text:
Hamilton Farmers Market Board Blows Up in Dysfunction, with Vendor Reps Storming Out – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 13, 2021
The Hamilton Farmers’ Market Board of Directors blew-up during Monday’s meeting in one of the worst displays of dysfunction on a Board known for being dysfunctional.
Monday’s meeting ended abruptly when vendor director Shane Coleman [no relation] ended the WebEx video conference meeting in a tantrum over term limits for Market Board members.
Vendor representatives Charlie Chiarelli, Coleman, and Ron Jepson have been members of the Market Board since its creation in 2015 and have reached the six-year limit for being on the Board.
The three, who have formed a bloc on the Board, sought to have the term limit rule nullified by bringing a motion to request City Council amend the Market Board by-law.
Presently, the by-law states “no Director shall serve more than three (3) consecutive terms or six (6) consecutive years on the board”.
Chiarelli and Coleman were both involved in the by-law’s creation.
Coleman, who is chair of the Board, relinquished control of the meeting to vice-chair Elly Bowen to introduce his motion. Bowen is a citizen member of the Board.
Upon taking control of the meeting, Bowen declared that Chiarelli, Coleman, and Jepson each had a pecuniary interest in the matter and thus were ineligible to discuss or vote on the motion.
The meeting erupted in yelling between citizen and vendor members.
This is the latest crisis to engulf the Board, which has been dysfunctional for years and subject to a September 2020 consultants report calling for it to be disbanded.
The report stated the Board cannot function due to an entrenched group of three vendor representatives who are misusing their positions to advance their own interests over the greater interests of the Market. The report noted ongoing bullying and “verbal abuse” of citizen board members.
In 2019, two citizen members resigned citing this bloc’s behaviour as the reason.
The report found the bloc of three engaged in “deliberate obfuscation that drags out meetings to the point that everyone becomes frustrated and the agenda cannot be completed”.
Stu Laurie wrote of frustration “with the aggressive posturing of some of my fellow board members and the toxic environment that often inhabits our meetings and can no longer be a party to this in good conscience”.
Marisa Di Censo, a school principal who served as chair for the first two and a half years of the Market Board, wrote in her resignation letter “I can no longer, as a matter of personal integrity, be part of the Board, whose focus has shifted to the demands of one stakeholder group at the expense of the wishes and needs of other stakeholders”.
The Market Board is a Local Board under the Ontario Municipal Act to which the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act applies. The MCIA requires members to recuse themselves from discussing any matter in which they have a pecuniary interest.
In this case, Chiarelli, Coleman, and Jepson held a personal stake in the outcome – their positions on the Board effect their business interests.
Under the MCIA, it is the responsibility of individual members to declare conflicts. The presiding person in a meeting does not have the power to enforce conflict rules. Any individual who believes a conflict exists must apply to the municipal integrity commissioner to make that determination.
Bowen did not have authority to declare Coleman’s motion out of order.
What followed was a series of accusations being made by the vendor bloc against the citizen members. Coleman said the citizens have a conflict-of-interest in not being vendors.
Chiarelli accused the citizen members and market manager Bill Slowka of conspiring against the vendors by advertising market Board vacancies in the market. Four other vendors expressed interest in being vendor reps.
Chiarelli yelled at citizen member Gordon Albini for granting COVID support to customers of his businesses while the City of Hamilton is not granting rent relief in the Market. All citizen members are volunteers. Albini owns a financial services business which is completely separate from his volunteering on the Market Board.
Albini spoke passionately at Council for rent relief to market vendors.
Council opposed the rent relief with only Councillor Esther Pauls supporting the market. Albini noted this fact to Chiarelli, who continued his belligerent behaviour.
The talking over each other continued, with members accusing other members of being out of order. Not unusual for the Market Board.
Finally, a member requested the City’s managing director for the Market, Cyrus Tehrani of the City Manager’s Office, to determine if the motion was in order.
The following is the full statement delivered by Tehrani:
“I think if it’s a bylaw change that is being put forward. There are policies in the bylaws. My understanding is when this was set up five years ago, there was a group of people that came together to put these together again, it predates me.
I think if you look at, though the board is a municipal board. I think if you look at other similar not-for-profits, or even for-profit corporations, do they generally have term limits?
I believe, probably there is wording around term limits, regardless of the nature of the entity itself. So, the motion that’s being put forward is reading as a request to amend the bylaw.
And I think, from the vendor perspective as well, the right to self-govern. There is a process by which this bylaw itself, or the proposed change to the bylaw, I’m hearing verbiage around, you know, the ability for the vendors to select their own representation, I guess where I’m unclear on is with the current process that was carried out last time, when Anne [Miller] was elected that same process has been mimicked this time with the nominations being brought forward and being advertised in the newsletter and etc, etc.
So, if you go off the letters of the bylaw, an amendment to the bylaw does require that two thirds change for them to be taken forward to the sole voting shareholder.”
City Council is the sole voting shareholder.
Coleman responded “I think I’m done. I resign. I can’t work with citizens that don’t work with vendors”.
Jepson then announced his resignation, saying he backed Coleman “100 percent”.
Quickly, Bowen announced the meeting would continue with her assuming the chair upon Coleman’s resignation.
Chiarelli protested the meeting could not continue with full vendor representation. More arguing ensued.
Coleman declared the vendors will no longer work with the Board and they were leaving.
Coleman ended the WebEx video conference, abruptly ending the meeting.
Cyrus Tehrani refuses to stream board meetings to the public. Tehrani has not released the recording of the meeting.
The Public Record filed complaints to the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman regarding Tehrani’s violation of Municipal Act open meeting requirements. An investigation by the Ombudsman of the closed meeting complaint is ongoing.
Additionally, TPR will file a freedom of information demand for the meeting video when City Hall reopens.


text:
Hamilton’s Ash Tree Removal Program On Schedule and On Budget – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 18, 2021
The City of Hamilton is now in year nine of a ten-year plan to remove Ash trees which are being devastated by the invasive Emerald Ash Borer species.
The Borer’s destruction of trees creates a hazard when the trees die and fall. Council voted in 2012 to begin removal of an estimated 23,000 trees and replacing all of them with new trees.
[Many trees have been saved by use of an injection program to keep the invasive species at bay]
During the past eight years, 22,616 trees have been removed. Approximately 3,800 Ash trees remain to be removed. During the more detailed inventory as the City moved throughout Hamilton, more Ash trees were found than expected.
Caleb Gibbons, Senior Project Manager – Capital Projects Forestry And Horticulture, writes in their annual report that no budget increase is required for the additional trees and the project remains within its ten-year budget.
With tree removal mostly complete, forestry crews are now focused upon planting replacement trees. 17,171 replacement trees have already been planted; the City plans to plant 5,445 in 2021.

