local transit will be important to Hamilton’s post-COVID recovery.
“I just wanted to remind council that it was identified as critical piece to establish economic recovery for our city …  from an employment perspective, as well as supporting the needs of our residents to move around freely.”
Partridge responded “I just want to remind everyone .,.. we were assured there would be some off ramps … we would be able to review [the LRT] memorandum of agreement.”
“We’ve never seen what the operating costs are”, Partridge continued. “I just want to remind everyone that we did not commit to taking on the operating costs, because we don’t know what the operating costs are.”
RELATED:
LiUNA vice-president and regional manager for Central and Eastern Canada Joe Mancinelli spoke to AM900 CHML this morning. Read their story and listen to his interview here: Who will pay life-cycle costs for Hamilton’s LRT ‘to be determined’ says LiUNA exec


text:
Council to Decide on Urban Boundary: Expand or Challenge the Province by Saying No. – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 29, 2021
Hamilton City Council faces a choice today: expand the urban boundary or challenge the Ontario Progressive Conservative government’s requirement for them to expand the boundary.
Last summer, under the cover of COVID, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark implemented changes to Ontario’s land-use planning regulations. They removed many powers of oversight from Conservation Authorities and ordered municipalities to review their urban boundaries with a new “market-based approach”.
If existing urban boundaries do not allow for new ground-oriented housing, municipalities are now required to expand their urban boundaries to allow for more townhouses, stacked townhouses, and similar uses. Premier Ford set a deadline of July 2022 for municipalities to expand their boundaries – or the province will do it for them.
In order to meet that deadline, Council must approve the size of urban boundary expansion in the coming weeks as it takes approximately nine months to complete the detailed studies Council must approve prior to the July 2022 deadline.
Hamilton is expected to need 110,320 new housing units by 2051 to meet population growth. Under the “market-based approach” Council is required to expand the urban boundary in response to demand for ground-oriented housing.
People have shown they are willing to “drive until they qualify” to purchase ground-oriented housing. In part, this reflects the economics of housing. A typical Row House in Hamilton sells for $350 per square foot, a condo apartment sells for $540 sq/ft.
Over 50 delegates will be speak to Council today. On one side of the equation, a coalition of environmental, economic, and community groups calling on Council to defy the Progressive Conservative provincial government and refuse to expand the boundary. The development industry is on the other side fully endorsing the City of Hamilton planning staff recommendation to expand Hamilton’s urban boundary by 1,340 hectures of the possible 1,600 hectures of developable land remaining between the existing urban area and the protected greenbelt.
This is could be the final battle over urban expansion, the Progressive Conservatives floated expansion in the Greenbelt and quickly retreated after discovering the Greenbelt is popular with conservative voters.
The politics of today’s Council decision will be interesting. Councillors rely upon developers to fund their election campaigns, but have to face voters who are not in favour of urban boundary expansions.
Nearly all of the proposed urban boundary expansion proposed will have to occur in Ward 9 (Upper Stoney Creek) and Ward 11 (Glanbrook). Boundary expansion is unpopular in these areas for a variety of reasons, with many residents pointing to traffic issues along Rymal Road.
Both Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark and Ward 11 Councillor Brenda Johnson are calling for a more robust public consultation on urban expansion, de facto challenging the provincial deadline.
City of Hamilton planning staff are marketing their plan to only apply the minimum intensification standard for the coming decade as “Ambitious Density”, putting off intensification to later decades. This “Ambitious Density” plan follows the new provincial rules, earmarking new growth on greenfield at until there is effectively no greenfield remaining. The new greenfield growth is expected to have a density of 77 persons and jobs per hecture.
Nearly all the new growth will be ground-oriented, with only 2650 apartment units planned. Planning staff say 52,950 apartment units will need to be added to the existing urban area of Hamilton, but call for those units to be built closer to 2051.
Presently, Hamilton is trying to increase intensification by pre-zoning to allow for more dense housing as-of-right, and allowing secondary suites.
Public engagement prior to today’s Council meeting has been low. There were only 147 responses to the City’s online survey, many of them called for the City to freeze the urban boundary. This low level of engagement is one of the primary reasons Councillor Clark says Hamilton needs to pause the boundary review until after COVID when in-person consultations can occur.


text:
Council to Look at Board of Health Reform, Add Experts in Health to Board – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 23, 2021
“How do we ensure that Hamilton voices, equitable voices are at the table from diverse communities from our indigenous community, from racialized communities, and so much more?” was the question in front of Hamilton City Council Monday as community groups and medical professionals called for the implementation one of the recommendations from the 2007 Campbell report following SARS – the inclusion of experts on local boards of health.
Hamilton is the largest single-tier city in Ontario with a Board of Health entirely comprised of politicians, with no medical expertise, overseeing Hamilton’s public health services. Peel and York regions both share the politician-only model.
Lyndon George, a Ward 2 resident who is Black, led off eight delegations. He says restructuring of the Board of Health is long overdue – citing the more focused COVID responses in Toronto and Ottawa. “There was the Campbell report that called for these structural changes to boards of health, you know, close to a decade ago”.
George says it is not enough to have equity and diversity task forces, community voices are needed on the Board of Health itself. “When we talk about inclusion, it’s about having that seat at the table and having your voice being heard”.
The Toronto and Ottawa Boards of Health include community members. Both have elected officials in the majority by a one-vote margin. In Toronto, the 13 member board consists of six city councillors, one school board trustee, and six community members. Ottawa’s 11 member board is six councillors and five community members.
“What we’ve seen other communities in Toronto and in Ottawa, there are community voices that are also in the room helping to shape the discussion of health care”, George said.
Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson stated he does not support changes. “You’re not actually looking that non-elected members of our community would have equal say, and decision making, and voting ability at the elected body of Board of Health?”, Jackson asked George.
Dr. Natasha Johnson, a pediatrician at McMaster Children’s Hospital says lived experience of racism is needed on the Board of Health to inform better decision making.
“I was invited by the Canadian pediatric society to post on social media my perspective on what had happened”, Dr. Johnson stated sharing her response to the killing of George Floyd last summer. “My reflections hopefully brought attention to the fact that while I am a highly educated physician, living in an affluent area, I was actually terrified that my teenage son who is already at increased risk because of the colour of his skin, would be seen as more threatening by wearing a mask in the community. I wondered if this was on anyone’s radar, were the people making public health policy decisions aware of the impact of discrimination on health, on seeking care on outcomes?”
“Some communities have a difficult and traumatic historical legacy with the health care system. This must be considered when public health policies are being implemented”, Dr. Johnson stated.
Dr. Johnson’s presentation was well received by Ward 15 Councillor Judi Partridge.
“I listened very carefully to your presentation and it just makes a lot of common sense to have the rest of the community, particularly those areas that are more diverse, and more at risk, to have the expertise around the table … [we] don’t need to have every councillor around the table”, Partridge said. “I think it is it is time to consider it … as our city is growing, and particularly as it’s growing in in diversity”.
Ruth Rodney, an Assistant Professor in the School of Nursing at York University, said a more diverse Board of Health will benefit all by including more areas of knowledge including front-line health care workers such as nurses.
“I’m sure that City Council is often faced with difficult decisions, what we are presenting here today is not one of them”, Rodney said. “This one decision definitely would be a win for everyone, which in turn means that the health and well being of Hamiltonians will improve”.
Rodney, who holds a Ph.D. but did not refer to themselves with the title Doctor, shared experiences of racism they encouraged during their career in nursing.
“I would also say that as a Black nurse who has been called a n****r by patients who has been asked where I was born, and what I’ve put in, they say ‘good for you’. Who has been told that I speak so well, who has had pens and pencils stuck in my hair by colleagues because my hair is so cool”, Rodney stated with exasperation. “Who has breathed a sigh of relief when I began at the ER and saw another black nurse because her presence meant that I didn’t have to shoulder the sole responsibility of constantly responding to racism, and that someone else wouldn’t understand how I felt having diverse representation on this board says to racialized front-line workers, who are often the only one, or one of a few, that there is greater chance they have support at the decision making table in others who can understand and appreciate the added layer of race that has made healthcare for many in this city, inequitable and inaccessible and oftentimes intimidating”.
Dr. Tim O’Shea says the Board of Health needs to have diverse representation to be more effective, and to ensure that well-meaning decisions do not in fact cause harm to diverse populations. “The effectiveness of … decisions are greatly enhanced by having the diverse voices at the table, particularly having community voices, voices of people who are affected directly by the policies that are put in place at the table.
“At this point, the Board of Health does not have broad representation from the community”, Dr. O’Shea stated. “The danger in setting up an organization such as the Board of Health, to not have broad representation is that decisions are made with good intentions that are either ineffective or in fact sometimes harmful to the communities that they’re intended to help”.
Councillor Jackson says he prefers to keep the status quo.
“Our Board of Health under Dr. Richardson’s leadership, and the Emergency Operations Team overall with yourself [Mayor Fred] Eisenberger, General Manager Paul Johnson, [Hamilton Medical Officer of Health] Dr. [Elizabeth] Richardson, the entire team have done an enormous yeoman’s job getting us through this awful unprecedented pandemic, the last 12 months”, Jackson stated.” So I want to stick that for the record today”.
Jackson stated he will oppose changing the composition of the Hamilton Board of Health.
“I will not abdicate my responsibility as a member of council elected to sit on all the standing committees of counsel, and on our board of health … if there seems to be an intent and a desire to have this report brought back and it’s moving us in the direction of potentially community members, non elected, equal voting decision making voices at this table, I’m sorry, I’m stating for the record right now. I cannot support that. I will not abdicate my responsibilities to the constituents of Ward Six”, Jackson said.
Council voted 10-2 to request staff present options for Board of Health reform at a future meeting.
IN FAVOUR: Mayor Eisenberger, Wilson (1), Farr (2), Nann (3), Merulla (4), Jackson (6), Pauls (7), Danko (8), Pearson (10), Partridge (15)
OPPOSED: Collins (5), Ferugson (12)
ABSENT: Clark (9), Johnson (11), Vanderbeek (13), Whitehead (14)


text:
Hamilton Chamber of Commerce: Keep the Greenbelt, Expand into Whitebelt – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 5, 2021
The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, which counts both developers and environmentalists among its membership, says the City of Hamilton’s Comprehensive Review of the urban boundary must included a clear plan for growing Hamilton’s urban area to the Greenbelt boundary – and no further.
The Chamber writes “Unfortunately, the City has in the past not proceeded to implement a long-term strategy and many of the pitfalls that were identified in the past have been experienced. There is no overall comprehensive plan for development in the city for the Whitebelt area.”
The Whitebelt is the term used for lands between the existing urban boundary and the Greenbelt. The Upper Stoney Creek / Glanbrook area of Elfrida is part of the Whitebelt with land assembled by developers with the expectation the lands will become part of an expanded urban boundary.
“The Province has established a clear and long-term boundary for urban growth through the establishment of the Greenbelt Plan. In doing so, this plan provides certainty and clear expectations for both developers and the farming community that these lands are intended to remain as agricultural lands for a period well beyond 20-30 years”, the unsigned letter reads.
“The Chamber has always supported the Greenbelt Plan and believes it is an effective defining limit of urban growth.”
Water and sewer trunks for the development of Elfrida are already built. The Chamber argues the City is losing economic activity by a lagging planning process.
“The City has seen a mismatch in terms of infrastructure and planning implementation in areas such as Elfrida where major trunk services have been provided. However, due to a lag in the planning process, the construction of homes for this new community is still a number of years away and that infrastructure has not been used.
In the case of Elfrida, the planning has led to a postponement of income from development charges and taxes to pay for those services well after the financial investment in the services has been made.”
The Chamber writes the City’s is falling short in planning for the Airport Employment Growth District. They state the City is not providing the necessary servicing and not expanding the urban boundary in the area to include lands as far west as Fiddlers Green Road in Ancaster.
“The city has continued to lose investment opportunities to other communities as the half-approved business park remains underdeveloped because of lack of services.”
The medium-term plan for the area surrounding the airport is a series of potential phased expansions. The Chamber says this represents “piecemeal” planning and is creating costly duplication of process.
The Chamber states GRIDS 2 is an opportunity for Hamilton to successfully plan for the long term instead of the present “uncertainty” and “piecemeal expansion of the urban boundary on a regular basis”.
The letter states Hamilton is uniquely positioned for smart development because it still has land to expand.
“[Hamilton], unlike other municipalities within the GTA, has opportunities for future community building beyond the limits of the existing urban boundary.”
A “Made in Hamilton” solution is preferable to leaving the future of Hamilton to be decided by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. “The City has an opportunity to be visionary in how our community will evolve and more fully control that process and its important outcomes.”
“By undertaking proper land use planning, greater effort can be spent on designing complete communities rather than time and energy being spent on determining who is next. We can also then ensure that decisions about our future are not made by an outside arbitrator but are truly a ‘made in Hamilton’ solution.”
The letter will be discussed by City Council at the March 31, 2021 special General Issues Committee meeting on GRIDS 2.


text:
Hamilton Committee of Adjustment for March 18, 2021 Preview – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 17, 2021
Land values are driving the variances at Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment this week with numerous applications for severances and secondary units.
The committee will consider numerous applications to sever mid-to-large size lots to build separate detached homes across all urban areas of Hamilton with applications in East Hamilton, the north Central neighbourhood of Downtown Hamilton, various areas of Hamilton Mountain, and in Stoney Creek.
Similarly, there are requests for secondary units across Hamilton and in Stoney Creek under Section 19 of the Planning Act – changes the previous Liberal government implemented to add rental housing to the market. Secondary units tend to be more reasonably priced.
One of the applicants for a secondary unit, in Stoney Creek, notes in their application that they hope to use the rental income from a secondary suite to assist them as they have lost income due to the economic impacts of COVID. City Hall is opposed to the Stoney Creek secondary suite stating the City is not yet ready for secondary units in suburban communities and for the person to resubmit their application (which costs thousands of dollars) again in the future when the City is finally read to implement new zoning which is long overdue and years behind schedule.
In Stoney Creek, the plaza at Gateshead Cresent and Highway 8 is seeking to legalize a package pickup kiosk in the parking lot. This requires a minor variance. Online ordering and package pickup kiosks are not something the old Stoney Creek Council could foresee while creating zoning decades ago. The Committee of Adjustment is serving its purpose serving as a “relief value” in this instance.
The Beach Strip in Ward 5 continues to see larger homes and additions coming to the Committee of Adjustment, keeping with a decade long trend for the area. It will be interesting to see how census data and growth projections combined for the next East Hamilton school review. The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board closed Woodward elementary school in 2015 due to lack of enrolment. Enrolment is cyclical over decades, as people raise children then remain in their homes for periods of time after the children grow into adults and leave. This points to the serious problems of the school funding formula implemented in mid-90s by the Mike Harris Progressive Conservative government – school boards must sell closed school properties, and then when there is a need for schools, the school boards must find land. [Education governance reform is needed, but none of our political parties are willing to risk putting forth bold plans that anger entrenched constituencies. The current system is broken, but works for politicians because none of them are held accountable for long-term problems]
In Ward 2’s North End, a proposal to create an addition to the rear of a heritage designated home at 455 Bay Street North and to construct a new detached home at 457 Bay Street.  There are community letters of support for the proposal.
Hamilton’s new Commercial Mixed Use Zoning remains under appeal at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, meaning many areas of Hamilton remain under zoning bylaws created decades ago. Applications seeking to build under the new bylaw continue to use the Committee of Adjustment to do so. The new by-law is more permissive and supportive of mixed-use developments.
415 Main Street West, the former site of a Dairy Queen complete with a drive-thru and parking lot larger than the restaurant, is proposed to become a six-storey 107 residential unit building. The proposal meets most of the requirements of the new zoning along Main Street West. The developer was in front of Committee of Adjustment in December, at which time staff had concerns and requested tabling. City staff and the developers agents met. Staff are now recommending approval. There are letters opposing the development, with one person writing six-storeys is too tall for Main Street West. Another letter is concerned the increase in the number of people living in the area will increase noise from fire, police, and ambulance responses.
If at first you are denied, try again. This is the approach of the owner of 29 Magill Street who is seeking a variance for their North Strathcona property to build a second detached home on the site. The argument submitted by the owner’s planning agent is there are similar tightly configured homes nearby and the variance should be granted this time. The owner already appealed their previous denial to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. While they have made some changes to their proposal, materially it is the same plan. The staff comments are divided with a overall recommendation of denial. This application has drawn strong and organized opposition from neighbours. It is unlikely the CoA will reverse themselves, this is going to remain at the LPAT awaiting a hearing.