source: news-thepublicrecord

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


text:
Hamilton’s Rural Areas Getting Hit With Large Area-Rated Tax Shift for Fire Services – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 3, 2021
Hamiltonians who pay for rural fire services will experience a significant tax increase this year as large portions of Wards 10 and 11 switch to the urban fire service tax base – meaning rural fire service costs are split among fewer properties.
Hamilton’s area-rating policies, designed to minimize taxes in the suburban and rural areas, divide the cost of fire services into urban and rural, with each class dividing the cost among properties in each section.
During the past decade, Hamilton Fire shifted urban fire units into Wards 9, 10, and 11 as they urbanized.
As a result, the shift of these areas into the urban fire taxation class means an average decrease per household of between $13 in Ward 4 to $41 in Ward 10 for fire services.
In the rural area, the average increase per household for fire services ranges from $113 in Glanbrook to $178 in rural Ancaster.
The area-rated shift is additional to the City budget tax increase of 2.1% this year. For rural areas, this combined with the fire shift means average tax bill increases of 3.9% to 4.1%.
In the urban areas, the shift decreases taxes, with average tax bills increasing by 1.3% in Waterdown to 1.8% in the urban portions of Ancaster.


text:
Hamilton’s Water System Successfully Manages COVID-19 Demand Changes – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 1, 2021
Hamilton’s drinking water is safe and well-monitored, this is the take-away from the 2020 Annual Drinking Water Report released at the end of February as required by Ontario Regulation 170/03.
The City maintained full testing of the distribution system during 2020, with only in-home lead testing suspended due to COVID.
This lead testing requires staff to enter into homes to get samples. The City increased testing in its Lead Pipe Loops to compensate.
“Plumbing samples provide water quality data as seen at the residential taps that have service lines which are known or suspected to contain lead. Without this sampling data, the City of Hamilton loses one source to observe the effectiveness of the Corrosion Control Program (CCP)”, wrote Andrew Grice, Director of Hamilton Water, in response to TPR questions. “As part of the CCP, the City of Hamilton installed three pipe loops with confirmed lead services, as an additional data set for monitoring and observing the effectiveness of the CCP”.
In 2018, the City added orthophosphate to treated water to prevent corrosion of metal pipes, especially old lead pipes which nearly 20,000 Hamilton homes continue to have on the private property portion of their water service.
2020 testing shows ead levels in the water system continues to decrease, including at the three pipe loops.
Hamilton’s water supply is constantly tested from the intake pipe in Lake Ontario to the further reaches of the system. During 2020, there were 15 events of what is termed an “adverse water quality incident” which occurs when any test does not meet strict quality standards. Ontario’s standards are very strict, and reports of adverse findings made public, following the Walkerton water disaster.
The detection of any coliform, as an example, triggers a report. Most of the adverse findings were not confirmed with nearby water samples.
Chlorine levels are required to be above a minimum threshold. When those thresholds are not met, it triggers a flushing of that section of the water system to restore chlorine levels, increased monitoring, and detailed reporting.
COVID-19’s closure of schools, businesses, and many institutional uses changed water flow patterns. Chlorine disinfectant dissipates over time, and with lowered water usage in some parts of the system resulting from COVID, this is a concern Hamilton Water is monitoring.
Thus far, Hamilton Water has only found one area of the system where this is was a concern. [Hamilton’s water distribution system is highly interconnected which improves its resiliency and minimizes impacts of demand changes.]
The sampling station across from 31 Currie Street, in the East Mountain Berrisfield neighbourhood, is along a section of pipe which services multiple schools, including the Barton Secondary School building.
Grice states that COVID closures is a likely cause for the decreased water flow in this section, and the most likely reason for the decreased chlorine counts found in September and October.
“The flow dynamics in the water distribution system near Currie St during COVID-19 may have been reduced due to a decrease in water consumption by industrial, commercial and instructional facilities in the area”, Grace wrote in response to questions.
”Hamilton Water installed an auto flushing unit on Currie St to improve water circulation within the water distribution system. After installing the auto flushing unit we have seen no concerns with the water quality in the area”.
In 2020, one of the repeated locations of coliform detection was likely the result of an old fixture/tap which the water samples were taken from at the City of Hamilton Operations Yard at 308 Rymal Rd East.
Coliforms were repeatedly found in the water samples at this location, until the tap was replaced. At which point, repeated and routine sampling did not detect coliforms.
Ontario’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change conducts extensive inspections of Hamilton’s water system. The 2020-2021 inspection was underway when the 2020 annual report was published.
EDITORS NOTE:
Hamilton Water Director Andrew Grice was very forthcoming with reports and data. The Public Record requested and received detailed lead testing information, including individual result reports. Further, requests for water flow information related to COVID changes were provided quickly with great detail. Emily Trotta, who has taken over communications for the Public Works department during COVID, was very helpful in assisting to facilitate the transfer of data.


text:
Hearing in City-Wide Appeals of Hamilton’s Commercial Zoning Scheduled for Feb 2022 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 3, 2021
The appeals of Hamilton’s commercial mixed-use zoning (CMZ) bylaw continue to progress at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, with the first hearing dates now scheduled to begin on February 14, 2022.
The city-wide appeals by Choice Properties Real Estate Investment Trust / Loblaw Properties (CP REIT) and Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited (CTREL) will be dealt starting on this date.
These appeals involving a wide range of issues including parking requirements, building sizes, heights, set backs, and design. Both CP REIT and CTREL have property holdings in nearly all commercial zoning types in Hamilton, thus their appeals impact nearly all commercial properties in Hamilton.
It is expected their appeals will require 25 days of hearings for expert testimony, cross-examination, and arguments. The Tribunal will sit four days per week for six weeks, with a likely March Break, meaning the city-wide appeals will last into April.
Site specific appeals continued to be scoped and the Tribunal will deal with them further at the next Case Management Conference on August 9.
The owners of the Corktown Plaza, Slate Asset Management, originally appealed the CMZ to protect their interests as they worked through the planning application process for their now-approved plan to redeveloped the John Street South plaza into a mixed use site with two buildings – a 27-storey tower and a 14-storey building.
The property is zoned C5 Mixed Use Medium Density, with a site specific amendment for the new development.
With CP REIT and CTREL appeals being city-wide, they needed to formally withdraw their appeal solely on this site. LPAT approved the without prejudice amendment to their appeals.
The C6 District Commercial Zone height limit was only appealed by one party, 2294643 Ontario Inc. (Winona Point Joint Venture Inc) which is seeking to build a 28-storey tower at 1290 South Service Road in Stoney Creek as part of massive mixed-use development.
The C6 height limit is 14.0 metres, which translates into 3-to-4 storeys. This developer agreed to modify their appeal to be site-specific.
A written motion will be submitted to the LPAT to bring the new C6 height limit into effect.