text:
Hamilton Medical Officer of Health Dr. Richardson Recommends Staying in Red Zone – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 24, 2021
Hamilton’s Medical Officer of Health Dr. Elizabeth Richardson says her recommendation is Hamilton remain in the COVID Red Control zone.
We are “at a critical point in terms of where we sit in the [provincial] control measures”, she said. “I am not convinced the move into Grey will give us a significant impact in terms of severe disease and mortality. It will have a significant impact on business … At this point I am saying we stick in Red and continue to monitor the numbers”.
Dr. Richardson’s statement follows a briefing Tuesday morning by Hamilton Public Health Services Dr. Doug Sider that Hamilton is heading towards another lockdown.
“If you look at things strictly by the numbers, you’ll see that we’re sitting at that cusp of 100 cases per 100,000 population per week”, Dr. Richardson said. “Although our positivity rates in our tests aren’t yet at the point that would take us through Red, they are definitely increasing over the last few weeks. We continue to have a number of outbreaks”.
Dr. Richardson said vaccinations are making a difference in managing the severity of COVID , and this means while “certainly we could go into Grey based solely upon the numbers” she recommends remaining in Red.
“At this point, we’re certainly at a stage where we’re looking at which way do we go”, Dr. Richardson said. “That is going to continue for the coming weeks … this is going to be something we closely monitor day-to-day”.
Hamiltonians need to stay-at-home as much as possible, not gather with people outside of their households, and not go out if they are feeling unwell.
“We continue to recommend that people stay at home as much as possible, work from home as much as possible, not gather with people outside your own household”.
It is essential people continue to follow the rules, Dr. Richardson said.
The next scheduled Hamilton COVID public briefing is scheduled for next Monday, March 29, at 3pm.


text:
Hamilton Public Health Doctor to Businesses: Lockdown “Probably by this Friday” – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 23, 2021
One of Hamilton’s top communicable disease doctors says Hamiltonians should expect a “lengthy” lockdown beginning this Friday.
Hamilton Public Health Services Dr. Doug Sider spoke to the executive directors of Hamilton’s 13 business improvement areas this morning telling them to prepare for a tough few months.
“Frankly and I will speak bluntly …  probably by this Friday, we are going to move from Red to Grey”, he says. “If we are not moved by the Province to Grey this Friday, I will be shocked given what our metrics are looking like”.
Prior to his retirement in 2018, Dr. Sider was medical director, communicable disease prevention and control, within the communicable disease emergency preparedness and response department of Public Health Ontario.
He came out of retirement to join the fight against the COVID pandemic.
Dr. Sider says that vaccinations are helping and while he expects a “lengthy” lockdown, it will not be as bad as previous lockdowns.
“I think many of you will recall back in the November/December/January period, we were facing an onslaught of serious illness, spread of hospitalizations, and death” among our “vulnerable and elderly population”, he says.
It is “a powerful testimony to the effectiveness of vaccination is that we have essentially safeguarded … our most vulnerable elderly populations and long term care facilities and retirement homes”.
Dr. Sider says variants of concern are the problem now, acknowledging another round of lockdowns will be “painful”.
“You folks live with the economic, the social, the community pain every day. I am not minimizing that”, Dr. Sider said to the BIA directors.
“The thing is that lockdowns, shutdowns work. When we look at what happened back in December/January/February, clearly the provincial decision to impose a lockdown with a stay at home order, stop the rise in cases, and put us on the down slope”.
“If the Province, for political or economic reasons, decides against a broader multiple region shut down with a stay at home order, what is going to happen is wave three is probably going to be higher than wave two, and it is going to be longer than wave two”.
Dr. Sider says Hamilton’s metrics now require a lockdown and if we stay in Red, it will delay the inevitable lockdown, and take longer for us to experience eventual relief from COVID restrictions.
“If that’s where we stay without more severe lockdown stay at home orders, things are going to drag on and they’re going to drag on through April, May through June, probably into July”.
“If there is the political will to impose a lockdown with a stay at home order, probably, we would see a much shorter, [lower] curve … by the latter part of May and into June, we’re getting to back out of this into the Red control zone and have some hope, going on into June and beyond to get to Orange and lower levels”.
As “we get more and more vaccines into arms, we get higher and higher percentages of our community with protection”, Dr. Sider said.
“That is going to be the durable power, that is going to mean that in all probability, wave three is the last wave that we’re going to have to go through, we are not going to see a wave four”.
Dr. Sider said he “thought it was quite cruel” how the Province announced changes to indoor dining limits this weekend in the Red zone. The changes were made with no notice for restaurants to be able to prepare and ramp up their operations.
He says this is only made worse by the fact that indoor dining will have to quickly shutdown if Hamilton returns to the Grey zone.
During a question and answer session following his remarks, Dr. Sider took questions from the BIA executive directors. Much of the discussion was about the unpredictability of the Province COVID decisions and how to advise BIA businesses on what short-term investments to make to gain revenue streams in the coming months.
“I don’t have an answer to the dilemma” Dr. Sider says.
“You know, sort of, I wish I was better at reading the political tea leaves”, Dr. Sider said. “I suspect that we’ll be in lockdown for a while.”
“We may not go to a shutdown. The Province may say we just can’t put up with the economic and social hardship that a … lockdown … entails”, Dr. Sider said. “I’m quite certain we’re gonna be we’re gonna move into Grey and we’ll be in Grey for a number of weeks”.


text:
Hamilton Public Library Looking at Grants to Partially Cover Cost of Outdoor WiFi Expansion – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 23, 2021
The Hamilton Public Library says it will cost $460,000 to expand WiFi coverage at all 22 of its branches, following an increase need for outdoor WiFi access during the COVID pandemic.
“During the lockdown, people were observed in parking lots and beside buildings to catch WiFi bleeding from the library”, writes Hamilton Chief Librarian Paul Talaka in a report. “While HPL continues to work on improving internal WiFi, it’s become apparent that free outdoor WiFi is a high need as well”.
Talaka says the HPL applied for $100,000 grant from the Healthy Communities Grant Fund to cover a significant portion of the outdoor WiFi device purchase and installation. Staff will bring a report to the board in the upcoming months to request much needed funds for this upgrade, less any amounts we may be successful to receive from the grant.”