text:
Integrity Commissioners Decline to Impose Penalty in Clark Scandal – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 25, 2021
Hamilton City Council’s Integrity Commissioners, a firm co-owned by retired Hamilton City Solicitor Janice Atwood-Petkovski, confirm that Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark violated Council’s Code of Conduct when he made unsubstantiated allegations of corruption against staff in the City’s building department.
Atwood-Petkovski’s firm determined there should be no sanction or reprimand.
In an unsigned report, Atwood-Petkovski’s firm Principles Integrity finds Clark violated Section 11 of the Council Code when he discussed unsubstantiated allegations of corruption with constituent Paul Manning in late-July 2020.
Unknown to Clark, Manning was recording the conversation and published the audio on YouTube in February 2021. Manning is an undercover Hamilton Police officer who is presently suspended and is engaged in a litigation with the Hamilton Police Service alleging he was betrayed while undercover against organized crime. Manning is also facing Police Service Act charges of discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of trust.
Clark states he reached out to Manning, a constituent, due to his experience in investigations after receiving information about potential wrongdoing within the City of Hamilton.
The portion of the recording published by Manning involves the issuing of a building permit at 10 Newman Road in Dundas which was given in error. The land is subject to a myriad of regulations, including control by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The City had to revoke the permit and compensate the land owner.
During the conversation, Clark alleges corruption in the building department regarding the issuing of building permits, including at this site.
“So what’s going on in the Building Department and how come building permits are being issued, when they shouldn’t be issued? And who is paying who to get those building permits issued?”, Clark states.
Upon the recording being made public, Clark apologized saying his comments were baseless.
“I have no knowledge of any corruption with the Building Department or any department within the City” he wrote in an email to Council and senior staff. Clark self-referred the matter to the Integrity Commissioners and stepped down from all his chair and vice-chair roles.
Atwood-Petkovski’s firm states that by doing so, Clark took responsibility for his actions and there is no need for any further action.
The firm is not recommending reprimand – something they imposed against the Chair of the LGBTQ Advisory Committee for being critical of City Hall’s mismanagement of LGBTQ community concerns.
Atwood-Petkovski, and business partner Jeffrey Abrams, were instructed by Council to investigate the LGBTQ Advisory Committee Chair Cameron Kroetsch. At the same time, Council signed them to the longest contract ever given a municipal integrity commissioner in Ontario. Their actions against Kroetsch are now subject to judicial review at the Ontario Divisional Court.
“By his recent actions, Councillor Clark has assumed accountability for his conduct”, the firm writes.
While finding Clark violated Section 11 of the Council Code of Conduct by injuring the professional reputation of staff, the firm determined Clark’s comments did not violate confidentiality or undermine respect for City by-laws.
Clark issued a statement on Friday, thought lawyer Wade Poziomka who represented him in this integrity matter, taking responsibility for his action and expressing that he is “deeply apologetic to to anyone who may have been harmed by his actions”.
Council will vote on the report during Wednesday’s Council meeting.


text:
LPAT Approves Nine-Storey Development at 600 James North at Burlington Street – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 7, 2021
The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal is overturning the decision of Hamilton City Council to oppose a nine-story mixed used development at 600 James Street North.
In a 37-page ruling released today, the LPAT is approving a nine-storey mixed-use development at 600 James Street North on the northeast corner of the intersection at Burlington Street.
The planned development will have ground-level commercial with 55 residential units on the upper floors.
Ward 2 City Councillor Jason Farr opposed the development, saying it represents over-development at this location and is inappropriate for the neighbourhood.
In approving the development, the LPAT cites Council’s plans for more intensive development with greater height on lands it is selling at Pier 8 and the Jamesville CityHousing complex.
“On the contrary, the City has received and approved other intensification applications in the [West Harbour] Secondary Plan area, including one for 8 storeys on James”, LPAT Member Scott Tousaw writes in favour of the density.
Both the City and developer agreed the existing zoning allows for a five-storey building. The City stated it would have accepted a six-storey development.
The LPAT ruling states “the additional 3 storeys of the building will have a decreasing footprint with height, resulting in a massing and street appearance similar to a 6 or 7 storey building” in approving nine-storeys for the overall height.
In rejecting the application at City Council in September 2019, Farr stated the use of a parking stacker system will be inappropriate for this development. The City submitted to the LPAT that parking stackers are hard to use, unreliable, do not fit large vehicles, and residents will park on street instead of using the system because of the time it takes to retrieve vehicles from the stacker.
LPAT is approving the use of parking-stackers, noting “the City has approved the use of stackers at other developments and such systems will be regulated like elevators by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority”. Farr originally moved the City adopt parking stackers for new developments. He did so as part of the approval of a slender tall building on the Tivoli site at 108 James Street North in 2015.
The City argued at the hearing that even if the LPAT approved the use of a parking stacker, 32 parking spaces for 55 units was not enough parking for the site.
600 James Street North is within walking distance of the West Harbour GO Station, on existing HSR bus routes, and along the planned A-Line rapid transit route.
“This site is a model example involving transit, with the existing City bus service at this intersection, the existing GO Station on James within walking distance, and the City’s intent to enhance the James corridor in future with a rapid transit line from the harbour in the north to the airport in the south”, Tousaw writes.
In response to the City’s position that a parking ratio of 0.58 units per space is too low, Tousaw rules the “rate is comparable to similar sites studied, is similar or higher than recent City approvals, including in this neighbourhood, and reflects the incidence of automobile ownership of apartment dwellers”.
The City of Hamilton is now required to implement the zoning bylaw. The developer must submit their Site Plan Application for review by the City’s planning staff.


text:
LPAT Rejects White Star Group’s $33-Million Claim Against City of Hamilton – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 20, 2021
The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal dismissed White Star Group’s latest legal claim against the City of Hamilton as not being within the jurisdiction of the LPAT.
White Star attempted to use the LPAT to seek $32,893,970.00 in damages against the City of Hamilton alleging the City’s consideration of expropriating in 2009/10 to build a West Harbour stadium prevent them from developing their lands.
White Star owns a significant amount of land at 271 Bay Street North, 107 Stuart Street, and 34-36 Tiffany Street. The lands were previously used as an auto salvage yard and will be subject to remediation if developed.
LPAT Vice-Chair Richard Makuch dismissed White Star’s desperate legal maneuverer as lacking the necessary statutory grounds to be heard as there was no expropriation and the City never issued a legal notice of intent to expropriate.
At this point in the ruling, the LPAT Vice-Chair could end the decision. Makuch issued an unusually long orbiter dictum (the legal term of portions of a decision not necessary for the ruling) which is very critical of White Star Group.
In an additional rebuke of White Star, Makuch states the Tribunal will consider issuing costs. It is extremely rare for the LPAT to impose costs upon unsuccessful parties.
Makuch writes White Star had ample time to proceed with the development during the past 20 years and have not.
“Expropriation was only being considered by the City from 2010 to 2011. Outside of this time frame, there was no active expropriation process that might involve the Subject Lands”, Makuch wrote. “This means that for 18 of the last 20 years, there was no completed or contemplated expropriation which would have prevented the claimant from proceeding with the development of its lands”.
Makuch continues “The Tribunal notes an inconsistency in the Claimant’s [White Star] position here with the Claimant simultaneously arguing that the City hampered its plans to develop its property while also claiming that the City should have completed its expropriation of the Subject Lands, giving rise to an interesting question: How can the Claimant claim that it could not carry through on its proposed development while also demanding that the City complete an expropriation of its lands which would render development at this location by the claimant impossible?”
White Star bought the former White Star Auto Wreckers in the late 1990s, paid the City over $600,000 in back taxes owed on the property, and applied to build medium density residential.
White Star’s development applications prior to 2010 were not approved by City Hall – each side has a different version of events.
What followed is a saga. Gary Santucci did a great job summarizing the first 15 years of what happened in a 2011 piece published by The Hamilton Spectator.
In 2010/11, White Star expected their property to be expropriated by the City for the infamous West Harbour Stadium plan. Many nearby residents decided to sell their lands to the City of Hamilton by accepting purchase offers. White Star decided they would seek to be formally expropriated in the hopes of gaining a higher payment for their property.
In early 2011, Council suddenly changed plans and built the new stadium on the site of the old Ivor Wynne Stadium.
No longer needing the lands for a stadium, City Council decided to not expropriate any properties. White Star then began its decade long pursuit of litigation against the City.
Their efforts to sue the City appear to have reached an unsuccessful end.
As for the future of the site? The land is subject to power of attorney sale.