text:
Hamilton’s 2021 Residential Property Taxes Increase is 2.1% – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 3, 2021
Hamilton City Council approved a 2.6% increase to the City’s operating budget for 2021.
The budget passed 13-1 at the end of today’s final budget meeting.
The final average residential property tax increase for 2021 is 2.1%
The increased in city taxes is offset by a decrease in provincial education property taxes and property tax assessment growth.
“The proposed Municipal Residential tax increase of 2.6%, when combined with the 2021 impact for Education of (0.3%) and the impact of levy restrictions of 0.1% and the assessment growth impact of (0.2%), would result in an average total residential tax increase of 2.1%” reads the City’s final budget report.
Councillor Lloyd Ferguson opposed the budget, engaging in his annual “Frugal Fergie” routine. Ferguson ensures new spending he supports is included in the early stages of the budget, and pivots to opposing other spending in the later stages of the budget.
Councillors Esther Pauls and Terry Whitehead were absent.
Hamilton’s expected 2020 budget surplus is now $48,885,183.
The surplus results from  $170-million in funding commitments from the Federal and Provincial governments in COVID support.
At present, the City has spent $59-million of the committed funds, with $111-million set to expire at the end of the month.
General Manager of Finance and Corporate Services Mike Zegarac says the City needs those committed funds extended beyond March 31st.
Zegarac states the City incurred $37-million in costs, and lost $53-million in revenue, due to COVID thus far.
Earlier this week, the Province announced an extension of public transit funding support beyond March 31st. This announcement included new funding which will ensure the HSR can continue to cover its COVID costs until at least early 2022 and likely into Fall 2022.
No announcement on the other funding has yet been made.
Councillors asked if the 2020 surplus could be used to offset the 2021 tax increase.
Councillors sought to have the tax increase lowered to 1.9%, which they believe is more palatable.
GM Zegarac explained that a one-time offset would result in a large tax increase in 2022 as the costs of operations will carry though into 2022. He noted the City usually puts surplus funds into a tax stabilization reserve account which is drawn upon to cover unexpected expenses during the fiscal year.
Councillors use the tax stabilization fund for legal expenses, fines imposed upon the City, and “pilot projects” between budgets.
Hamilton’s budget costs for 2021 are mostly driven by inflation, with few new programs or services.
Statistics Canada states the building construction price index for non-residential in 2020 was 2.5%.
The City’s updated 2022 operating projection shows an increase of 4.4% in costs. This is offset by assessment growth and education tax decreases for a projected tax increase of 3.9%.
The City states that if the Provincial and Federal governments end COVID funding too early, the City will have to increase taxes by 10%.
2022 is a municipal election year, meaning that Council is likely to re-categorize initiatives as “pilot projects” to decrease the tax increase for the year. Thus, the 3.9% project as a starting point will likely be drastically reduced in the coming year.


text:
“It only takes one car”, Council votes to install security bollards around City Hall – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 23, 2021
“It only takes one car … someone who feels that they have the right to make their point by speeding off Main Street and ending up in the middle of our forecourt”, Ward 13 Councillor Arlene Vanderbeek stated as the reason why installing bollards is necessary to protect people on the City Hall forecourt.
“We have a responsibility to make sure our citizens are protected”, said Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson. “I don’t even, I couldn’t even express how bad or how sad I would feel if within the next while we did not support this, and something drastically horrible happened on our forecourt that could have been prevented”.
Council voted 8-2 to following a security experts recommendation to spend $682,000 to install bollards to stop vehicle attacks at Hamilton City Hall.
Security consultant Terry Hoffman says the forecourt of Hamilton City Hall is at “medium” risk of a “high critically” act of violent extremism similar to the 2018 North York vehicle-ramming attack.
Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, who voted against the recommendation, said he does not believe the risk is as high as the consultant says.
“I find it hard to understand how a truck or even a car can get up ahead of steam on Main Street, and then make a right hand turn to come in those depressions or over the curb to come into our forecourt”, Ferguson said.
Ferguson and Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson both said the bollards would not stop the kind of “attacks” that occurred against businesses on Locke Street in March 2018.
Both spoke about the criminal action by anarchists against businesses on Locke Street while justifying voting against installing bollards at City Hall
“You know, Locke Street, bollards won’t stop something like that. Because they were walking down the street throwing rocks at buildings, throwing rocks at vehicles, and turning mirrors off the cars – the bollards won’t do anything”, Ferguson stated.
Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson, who is a member of the Hamilton Police Services Board, expressed concern about the painting of Main Street West last summer by Defund Police activists, saying bollards would not stop this.
“There was painting on Main Street with to fund the police, which was very unfortunate, and again, damaging public property”, Jackson said.
Ferguson and Jackson both stated they feel existing concrete planters are sufficient.
A van, of the type used in numerous acts of vehicle terrorism, travelling at 80 km/h will penetrate 22 metres into the forecourt pushing the existing concrete planters. The result of such an attack with a crowd on the City Hall forecourt would be multiple severe casualties and likely fatalities.
Bollards will stop a van in its tracks, with a penetration of 1.8 metres.
In 2019, in an incident which revealed this vulnerability, a “Yellow Vest” agitator drove a former full size school bus onto the sidewalk in front of City Hall near a crowd of counter-protesters speaking out against the hateful messages of white nationalists who regularly conduct high visibility gatherings in front of City Hall.
“When I am presented with information that clearly states that the risk is real, then I don’t see how it can ignore that expert advice”, said Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann. “I can’t ignore the fact that the bus that mounted the curb, had the very real potential of going up higher and further and into people directly. Maybe that wasn’t the intention of the individual who was driving the bus that day. However, I heed the advice that although we would like to deny that these kinds of incidences could occur in our city”.
The bollards will be installed this summer.
IN FAVOUR: Farr (2), Nann (3), Merulla (4), Collins (5), Pauls (7), Danko (8), Pearson (10), Vanderbeek (13)
OPPOSED: Jackson (6), Ferguson (12)
ABSENT: Whitehead (14)


text:
Medallion Looking to Redevelopment Mount Albion Plaza with Tall Buildings – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 12, 2021
The pocket of East Hamilton tucked into the Red Hill Valley nearest to the escarpment will have two new tall buildings if Medallion Developments gains Council approval for redevelopment of Mount Albion Plaza.
Medallion submitted conceptual plans for two tall buildings to the City of Hamilton’s planning staff. One building is proposed for 20 storeys, and the other is proposed for 18-storeys. In addition, the redevelopment concept includes two more buildings at nine-storeys each.
The new buildings will have ground level commercial units.
Mount Albion Plaza, on the northwest corner of Mount Albion Road and Greenhill Avenue, is similar to many suburban style strip plazas built during the 1970s with the notable exception of the addition of offices on the second level of the plaza structure. Those offices were converted into residential units in 2010.
Presently, it includes a CIBC branch and a Shoppers Drug Mart as anchor tenants. The 20,400 square foot Foodland grocery store closed in November of 2020. It is unlikely a new grocer will operate in the space, and it is not easily adapted to other uses.
Medallion Developments, a part of the Medallion Corporation, is a significant developer with projects underway across Southern Ontario.
They operate four residential apartment complexes in Hamilton.
City of Hamilton planning staff provided initial comments to the developer in January. Hamilton’s Tall Building Guidelines will be applied to the project and it will be sent to Design Review Panel for comments.
A rezoning will require Council approval as the present “C3” zoning imposes a 14 metre height limit. The City’s growth plan calls for a maximum density of 200 units per hecture outside of the Downtown Secondary Plan.
The site proposes 504 units per hecture.
The conceptual plan envisions 761 proposed units, 60 percent will be one bedroom or smaller. The remaining 40 percent will be two bedroom apartments of various sizes.
Across the street on the southeast corner of the intersection, there is a 12-storey apartment building. Directly to the south of the plaza are two 11-storey condo buildings. Further east on Greenhill Avenue is a nine-storey building.
The City will expect the developer to pay for upgrades to sewer infrastructure to address these concerns.
“Public Works has identified this neighbourhood has a history of sanitary sewer backups and flooded residential basements during heavy rain events. The proposed development represents a large increase in density and sanitary flow relative to existing conditions”, writes Peter Dimitroulias, a development coordinator in Public Works development engineering approvals section. [emphasis in original document]
The site is directly beside the Greenhill Avenue access to the Red Hill Valley Parkway, highway access is sought by many renters and should enable the development to show a manageable traffic impact.
The developer met with City staff in a Formal Consultation meeting. No timelines are yet known in regards to the project. Medallion did not respond to an email request for comment.


text:
Minister of Municipal Affairs Grants Hamilton Council Zoning Order – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 5, 2021
Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark issued a Ministerial Zoning Order on Friday making a site specific exception for CityHousing Hamilton to add housing units on the first floor of First Place at 350 King Street East.
City Council requested the order in December to create affordable seniors housing in former office space on the first floor of the complex.
Hamilton’s Downtown Mixed Use zoning, which applies to the building, does not allow first floor residential. If Council amended the zoning to grant residential use, other landowners in the Downtown could file appeals to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
A Ministerial Zoning Order is final, not subject to appeal, and does not create a precedent for similar uses nearby.


text:
New Provincial COVID Funds for HSR Will Keep Transit Running Well into 2022 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 1, 2021
The Province of Ontario announced today that it will continue funding the COVID deficits of local public transit systems beyond March 31st.
$16,822,206 in new funding is being provided to Hamilton’s public transit agency, the Hamilton Street Railway. The HSR received $17,211,723 in funding for April 2020 to March 2021.
The HSR lost nearly $12-million during the final nine months of 2020 due to COVID, with over half of those losses during the first three months of the pandemic.
The HSR was not collecting fares during the first three months as it adopted rear door boarding until the installation of barriers to protect bus operators from potential COVID exposure.
The system stabilized into a new “COVID normal” in the Fall of 2020, with COVID deficits averaging around $1-million per month.
The HSR reported $5,286,434 remaining in COVID transit funds entering 2021.
Therefore, the HSR’s COVID deficit funding for 2021 is now $22,108,640
In mid-January, the HSR provided a projected 2021 total year loss of $20.3-million – $1.7-million per month.
This figure is much higher than the fall monthly average. This deficit represents a near doubling in monthly losses.
Revenue increased by over $205,000 per month* in January as McMaster students resumed paying UPass fees. McMaster students did not pay UPass fees in the fall.  Brock, Mohawk, and Redeemer students will not pay UPass fees until in-person learning resumes.
Using the HSR’s $1.7-million per month revenue loss figure, this COVID funding will expire in February 2022.
If monthly deficits remain the same as in Fall 2020, the funding will last until November 2022.
The HSR deficits for January and February are likely higher than in Fall 2020.
Hamilton was placed into “lockdown” on December 21, 2020. Thus, ridership and fare revenue decreased before fall 2020 levels.
Mid-Range Scenario
Transit ridership is traditionally lower in January and February pre-COVID.
It is reasonable to guess the HSR lost between $1.25 to $1.5-million in each of these months.
Deficit: $2.75-million
We should consider a lockdown in April a likely possibility. Thus, we will continue projecting an HSR deficit of $1.25 to $1.5-million for March and April.
Cumulative Deficit: $5.5-million
Things begin to reopen in May. However, with variants likely to be dominant in the community, transit usage remains low. Add $1.25-million to the deficit.  For June and July, we will continue to use $1.25-million as the monthly loss.
Cumulative Deficit: $9.25-million.
August sees the resumption of outdoor activities, people begin to make trips into the office bi-weekly, and ridership increases to 55% of pre-COVID levels.
From this point forward, let’s assume $1-million per month for the remaining $12.85-million.
In this scenario, funding will last until September 2022.
In conclusion, our scenarios show this latest round of funding will sustain the HSR beyond COVID into Fall 2022.
Transit ridership will remain below pre-COVID levels as people continue working from home, in-person events are cancelled, post-secondary schools remain closed, and high school classes are partially online.
In Fall of 2020, HSR ridership was at approximately 40% of pre-COVID levels.
In September 2021, we can reasonably expect many in-person activities to resume and for schools to be nearly fully reopened.
Over the year which will follow, ridership will increase as more reopens and our comfort with being around strangers increases as well.
New patterns will become clear, and planning can begin for what public transit looks like post-COVID for implementation in September 2022
Endnote on McMaster UPass Fee Calculation
The $205,000 per month figure is an underestimation.
All full-time McMaster undergraduates pay $59.62 for a January to August HSR pass.
McMaster reported 27,213 full-time undergraduates in November 2018, the last figures available. It does not account for higher enrolment. McMaster’s September 2020 intake was the largest first-year class in the university’s history.
Therefore, I used 27,500 for enrolment.
Monthly = (Enrolment * Fee) / (Months) = 27500 * 59.62 / 8 = 204,943.75


text:
Province Sends Hamilton $18.7-mil in new COVID Support Funds – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 4, 2021
The Province of Ontario announced $18,681,919 in new COVID support funding for the City of Hamilton in a press release this morning.
These funds are additional to $16,822,206 announced earlier this week for public transit COVID costs.
Hamilton City Hall is awaiting official word regarding $111-million in joint federal/provincial COVID funding commitments due to expire on March 31st. The City has not spent the funds and is seeking to continue to have the funds available for the remainder of the pandemic.


text:
Queen’s Park Paying for DARTS Eligibility Review – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 2, 2021
The Ontario Government is picking up the cost of the DARTS eligibility review which City Council approved in December 2020.
The review follows an internal audit report which found serious administrative deficiencies resulting in Hamilton approving more people for para-transit services than comparable municipalities.
This is the latest chapter in the long running saga of DARTS significant costs increases in the past decade since City Council approved free transit for all people over the age of 80 and with mobility devices. This resulted in a drop in revenue for DARTS and increasing demand for the free service. (I wrote on this in February 2019.)
No timeline is yet available for when the review will report to Council.


text:
Social Housing Budgets Squeezed by Rent Arrears, Will Need Financial Support from Government – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 3, 2021
Hamilton’s social housing providers will need more government financial support as they grapple with COVID costs and rent arrears resulting from tenants struggling with the financial burdens of the pandemic.
Rent arrears at the City of Hamilton’s social housing provider have more than doubled in the past year.
Ward 5 City Councillor Chad Collins, who sits on the CityHousing Hamilton Board, told his fellow Councillors during a budget meeting today.
“Our arrears have gone up from an average 14 or 15% to around 34% now”, Collins stated.
“There will be a cost to [CHH] as it relates to payback time as the Landlord and Tenant Board is giving people 18 months to two years” to pay their arrears.
Collins says CHH and other social housing providers will need more funding from other levels of government to meet the costs of rent arrears, COVID, and an ongoing rent freeze for 2021 implemented by the province.
CHH’s financial updates indicate the rent freeze will decrease revenues by $1.1-million.
Hamilton General Manager of Finance and Corporate Services believes the City may be able to use Provincial and Federal COVID funds to cover the cost of the rent freeze.
“Whether or not the city could defend it,” Zegarac stated. “The news release from the provincial government was tied to COVID-19, which would help us as relates to defending the position that [the cost of the rent freeze] is tied to the pandemic.”
City staff will update Council on social housing COVID cost impacts at a future meeting.