text:
Ombudsman to Council: Failure to Stream is a Closed Meeting Violation – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 25, 2021
Ontario’s Ombudsman states the City of Hamilton violated the Municipal Act when it failed to maintain a livestream of the LGBTQ Advisory Committee in October 2021.
The complaint, filed by The Public Record, follow the video stream of the meeting suddenly cutting out as Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson expressed her discomfort with the use of Council’s “Integrity Commissioners” against LGBTQ Advisory Committee Chair Cameron Kroetsch and threats made by other members of Council to direct the “Integrity Commissioners” to investigate citizens who are critical of Council.
“When I saw the post, I was quite alarmed by it”, Wilson stated. “I wrote to the Mayor when I got up in the morning and I expressed my alarm. That I deemed it to be a threatening gesture or words, and that I registered my opposition in no uncertain terms”.
“As the Head of Council I asked him to consider, I’d have to find my wording of the ask”, Wilson continued. “When that kind of behaviour is practised, it diminishes the institution of Council and in my opinion the City government as whole. It is not in keeping with how I think elected individuals should serve.”
At this point, the City’s livestream of the meeting ended.
The Ombudsman’s report states a VPN disconnection resulting from issue with the staff WebEx host’s home internet connection caused the livestream to end.
As the meeting continued in WebEx, with the citizen committee members aware the stream had ended, the open meeting requirement was violated.
“The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Advisory Committee for the City of Hamilton contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, on October 20, 2020 when it held a portion of a meeting that the public was unable to attend due to technical issues. While the meeting was closed inadvertently, the committee was aware that the livestream had failed and chose to continue the meeting anyways”, the Ombudsman report states.
The City of Hamilton updated its procedures to prevent further VPN disconnections of public meetings, and to direct all committee chairs to stop meetings in the event livestreaming is not working.
City Hall declined to release the full recording of the meeting.


text:
TPR Files Complaint to Ombuds After City Hall Holds Closed Meeting on Tax Adjustments – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 27, 2021
The following complaint was filed to the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman today by The Public Record after City Manager’s Office hide a improperly closed meeting to deal with tax adjustments.
Some of the adjustment files raise questions about City Hall administration, and City Hall is attempting to hide the files to avoid those questions.
The following is the complaint letter as filed.
On April 27, 2021, the Corporation of the City of Hamilton held an improperly closed meeting. This letter serves as the formal complaint to the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman as the closed meeting investigator for the municipality.
The Council of the City of Hamilton (the ‘City’) delegated its responsibilities under Section 357 of the Municipal Act (the ‘Act’) to staff of the City.
Section 357(5) of the Act states that Council shall meet “On or before September 30 of the year following the year in respect of which the application is made, Council shall, (a) hold a meeting at which the applicants may make representations to council; (b) notify the applicants of the meeting by mail sent at least 14 days before the meeting; and (c) make its decision”.
The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman is engaged as “Under the Municipal Act, all meetings of council, local boards, and committees of council must be open to the public, unless they fall within prescribed exceptions”.
In addition to the clear language Section 357 of the Act, the Municipal Act Appeals (the ‘Committee’ for ease of reference) operates as a Local Board for the purposes of the Municipal Act.
The four requirements for this to be a Local Board are met:
1) It is carrying on the affairs of the municipality
2) Its authority is directly from Council
3) It is a creation of Council; and
4) It operates with autonomy.
The Committee is carrying on the affairs of the City of Hamilton as per Section 357 of the Municipal Act and its related sections.
The authority of the Committee is granted by City of Hamilton By-Law 19-098 (the ‘Bylaw’). [https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/2019-05-13/19-098.pdf] This same Bylaw creates the Committee.
The Bylaw delegates Council’s Municipal Act duties and authority to multiple staff members “with Respect to the Adjustment of Taxes and Payments In lieu of Taxes”.
The Bylaw allows for these staff members to transfer this delegated authority without restriction.
The Committee operates with autonomy. The Bylaw states the City of Hamilton Treasurer shall provide an annual report of their exercise of delegated authority. There is no review by Council of decisions, and the Committee is free to operate with full autonomy.
As a Local Board of the City, the Committee is bound by the City’s Procedural Bylaw (21-021) which requires the release of full agendas five days prior to the meeting. (Section 12.1) [https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/2021-02-25/21-021.pdf]
The agenda was not released in its entirety. The applications being considered by the Committee have not been made public, and requests for them have been denied contrary to the Procedural Bylaw.
This Committee was scheduled to meet on April 27, 2021 at 9:30am.
In February 2021, I expressed to the City of Hamilton that these public meetings should be streamed as per the Municipal Act’s COVID provisions. At the time, the City provided me a WebEx access code and did not stream the meeting.
Leading up to the April 27 meeting, the City of Hamilton stated it would stream the meeting to YouTube. I planned to watch the meeting. [See my tweet here: https://twitter.com/JoeyColeman/status/1385712047984414727/photo/1]
This resolved my concerns regarding the open meeting requirement that were expressed in February 2021.
During the afternoon of April 26, the City of Hamilton declared the meeting would be held in-person at City Hall and would no longer be streamed. There was a statement about registering to participate, with a registration deadline of noon on April 26 – the deadline passed prior to this announcement. [https://twitter.com/JoeyColeman/status/1386781881002254347/photo/1]
On the morning of April 27, the City of Hamilton returned the meeting to being by video conference and stated it would livestream to YouTube. The City created a YouTube livestream for the meeting. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPwybVFm1U]
I tuned in to watch the meeting. I checked prior to 9:30am to see if the full agenda – including the applications being considered – was made public. The agenda was not posted.
The lack of a full agenda is the second part of the complaint.
Sometime between 9:28am and 9:58am, the City of Hamilton changed the agenda again to state it would not be streaming the meeting for the public.
The City website now states “Meet as per their delegated authority – Meetings are not livestreamed”.
This complaint seeks a declaration that this meeting was improperly closed to the public, and a recommendation (due to the Ombudsman lacking authority to issue orders) that the City of Hamilton release the full agenda documentation to the public.
Without releasing the full agenda documentation, the closed meeting continues. Thus, it is necessary to recommend the release of this public information.


text:
Valery Properties Proposes 16-Storey Multiple Bedroom Apartment Building in East Hamilton – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 6, 2021
Valery Properties is seeking to build a new 16-storey apartment building at the rear of the apartment building complexes at 851 Lawrence Road in East Hamilton. The new building, if approved, will join five other apartment buildings between Lawrence Road and King Street East bordered by Cochrane Road in the Rosedale neighbourhood.
The apartment buildings in the area were built during the 1970s.
851 Lawrence Road is the site of an existing 10-storey apartment building, the new build will replace parking lot and green space which exists between the building and Lawrence Road.
126 units are proposed in the building, all family units of two or three bedrooms with the exception of two 1-bedroom units on the top floors.
Hamilton’s housing shortage is particularly acute for two and three bedroom apartment units in the rental market. Cities across the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area are grappling to
At the ground level, Valery Properties proposes to have 10 two-storey stacked townhouse dwelling as part of the building. 226 parking spots will be contained within the building behind the townhouse units.
Council approval is required for the development. The current site-specific zoning (Bylaw 70-150) for the property, passed 50-years ago, needs to be amended.
City of Hamilton staff are reviewing the preliminary proposal, with early staff comments regarding the plan being positive.
The developer is in the earliest stages of the development process. The project is likely to be revised following staff comments.
After the initial stage, public consultation will occur. Dates for Council consideration are not set.


text:
$10,000 Commercial Tax Rebate an Intimate Privacy Matter: City Hall – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 5, 2021
The City of Hamilton is giving the owners of University Plaza a $10,000 tax rebate for 2018 related to renovations at the plaza.
Asked for the City documents supporting the rebate, City of Hamilton Director of Communications Matthew Grant said the City could not provide them, claiming doing so may violate the privacy of University Plaza.
The decision to grant the rebate under Sections 357 and 358 of the Ontario Municipal Act is a public process under both the Municipal Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
Asked to provide the reasoning for stating these documents were exempt under these acts, Grant did not answer the question.
Section 9 of the SPPA states the documents considered and reasoning of the City are public documents. “In a written hearing, members of the public are entitled to reasonable access to the documents submitted, unless the tribunal is of the opinion that clause (1) (a) or (b) applies”.
Documents can be withheld by the City of Hamilton if “matters involving public security may be disclosed” or “intimate financial or personal matters or other matters may be disclosed at the hearing of such a nature, having regard to the circumstances, that the desirability of avoiding disclosure thereof in the interests of any person affected or in the public interest outweighs the desirability of adhering to the principle that hearings be open to the public”.
Asked why the City of Hamilton believes these exceptions apply, Grant responded “I’m actually not the decision maker but rather the person in charge of media relations handling this inquiry … we would be happy to help you get the information you seek. If you have specific questions, I can likely get the information for you in short order. If you are looking for third-party information that contains personal information, we are obligated to review that material and ensure we are not releasing personal information. As I’ve mentioned, Joey. We are happy to help you with your reporting in any way we can. We have no intention of denying you information that you are entitled to. We just have to be diligent that we don’t provide you somebody’s personal information that you are not entitled to.”
Asked who the decision makers are, Grant state the power is delegated to staff by Council.
TPR asked how the renovation of a commercial plaza could be an “intimate financial or personal matters or other matters may be disclosed at the hearing of such a nature, having regard to the circumstances, that the desirability of avoiding disclosure thereof in the interests of any person affected or in the public interest outweighs the desirability of adhering to the principle that hearings be open to the public”.
Grant did not answer the question, instead stating the City is committed to transparency and could not provide an answer due to the need to conduct a privacy review of the matter.
Metroland’s Dundas Star also attempted to get the City to explain. The City did not provide answers to them either but did state that the appeal “was submitted under the reason of repairs (or) renovations preventing normal use of part of the property for at least 90 days and the recommended property tax reduction of $10,608.88 pertains to the 2018 tax year”.
Grant repeatedly deflected questions requesting the reasoning. He requested The Public Record not state the City declined to provide information.
“I’d really appreciate you not attributing information to myself or the City that we didn’t provide to you. I’m happy to be quoted directly in your pieces, and direct quotes are my preference to ensure accuracy”.
Grant continued “To be clear, I have not told you that you can’t get the information you seek. I’m just telling what the process is to get it. If your deadline is sooner than the process of receiving the documents would allow, I’m happy to do everything in my power to ensure any specific questions you have are answered”.
Asked to explain how this complies with the SPPA requirement “members of the public are entitled to reasonable access to the documents submitted”, Grant responded “You have access to the documents. The decision maker on which documents are required to go through FOI and which are not are the responsibility of the Clerk”.
“We are happy to help you in your reporting. Nobody has denied you any information. If you have specific questions, I’d be happy to answer them”, Grant wrote.
Both the Municipal Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act state hearings are open to the public. The City of Hamilton closed this meeting to the public, without specifying why.
The Municipal Act Section 357 Tax Appeal body met on April 27, there was no livestream. The City of Hamilton stated in the lead up to April 27 that it would – as required by law – stream the meeting on the City’s YouTube page.
Late in the afternoon on April 26, the City announced the meeting would not be streamed as it was being held in-person at City Hall the next morning. The City stated people could now register to watch the meeting via a closed stream, but they had to have registered prior to noon. The deadline passed prior to this announced.
TPR noted holding an in-person meeting is contrary to the provincial Stay-at-Home COVID order.
The City reversed this decision, and on the morning of April 27 indicated they would obey the transparency requirements and stream the meeting. A YouTube stream was posted on the City’s YouTube page.
The City never streamed the meeting.
The Municipal Act Tax Appeals body decided upon over $40,000 in tax rebates. It is unknown how many they approved, why they approved them, or who the members of the Tax Appeals body are.
$18,000 of these tax rebates related to “gross or manifest error” by staff. “Gross or manifest error” is a technical term, no details were provided to explain.
In a chain dozens of emails long, TPR asked for information.
In response, Grant returned to his speaking points repeatedly. “We are happy to help you in your reporting. Nobody has denied you any information. If you have specific questions, I’d be happy to answer them”.
As a point of reference, this is what a Section 357 decision should look like in a commercial matter.
The City of Hamilton already delegates all Section 357 appeals involving intimate person matters to the Ontario Assessment Review Board.  The ARB tax forgiveness decisions for the City of Hamilton are public and can be read in their entirety on CanLII.
The City of Hamilton does not public commercial tax rebate decisions, The City has not explained why it differs from the ARB in this regard.
After more than a week, we still don’t know anything more. As Grant is fond of writing to end his non-answer answers, “Is there other information you are looking for specifically?”