text:
Stone Church and West 5th Development LPAT Hearing Begins October 18 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 2, 2021
Update, April 4 2021, the hearing will be conducted by video.
Is a nine storey residential development appropriate for the southeast corner of West 5th Street and Stone Church Road West?
This is the question which the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal will adjudicate during a seven day hearing scheduled to begin on October 18, 2021.
The developer, T. Valeri Construction, chose to bypass City Council and go directly to the LPAT on a non-decision appeal.
City Council, on a motion by Ward 8 City Councillor John Paul Danko, is opposing approval of the development. The site is located in Ward 8.
The application at 73, 77, 83, and 89 Stone Church Road West and 1029 West 5th Street is for a 9-storey 216 residential unit development with 221 parking spaces.
Lawyers for the City of Hamilton and developer will set a procedural order outlining how the seven days will be structured. The issues list will be contained within that order. The order will be released to the public by the Tribunal.
Each side plans to call two or three expert witnesses.
Nearby residents who registered to be participants have been instructed by the Tribunal to make written submissions.
The Tribunal directed that the hearing will be conducted by video, and left open the possibility that the hearing may be conducted in-person if public health regulations allow in October 2021.
The LPAT, and all similar tribunals, are expected to issue directions for fall hearings at some point this summer.
More information on the proposed development is available on the website of the project’s planning agent, Urban Solutions here: https://urbansolutions.info/1021w5th/


text:
Summary of Hamilton City COVID Press Conference for March 1, 2021 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 1, 2021
The City of Hamilton held its weekly COVID media briefing this afternoon, the full video is online here.
A couple of notes from the press conference.
The next City press conference should be on Monday, March 8, 2021.


text:
Terry Whitehead Last Attended City Council on December 16, More Than Three Months Ago – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 17, 2021
Ward 14 Councillor Terry Whitehead has not attended a City Council meeting since December 16, 2020.
City Council has not given him leave by resolution.
Section 259(c) of the Ontario Municipal Act states: “The office of a member of council of a municipality becomes vacant if the member is absent from the meetings of council for three successive months without being authorized to do so by a resolution of council”
This raises the question: is his seat vacant?
Betteridge’s law of headlines applies here. No.
What does the Municipal Act mean by “three successive months?”
There are three possible interpretations discussed in court cases and legal memos:
1) 89 to 92 days from the last attended council meeting;
2) 89 to 92 days from the date of the first missed council meeting; and
3) three “full” calendar months from the first day of a new month following the last attended council meeting.
In the 1880 case Mearns v. The Corporation of the Town of Petrolia, the Court of Chancery of Ontario ruled on this question of the seat vacancy under the predecessor laws to today’s Municipal Act.
Councillor Mearns attended an April 5th meeting. He did not attend a May 31 meeting. At a July 7th meeting, the rest of Petrolia’s Council declared his seat vacant. [The 1880 ruling hints at much animousity between the councillors]
“They did not attend that of the 31st of May; but there was no intermediate meeting that they ought to have attended but did not attend. It would be absurd to say that they absented themselves from meetings when there were no meetings at which to be present,” reads the ruling.
The Court of Chancery of Ontario ruled the three months should be calculated from May 31st, the first meeting missed.
In 2017, Ontario’s Superior Court declined to issue an interpretation of Section 259(c).
Town of South Bruce Peninsula Councillor Craig Gammie was prohibited from attending Council meetings due to bail conditions after he was charged with an assault against the Deputy Mayor.
As the three month deadline approached, Gammie applied to the Superior Court for a variation of his bail conditions.
He asked to attend a council meeting, be recorded as present, and leave. Thus, avoiding automatic removal from office.
The Judge granted permission for Gammie to attend a meeting only for roll call on a date before any of the deadlines of the three interpretations.  (Gammie had to arrange a police escort at his own expense.)
A councillor in Kincardine nearly reached the three month absence threshold this week.
During their March 8, 2021 meeting, Kincardine Council – sitting as Committee of the Whole – discussed how to grant leave for one of their colleagues who is seriously ill.
In a legal opinion, written for Kincardine Municipal Council, lawyer Steven J. O’Melia of Miller Thomson LLP writes:
“The question of what constitutes ‘three successive months’ has been considered by courts and can be open to interpretation. One argument would be that the period runs for three months from the date of the first-missed Council meeting (i.e. the same numbered date in the calendar month which is three months after the month of meeting missed). A second interpretation is that “three successive months” means whole months, and that an attendance at any meeting in a particular month means that the first month to form part of the calculation does not start until the next month in the calendar.”
O’Melia’s opinion continues:
“If this issue was to be considered by a court, the judge would likely lean towards an outcome that would preserve a councillor’s seat. That is, if there were dual interpretations that could be given, the interpretation that would be more protective of a councillor’s seat would likely be given preference. The reason for this is that councillors are democratically elected by a majority vote of their constituents, and a court would not want to find that a seat had been vacated unless the facts fell clearly and inarguably within the wording of the Act.”
This returns us to Hamilton, where no leave has been granted, and Councillor Whitehead has been absent from Council for over 90 days.
The Municipal Act provision intends to ensure municipal councillors attend meetings or have been granted leave if they cannot attend.
The attendance requirement is not onerous; logging into a council video meeting for roll call or one vote is considered attendance for a meeting.
Whitehead has not logged into any Council meetings since December 16, 2020.
He logged into one sub-committee in January. Sub-committees and committees are not the same as a council meeting under the Municipal Act. Only full council meetings meet the attendance requirement.
The next Hamilton City Council meeting is scheduled for March 31st. Council could grant leave at that time if Whitehead is not in attendance.
As O’Melia’s opinion noted, the Superior Court will not remove a councillor “unless the facts fell clearly and inarguably within the wording of the Act.”