text:
City Report Says It is Time to Convert to Electric Vehicles – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 31, 2021
The City of Hamilton’s operations fleet of 1,395 vehicles use 3.7-million litres of fuel and generate 9,400 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year.
The City’s new Green Fleet Strategy, being presented to Council Monday, says the City needs to convert to electronic vehicles to respond to the climate change emergency. In the interim, the City should adopt biodiesel and other alternative fuels to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
City staff recommend purchasing 89 light duty electric vehicles over the next four years, and expanding the number of charging stations in City fleet yards to prepare for phasing-in of electric vehicles.
The strategy states the City should attempt to purchase electric vehicles whenever feasible during routine fleet renewal during the next eight years.
Switching to electric battery vehicles will decrease 3,000 metric tonnes of emissions if the City converts its only passenger vehicles [HSR buses are a separate fleet], 3,800 metric tonnes if pickups are also converted. Once better battery powered options become available for the medium and heavy-duty vehicles (such as garbage trucks and plows), conversion will decrease emissions by 8,500 metric tonnes.
Fuel-savings, and emission reductions, can be achieved by decreasing the weight of the City’s heavy vehicles by replacing steel trailers and dump boxes with aluminum models.
Installing low-rolling resistance tires to achieve a 5% reduction in rolling resistance “would improve fuel economy by approximately 1.5% for light and heavy-duty vehicles”.
“In Class 8 trucks, approximately one-third of fuel efficiency comes from the rolling resistance of the tire. The opportunity for fuel savings from low rolling resistance tires in these and other vehicle applications is substantial”, the report states.
Many municipalities are already using biodiesel blends, the Green Fleet Strategy says the City can reduce it fleet greenhouse gas emissions by 10-12% by using a 20% biofuel blend during summer months and a 5% blend during the winter with “no cost increase”.
The report notes the City of Kelowna has been using biofuels for 15 years, and 20% of their fleet uses 100% biofuel.
Electric vehicles cost more to purchase and less to operate. There are also federal incentive programs to offset the cost of installing electric charging stations.
In addition to charging stations, the City’s yards will need backup generator systems to ensure the City can continue to operate its fleet during an emergency. (During the 2003 blackout, private fueling trucks were diverted to Hamilton Airport where they were placed on standby for supplying essential services if power was not restored)
The initial 89 vehicle purchase will be done using reserve funds, staff will need to come forth before the 2022 budget process with detailed costing for ongoing fleet replacement and renewal.


text:
Council Has to Accept Yes for an Answer: A Prediction on the LRT Vote – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 13, 2021
Will Hamilton City Council accept yes for an answer now that the Provincial and Federal governments have confirmed they will pay 100% of the capital costs to build Hamilton’s first LRT line?
Yes. My prediction, it will be a 12-4 or 13-3 vote.
Hamilton City Councillors have been all over the map on LRT for the past decade, with career councillors voting for the project one week, and then against the next.
Councillors who only weeks ago opposed LRT will do the political math and plot a path to supporting the upcoming operating agreement.
How does Council get to 12 votes in favour?
Let us start with the firmly opposed who will be extremely performative during the next few weeks.
Ward 5 Councillor Chad Collins is looking at the inconvenience/disruption of LRT construction knowing that constituents who vote for him will be most impacted.
King Street’s current configuration as an urban highway is very quick for traversing by car.
It can be as short as twenty minutes to drive from Centennial Parkway to Dundurn Street. LRT means using the highways as a ring-road and slightly longer driving times (which is how it works in major urban centres).
Collins is betting (correctly) LRT will annoy these voters.  Ward 5 residents living in the high-density apartments along Queenston Road and in Riverdale will benefit immensely from LRT. Apartment dwellings vote in smaller numbers. Collins is a vote counter.
Ward 15 Councillor Judi Partridge is out to convince residents of Ward 15 that the problems of transit and infrastructure in Waterdown are caused by people living in Old Hamilton instead of the result of decisions she has made during the past 11 years.
Partridge uses division to cover for her lack of vision.
Ward 4 Councillor Sam Merulla has his full Council pension awaiting him at the end of 2022, as he often loves to brag.
Merulla just wants attention and opposing LRT will give him it. He has yet to meet a microphone he was not immediately in love with.
There are several Councillors who have voted both in favour and against the Light Rail Transit project at various points over the past decade.
Of this group, it is possible one may vote opposed. None of them want LRT to fail.
Being on the Council that screws everything up is a hard sell come re-election time in October 2022.
Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson loves his “off-ramps” almost as much as he loves referencing seniors. The Seniors Advisory Committee supports LRT, and with LiUNA now running the political drive to get the LRT operating agreement approved by Council, Jackson will vote in favour.
Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls entered politics because she wants to help people, whereas too many people run for Hamilton City Council seeking a pay-cheque, pension, and power.
On LRT, she listened to people close to MPP Donna Skelly. With the Ontario PC government now firmly in support of LRT, Skelly’s influence is gone.
Behind the scenes, Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson has become a political friend for Pauls, and this relationship will help move Pauls to a yes vote.
Pauls performs poorly in the limelight of politics. Expect her to deliver an awkward speech about how difficult an issue this is.
Now, if Mayor Fred Eisenberger targets Pauls with negative messaging, she may remain a no vote.
Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark will argue that his recent opposition was that the original project was shortened, and Hamilton was being short changed.
Clark, who opportunistically changed his position numerous times, is a former Ontario Minister of Transportation and knows that if Hamilton Council turns down yes for an answer [Hamilton Council originally asked for the B-Line LRT], that Hamilton will never see major project funding again.
Clark is a frequent HSR rider, including during the pandemic.
Expect him to push HSR route changes and improvements for implementation in June 2022. He needs to show his resident there are transit investments which benefit Upper Stoney Creek.
Ward 11 Councillor Brenda Johnson will likely come on-board and tie the LRT to holding the line on urban boundary expansion.
Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson was firmly in favour of LRT, but recently expressed unease with City Council being excluded from the negotiations which landed the deal between the provincial and federal governments. His baseline for a decision has been 100 percent capital funding, which this deal delivers.
Ward 14 Councillor Terry Whitehead is likely to return for the final vote. Whitehead wants to run for the federal Liberal Party and this is a priority for the Liberal government. Expect him to be very disciplined, reading from speaking notes for this debate.
Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson is a regular HSR rider.  She has previously supported LRT as phase one of rapid transit in Hamilton. She moved to opposition in recent years.
Expect Pearson’s focus to turn to mitigating the inconvenience of construction for Stoney Creek residents, and expanding HSR service into the high-density developments along each side of the QEW.
Ward 13 Councillor Arlene VanderBeek represents a Ward with two distinct communities.
Urban Dundas contains a large constituency of support for LRT.
In the Greensville / Flamborough portion of the ward, the project does not seem to have as much support.
Main Street West is a bottleneck in front of McMaster, and traffic mitigation will be a significant challenge during construction.
VanderBeek will seek firm commitments and plans to improve HSR service for June 2022 to show direct benefit in Dundas proper.
There is not much to add regarding the votes of Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson, Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr, Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann, and Ward 8 Councillor John-Paul Danko.
Their focus will now be upon community benefits, and ensuring the project is well managed.
Mayor Fred Eisenberger intends to brand himself as the fearless leader who delivered LRT.
The political work is complete, the Council vote is a formality.
Yes, I know this is Hamilton City Council. There will be much noise in the coming weeks, a marathon Council meeting with lots of hype, and a vote at some awful hour of the late night or early morning.
Contracts will be signed, highly visible preliminary work will begin, eventually LRT trains will run down King Street.
Much as the current youth of Hamilton must listen to stories of the great Red Hill debate, the next generation of Hamiltonians will have to put up with us talking about the LRT debate.
Until then, get out the popcorn cause this will be show which only Hamilton politics can provide.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this column incorrectly stated Pearson was supportive of LRT during this term. That was incorrect, she moved to opposition. The section has been corrected to reflect this.