text:
City of Hamilton Considering Adding Green Building Standards to Zoning – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 12, 2021
Ontario’s municipalities are trying to tackle climate change within the limitations of their powers as set by the Province of Ontario.
Ontario’s Building Code sets the minimum standards for construction in Ontario and municipalities cannot impose building standards which are more stringent than these minimums set by Code.
But can municipalities use their Planning Act zoning powers to create environmental design standards, such as requiring rough-ins for future vehicle charging stations or district energy?
Already, municipalities have an array requirements related to materials, height, setbacks, landscaping, and design included in their zoning bylaws. Would adding environmental standards being much different?
Hamilton, and other municipalities, are conducting environmental reviews as part of zoning bylaw reviews.
On Monday, consultants from WSP shared a high-level overview of their ongoing review of green standards which will be presented to Hamilton City Council this fall and potentially added to future zoning bylaws and secondary plans.
Among the ideas being considered is requiring new buildings to include cool roofs to decrease the urban heat island effect, rough-ins for electric vehicle charging ports, mandating use of native plant species, mandatory bird friendly design, improved water efficiency indoors and outdoors, and the ability to adapt to district energy in the future.
Setting higher environmental standards is key to achieving Hamilton’s climate change mitigation goals, the consultants said.
Hamilton’s present tree canopy coverage is 21.2 percent with a stated goal of having a tree canopy which covers 30 percent of the urban area. This is difficult to achieve in the short-term, it takes decades for trees to grow to a sufficient size to provide significant coverage.
The City many considering implementing higher standards for the number of trees required in new sub-divisions to advance this goal.
The review will also look at life cycle costs such as waste generated when roofs need replacing or a house is demolished decades in the future. The standards may include material requirements to decrease these types of future waste.
It is premature to adopt Net-Zero as the default standard, the consultants state. They state more planning and the maturing of technologies is needed first.
Joanne Hickey-Evans, the City of Hamilton’s Manager of Policy Planning and Zoning By-law Reform, says the City is looking at district energy plans and will eventually seek to have district energy in new sub-divisions to improve energy efficiency.
Hamilton is already looking at implementing district energy in parts of the downtown where numerous tall buildings are being proposed.
Hickey-Evans states developers should be prepared for district energy to be required in growth areas as new secondary plans are created.
West End Home Builders’ Association CEO Michael Collins-Williams says the development industry “supports green standards” but the industry is concerned “there will be 400-plus different standards” in Ontario if every municipality has different rules.
He emphasized repeatedly the industry is not opposed to improved standards but “there are components of this which merit conversation and consultation” before going to Council.
The consultants will return to a future meeting of the Development Industry Liaison Group for further discussions as they advance further in their project.


text:
City Replacing Bus Shelters Along LRT Corridor, After Delaying in Expectation of LRT – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 3, 2021
The Hamilton Street Railway is replacing 66 transit shelters along the B-Line LRT corridor, after originally keeping old shelters to avoid unnecessary replacement costs just prior to LRT construction.
HSR Director Debbie Dalle Vedove wrote to Council in March stating that the condition of the shelters is such that replacement is pressing, and there is opportunity of the federal government to split the cost with the City.
“Given the existing condition of the shelters along this corridor, and the opportunity presented through the extension of the deadline for [federal] funding, it is prudent to replace these shelters at this time to address safety concerns and their state of repair”, writes Dalle Vadove.
The City of Hamilton is seeking to classify any spending it can as a possible “municipal contribution” to the LRT project, in the event the project receives federal funding and the traditional cost-sharing formulas are applied to it.
Dalle Vadove writes that the City could try to have the $440,000 it is contributing to the new shelters applied to LRT as the shelters will be returned to the route after construction.
HSR riders can expect the shelters to be installed by the end of July.


text:
Commonwealth Games Group Back to 2030 Focus – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 26, 2021
The private interests seeking to bring the Commonwealth Games to Hamilton have reverted to their plan to seeking the 2030 Games – the centenary of the founding of the then-Empire Games in Hamilton.
Steve Milton, who is an unofficial spokesperson for the group, devoted one of his recent columns to the change.
In a letter posted to Wednesday’s City Council agenda, bid group President P.J. Mercanti writes that while Hamilton was guaranteed a 2026 Games if it agreed to commit to hosting, “we are not guaranteed 2030 and will therefore need to finalize a hosting plan that can compete and win a centenary event that will be hotly contested globally”.
News website insidethegames.biz is covering the fate of the Commonwealth Games. They are reporting the Commonwealth Games are facing a possible end.
With Hamilton not taking on the 2026 Games, insidethegames.biz reports “it leaves with Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) with no clear bidder for the 2026 edition of its flagship event and is a significant blow”.
A 2030 bid in Australia is presently stalled.
Mercanti writes the bid group is seeking to lower the costs of hosting the 2030 Games and is now creating its Hosting Proposal Committee.
Council voted in November 2019 to approve moving forward with creating a bid book and appoint Councillors Judi Partridge, Esther Pauls, and Terry Whitehead to be Council representatives on the 2030 bid committee.


text:
Council Votes Down Sidewalk Clearing Again – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 19, 2021
Council again debated and voted against municipal sidewalk clearing during their Public Works Committee meeting on Monday. Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann moved to adopt sidewalk clearing along transit routes at an annual cost of approximately $4.5-million dollars annual, or $12 on the average property tax bill.
The motion failed on a 4-6 vote.
“Our bylaw isn’t working consistently”, Nann said. “it’s imperative as a municipality whose motto is to be the best place to raise a child and age successfully … we can’t let this matter go another year without a decision”.
It is those “that really don’t have any choice” during the Winter who are most negatively impacted by inconsistent sidewalk clearing said Edward Soldo, Hamilton’s Director of Transporation Operations & Maintenance. “Mothers with their children, people with disabilities, people that have accessibility issues … we’ve heard clearly from them that they have the greatest issues with the inconsistency of snow clearing”.
Ward 8 Councillor John Paul Danko seconded Nann’s motion.
Ward 4 Councillor Sam Merulla opposed the motion saying people will be upset that they will be paying for service that activates when there is more than five centimetres of snow. “Obviously you’re going to have to deal with, as you know, I’m retiring!”, Merulla stated.
Ward 5 Councillor Chad Collins said, “I won’t be supporting this for the reasons I’ve stated in the past, especially related to the cost”. “We already have significant compliance”, Collins said of the current bylaw requiring property owners to clear sidewalks surrounding their properties. “We are essentially letting people off the hook”.
Nann said the cost of sidewalk clearing is only going to increase the longer Council delays on implementation. Citing growing public support for municipal clearing, Nann said it was time for Council to follow its own guiding statements.
“Our Age Friendly report that was unanimously passed at last council indicates very clearly that the population of seniors aging in place is only going to continue to grow to numbers that we have never experienced before in the city”, Nann stated. “[We] have blocks upon blocks that pose a serious danger to the lives and health of our most vulnerable, shutting in seniors, people with disabilities, making our streets totally inaccessible for parents with strollers and households that do not have access to personal vehicles”.
“Public service and taxation is not simply about transactional services. But it is about enabling our cities to be a place where our residents can thrive, where residents can be safe. And where residents are able to be fully accessible are able to access their city and ensure that that is available to all of our residents”.
Council was presented with a range of options, Nann asked them to adopt the lowest option – transit routes only without salting.
Clearing only along transit routes was estimated to be $4.5 to $4.8-million annually depending on if salt is applied or not. That is $12 to $13 annually on the average property tax bill.
The estimate to clear all sidewalks was between $8.07 to $9.07-million annually, depending on if salt is applied or not. This is $26 to $30 annually on the average property tax bill.
The sidewalk snow clearing debate is unlikely to return again this term of Council.
The vote was:
IN FAVOUR: Jason Farr (2), Nrinder Nann (3), Tom Jackson (6), John-Paul Danko (8)
OPPOSED: Merulla (4), Collins (5), Pauls (7), Pearson (10), Ferguson (12), VanderBeek (13)


text:
Developer Proposes 27-Storey Condo at 101 Hunter Street East – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 6, 2021
How will Hamilton’s Design Review Panel respond to a tall building proposal which does not meet key provisions of Hamilton’s Tall Building Guidelines while knowing the developer has a proven track record of successful condo builds?
Coletara Development is seeking to build a 27-storey mixed-use building at 101 Hunter Street East with 297 residential units and ground level commercial. Coletara’s plans state Starbucks will be one of the businesses.
Originally proposed as a 18-storey project in 2019, the developer has expanded their project. This reflects growing interest for condos near GO stations in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area.
A 27-storeys, the building will reach the maximum permitted height of the Downtown Secondary Plan.
The proposal does not meet tall building guideline expectations for step backs as the height increases, setbacks from neighbouring properties to ensure those properties can develop their own tall building while ensuring appropriate separation between towers, and the floor plates are larger than the ideals expressed in the tall building guidelines.
Floors 5 to 11 are planned to be 1,037 square metres, floors 12 to 25 at 865 square metres, and the top two floors at 761 square metres.
Hamilton’s tall building guidelines state residential floor plates should not exceed 750 square metres.
Coletara will be provided opportunity to provide their reasoning for the proposed massing.
The meeting is Thursday, April 8, 2021, starting at 3:30pm. Members of the public can request access to watch the meeting by emailing Victoria.Cox@hamilton.ca prior to noon on Wednesday.