text:
Hamilton City Clerk: Farmers Market Board Not an Arm of the City under MFIPPA – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 4, 2021
Hamilton City Clerk Andrea Holland states the Hamilton Farmers’ Market Board of Directors is not a City of Hamilton body.
This despite the Market using a City of Hamilton facility, Market staff being City of Hamilton staff who use City of Hamilton emails, the Market using the City of Hamilton’s bank account, Market meetings being conducting using the City of Hamilton’s WebEx platform, and its website and hosting being owned by the City of Hamilton.
Holland states the City of Hamilton has no involvement with the Market’s record retention. Holland has not explained how the Market is not part of the City of Hamilton.
The Public Record has been trying for weeks to get a copy of video the Market Board meeting on April 17, 2021.
The meeting was recorded by the City of Hamilton using its WebEx platform by a City of Hamilton staff member.
The Market Board meetings are recording by the City of Hamilton using its WebEx account provided by the City Manager’s Office.
Market managing director Cyrus Tehrani – who is an employee of the City of Hamilton as Chief Digital Officer in the City Manager’s Office and in that role is responsible for open government standards at the City of Hamilton – has not responded to requests for the Market video.
The Hamilton Farmers’ Market is funded by the City of Hamilton, the Board is appointed by the City of Hamilton Council, all Market staff are City of Hamilton employees, vendors pay rent to the Corporation of the City of Hamilton, and the City Council makes all decisions regarding the finances of the Market.
Holland states the request for public records to the City of Hamilton is misplaced, and that requests should be filed to the Market directly.
Asked for the contact information for the person to address the request, Holland stated she does not know. Holland writes “I see from their website, that there is a contact form that you can fill out … I trust this is the information you are seeking”.
The contact information for the Hamilton Farmers Market website, according to the WHOIS record for the Market, is webmaster@hamilton.ca, the domain is owned by the City of Hamilton, and is hosted on the City of Hamilton’s servers.
Attempts to reach info@hamiltonfarmersmarket.ca and webmaster@hamiltonfarmersmarket.ca both received bounce-backs from mail.hamilton.ca stating these are not valid email addresses.
The Public Record is awaiting response from City Councillor Esther Pauls, who is a member of the Market Board, on how to contact the Market directly without using the City of Hamilton emails issued to the Market.
The Public Record is appealing to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and seeking a ruling that the Hamilton Farmers’ Market is in fact tied to the City of Hamilton.


text:
Hamilton’s New Transit Director is London Ontario’s School Bus CAO – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 17, 2021
Hamilton is hiring London Ontario’s school bus CAO as City’s new Transit Director with a mandate to implement the largest-ever overhaul of Hamilton’s transit system and to eventually begin LRT operations along the B-Line.
Maureen Cosyn Heath is currently the CAO of Southwestern Ontario Student Transportation Services, transportation consortium for the London District Catholic School Board and the Thames Valley District School Board. SOSTS oversees school busing for approximately 50,000 students with an annual budget of approximately $68-million.
Dan McKinnon, Hamilton General Manager of Public Works, writes in a statement “after having interviewed a number of extraordinary candidates … Maureen Cosyn Heath will be joining the City as the new Director of the Hamilton Street Railway”.
Cosyn Heath has been CAO of the SOSTS since 2008, prior to this, she was a manager with London Transit. McKinnon’s statement states she “is a graduate of Windsor University and holds a Masters of Public Administration from the University of Western Ontario”.
She begins on June 21, replacing Debbie Dalle Vadove who is retiring.
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 107 President Eric Tuck says HSR employees are looking forward to meeting the new Director and working with her to improve the transit system.


text:
Library Updates Cash-Handling Policy, Revealing City Hall “Secrets” in the process. – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 26, 2021
Eight years ago, a “trusted” City Hall finance staff member was terminated, the Hamilton Police called in to investigate, and a veil of secrecy dropped at City Hall. We know the allegations involved siphoning cash from the Hamilton Farmers’ Market as part of a $1-million fraud against the City.
The siphoning is believed to have begun in 2005, and the City ignored tips from vendors in the Market as early as 2009 about discrepancies in billing and payments. Eventually, the person was caught. How or why, we will never know – it is yet another City Hall secret.
Following this, City cash-handling policies were updated in closed session and never made public citing civic security. The updated policy is available to those with access to City cash, but not the public.
The police investigation into the 2005 to 2015 fraud ended without charges. City Hall denied freedom of information requests, and police never announced any charges. The employee was fired by the City.
All this indicates the serious deficiencies in City of Hamilton policies which enabled the fraud meant a criminal prosecution be unfruitful.
Which brings us to the Hamilton Public Library’s posting its updated cash handling policy last week. The HPL policy changes include that safe combinations should be changed “seasonally for outdoor facilities (e.g. outdoor pools, arenas, golf courses, etc)”. Seems like a carbon-copy of a policy from elsewhere, likely City Hall.
Other changes include background checks are now required of all cash handlers, surplus reconciliations at least quarterly, and better document keeping – including triplicate records when creating handwritten records.
The HPL long ago implemented computerized records (something the City of Hamilton did not do prior to the fraud being caught), and thus not vulnerable to the unsophisticated fraud which occurred at the Farmers’ Market.


text:
BRIEF: City Selling Alleyway at 315B Aberdeen as Final Step of Implement LPAT Settlement – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 24, 2021
The City of Hamilton is selling the public unassumed alleyway at 315B Aberdeen Avenue, Council will approve the sale during their July meeting cycle.
The sale follows a neighbourhood settlement at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which TPR reported on in January.


text:
BRIEF: Hamilton Police Create Full-Time Two- Spirit and LGBTQIA+ Liaison Officer – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 24, 2021
Hamilton Police failed to prevent and failed to effectively respond to a violent attack upon the Hamilton Pride Festival in 2019, one of the many failings found in an independent report was that HPS had no coordination with the diverse communities organizing Pride.
A year after the report, HPS announced this week that Sergeant Rebecca Moran will now be the full-time Two- Spirit and LGBTQIA+ Liaison Officer. Sgt. Moran had been the liaison officer in addition to regular duties.


text:
BRIEF: West Harbour Cost Overruns Continue – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 21, 2021
The Hamilton West Harbour budget overruns continue with the project is now $1.6-million over its $14.2-million budget.
Included in this figure is the $3-million given to The Hamilton Waterfront Trust – a City of Hamilton agency structured to avoid Municipal Act transparency laws and to allow former City of Hamilton staff to collect both a Trust salary and their City Hall pensions at the same time – in “compensation” for the City’s plan to sell the Discovery Centre which the Trust was losing money operating.
The $3-million is in addition to the 10% “management fee” being given to the Hamilton Waterfront Trust on all City infrastructure spending in the West Harbour.
Over at Bayfront Park, the new Parks North Yard project is significantly over budget as well. Instead of the $4.1-million budget, the cost has now reached over $4.7-million. No explanation is provided in the budget lines report.