text:
Hamilton Design Review Panel to Deliberate on Design Rules for New 45-Storey Waterfront Tower – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 6, 2021
Hamilton’s Design Review Panel will deliberate Thursday what should be required for Pier 8 developer Waterfront Shores to be allowed to build a 45-storey tall building as Hamilton’s new skyscraper icon.  what the City should expect from a 45-storey tall building on the West Harbour, if it is approved by City Council, or even sought by the Pier 8 developer Waterfront Shores.
The meeting is Thursday starting at 2:00pm. Members of the public can request access to watch the meeting by emailing Victoria.Cox@hamilton.ca prior to noon on Wednesday.
The tower concept emerges from a surprising turn of events.
Herman Turkstra and Harbour West Neighbours Inc. settled their appeals of the Pier 8 redevelopment zoning with the inclusion of a clause requiring the City of Hamilton’s planning department to present a range of options for a “signature” mid-rise or tall building on the western edge of Pier 8.
The neighbourhood appellants are seeking more family units in the overall Pier 8 redevelopment, the tall building option is designed to incentivize this goal.
As the building height increases, so too does the required number of family units. A 45-storey building must include 150 units with two or more bedrooms.
What should the urban design guidelines for a signature building be?
The City hired Brook McIlroy to create a new Urban Design Guideline for this site, officially known as Pier 8 Block 16. Brook McIlroy created the original design guidelines of the Pier 8 redevelopment.
The 92-page document covers site organization, public realm interface, residential building design, sustainability, how to ensure either the mid-rise or tall building option integrate well into the City’s hope to make Pier 8 a year-round destination that Hamiltonians from all parts of the city frequent for recreation and entertainment.
It is a dry read, and not being a product of Waterfront Shores, it does not provide any details regarding the proposed tower. This is why there are no new renders of the proposed building, and the figures in this document are all conceptual.
Disclaimers are contained throughout the document stating that the City of Hamilton has made no commitment to allowing a tall building on Block 16, and the report is to facilitate discussion.
Waterfront Shores “should allow for a minimum of 50% sun coverage at all times of the day” during the spring and summer on the new waterfront promenade, the report states. This means the design of the entire site will need to be designed to manage shadowing of the promenade along the Harbour to the north of the buildings.
Parking for Block 16 will need to be hidden within the neighbouring buildings to the east, says the report. The podium of Block 16 needs to be an active space, not storage for cars. Garage entrances need to be recessed and screened from the pedestrian realm.
Green design should be a key requirement, and the City should impose strict standards the report states. Waterfront Shores is expected to be enrolled in the Energy Star Portfolio Manager prior to submitted any application for Block 16 to the City.
District energy preparation will also be required, including the reserving of space and easements for future thermal piping.
All landscaping will be required to utilize 100% native plants, the report states.
Bird-friendly design will be required “including sunshades or louvers, visual markers within glazed surfaces, and non-reflective glazing to reduce window collisions with birds.”
The idea of the building as a landmark is briefly explored in the final sections of the report, with much discussion of the top of the building serving as a beacon that will represent Hamilton’s skyline.


text:
Hamilton EcDev Manager Writes in International Journal on Downtown Revitalization – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 26, 2021
Hamilton’s revitalized downtown shows that financial incentives, efforts to improve safety and appearance, and creative culture can combine to make a downtown attractive again, writes City of Hamilton Manager of Commercial Districts and Small Business Judy Lam in an article published in the latest edition of the Economic Development Journal.
Hamilton “experienced a significant downturn in the 1990’s and 2000’s”, Lam writes and “some residents did not believe there was a way out of the spiralling slump”.
“Hamilton’s downtown did rebound and is now considered a revitalized, cool city with people from the nearby Greater Toronto Area moving in. Developers, investors, and newcomers are taking a second look at this city of opportunity”, Lam continues.
“The downtown has recently been experiencing exploding growth in multi-residential construction combined with a significant drop in office vacancies. Heritage buildings are being brought back to renewed life and people are asking ‘when did Hamilton become so cool’? The city has even been called the “Brooklyn” of the north because of our similarities to the number of artists that moved into the city adding to the creative culture”.
Lam outlines the steps taken to incentivize development in Downtown Hamilton and now the City plans to respond to the economic impact of the COVID pandemic on redevelopment plans.
Over 3,000 residential units have redeveloped and received tax incentives, with over 6,000 residential units planned.
The City provides incentives for small businesses to improve their facades and to include art – such as murals – with matching grants of up to $10,000.
Making downtown “feel clean and safe” is needed to spur investment, Lam writes.
“For cities that have a significant urban district, there are aspects of downtowns that make some people uncomfortable. For large cities, the number of panhandlers or homeless blend in and become accepted as part of city living. However, for cities that do not have the same density, people can feel unsafe and choose to avoid downtown”.
Lam writes that the highly visible Hamilton Police Action units are key to “reduce violence, improve safety and enhance the quality of life in Hamilton’s most vulnerable neighbourhoods”.
The Social Navigator Program is key “to address the specific needs and underlying issues of the person that may be the result of lack of housing, mental health, addiction or lack of stable finances and housing. This is a new approach to breaking the cycle of repeat offenders that is improving outcomes and optimizing resources and is now a permanent program due to its great success”.
Making downtowns more pedestrian friendly is important to economic development, Lam writes. Adding bicycle racks, pedestrianization of Gore Park, cleaning up alleyways, and piloting on-street patios are some of the projects mentioned.
Prior to the pandemic, the City’s redevelopment strategies success meant financial incentives could be slowly phased out at 10 percent per year.
“As downtown improves, it is hoped that downtown desirability will eventually eliminate the need to offer such incentives by providing the developers with the required profit margins to carry out these projects”.
A reason for stepping down incentives is to encourage developers to start projects.
“This has the effect of encouraging who were on the fence about when to develop their sites, to do it sooner rather than later”.
COVID is a challenge for all businesses, especially small businesses and restaurants. Lam shares some of the initiatives launched by Hamilton’s Economic Development Division to assists businesses with online sales and marketing.
On-street patios are key to helping restaurants survive. Internally, “Economic Development absorbed the cost of the lost parking revenue and other administrative costs of patios on public property”.
Lam submitted her article late in 2020, prior to Ontario’s COVID third wave.
“The winter season has limited the benefit of outdoor patios and restauranteurs are admittedly nervous about their survival in the cold season. Patios helped them survive for now but the effects of shutting down patios would be catastrophic”.
Economic Development is looking to change the City’s financial incentives for office landlords to provide more flexibility considering the uncertainty resulting from COVID.
“Discussions with office landlords have found that while tenants initially thought they needed less space while employees were working remotely, some tenants have realized that downsizing to less space won’t work because of the need to social distance. One trend that is emerging is that tenants are renegotiating shorter lease terms.
Staff will bring to Council a proposal “to tweak our office incentive program to allow for shorter lease terms as well as amendments that will encourage start-up companies to secure space in downtown Hamilton”.