text:
BRIEF: Organic Waste Facility Sold, SusGlobal says they plan to add R&D to site at 520 Nash Road North. – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 21, 2021
In a press release, SusGlobal Energy Corp. states they purchased a a 40,535 square foot facility on 3.26 acres at 520 Nash Road with existing permissions to operate a organic waste processing plant. They plan to make liquid fertilizer products at the plant. They are seeking to expand the site to include research & development along with offices.


text:
City Allocates $3.3-Million in HSR Transit “Quick Win” Funds to “CF Limeridge Master Plan redevelopment” – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 21, 2021
The City of Hamilton and Lime Ridge Mall are working on something big. The City is stockpiling funds to support the “CF Limeridge Master Plan redevelopment” starting with $3.3-million in Metrolinx “Quick Wins” money being parked to support.
The funds date from 2008 when Metrolinx gave the Hamilton Street Railway nearly $30-million in funding to make immediate improvements for HSR riders.
In 2013, $12-million of this fund was placed in a new budget line to be spent on new bus shelters, the Mohawk College Transit the Mountain Transit Centre Park-and-Ride, cover the $565,000 cost of the dot matrix displays at the MacNab Transit Terminal, and Bike Share capital costs.
Now, nearly 13 years after receiving the Quick Wins money, the City of Hamilton still has $3.3-million of the money to put into a Lime Ridge Mall budget line.
The City does not disclose what the planned redevelopment will entail, or timelines.
CF Lime Ridge Mall submitted a conceptual plan for a restaurant district to City Hall in 2018. That plan did not proceed.
Hamilton City Council holds more closed meeting than any other Ontario municipality, including more illegal closed meetings than any other municipality.
The long-awaited and overdue transit priority signal project on Upper James Street no longer qualifies for the federal Public Transit Infrastructure Fund due to delays.
The PTIF funding, provided to Hamilton in March 2017, came with timelines for ensuring projects benefited transit riders and the money was properly spent. The City of Hamilton failed to complete this project which was approved by Council in December 2017.
A $1.5-million budget line is being removed from the City’s financial lines as a result. Hamilton City Hall is not particularly transparent, thus we do not know anything more than the budget line information.
Last year, Council passed $550,000 for a transportation study on Upper James.
(There are no budget lines I could find to install transit priority signals now that the PTIF funds are not available.)
In the budget lines, the HSR (Re)envision exercise is “Currently in Network design stage. PTIF extended to July 31, 2021”.
This means the network’s design should be complete by the end of next month.
No timelines have yet been provide for the public unveil of the draft.
There is a new budget line for renaming the MacNab Transit Terminal, $37,000.
Will the MacNab terminal survive the envisioning of the HSR to integrate into the LRT?
It makes no sense to have four different buses operating from Downtown to the Mohawk Transit Terminal, expect a single downtown to college bus in the near future.
Similarly, the $3.3-million for the Lime Ridge Mall redevelopment indictates a plan to converge buses in the central Mountain instead of having every 20-numbered “Upper” bus run to MacNab street.


text:
COLEMAN’S NOTES: Eisenberger, Downtown Condos, Conflict of Interest, and LRT – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 1, 2021
Mayor Fred Eisenberger owns a condo unit at 181 James Street North. This does not put him into a conflict of interest regarding Hamilton’s proposed light rail transit project.
Eisenberger publicly shared he purchased a condo in the building during numerous Council meetings. The Mayor continues to reside in his primary residence in East Hamilton near the Red Hill Valley.
John Best of the Bay Observer is trying to advance the argument that Eisenberger’s land holdings put him in a conflict of interest and he should recuse himself from voting on the LRT.
Best is a strong opponent of Light Rail Transit and was the Executive Director of the Southern Ontario Gateway Council from 2005 to 2017 while also publishing The Bay Observer. The Gateway Council brings together aviation, trucking, railway, and government on transportation and logistics issues.
Members of municipal councils are not in a conflict of interest to vote upon the LRT, even if they own property along the line.
In Doug Craig v. Her Majestry the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2013 ONSC 5349, the Ontario Superior Court ruled Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig could participate in discussion and votes regarding LRT because his interest was “so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence” his decisions.
Mayor Craig’s son owned a residential property across the street from the main transit terminal in Cambridge. Under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the Mayor’s son owning property creates a potential conflict of interest. Mayor Craig sought a declaration by the Court that the interest was insignificant.
In Waterloo region, nearly 40% of the councillors declared conflicts and recused themselves from voting on the LRT.
During Waterloo’s LRT debate, “more than 40% of the relevant councillors declared conflicts and were unable to vote on this important issue” wrote municipal law lawyer Eric Davis in a April 2012 brief regarding the MCIA and LRT.
The reasons declared ranged “from owning property near the proposed rail line to being an employee of one of the local universities which might benefit from the creation of a light rail transit system what would be accessible on or near campus”.
In the Waterloo declarations, many experts were quoted at the time stating these were not conflicts under the MCIA. The Craig case ruling effectively settled the matter.
When does property ownership become a conflict? As is always the case with the MCIA, it depends.
Would Eisenberger owning multiple units at 181 James Street North trigger a conflict? No, the difference LRT will make to value of this specific property is insignificant – its value is driven by proximity to GO Stations and being in the heart of a vibrant walkable district.
If the properties were, say across from Eastgate Square, this would be a different discussion. Even then, a small holding is unlikely to raise to being an conflict.
The practical rule for municipal politicians regarding potential conflicts is to get clearance from their local Integrity Commissioner.
CORRECTIVE NOTE: The first version of this post took at face-value Best’s statement that his registry search found Eisenberger owns three units. The sections discussing this have been removed as they are not relevant.
On Twitter, Matt Van Huizen explains that a single condo unit can have three ownership titles with one each for the unit, storage, and parking space.


text:
Council Approves 2024 Canadian Open, Four Councillors Vote Against – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 24, 2021
Hamilton City Council voted 11-4 on Wednesday to approve hosting the 2024 Canadian Open at the Hamilton Golf and Country Club. Hamilton last hosted the Canadian Open in 2019.
The event passed in a 11-4 vote, with Councillors John-Paul Danko, Brenda Johnson, Nrinder Nann, and Maureen Wilson opposed.
During a closed session meeting on November 25, 2020, Council approved hosting the 2023 Canadian Open. Due to COVID cancellations, Hamilton was asked to host the 2024 event.
Council voted 8-5 in November to disclose the cost of hosting the event upon signing the hosting contract. It is not known when this disclosure will occur.
The original hosting motion for 2023 passed in a 12-1 vote. Councillor Maureen Wilson was the only vote again.
On the transparency motion, Councillors Jason Farr, Lloyd Ferguson, Tom Jackson, Maria Pearson, and Mayor Fred Eisenberger voted against allowing the public to know how much is being spent on the event.
The motion to be transparent was moved by Councillor Brad Clark and seconded by John-Paul Danko.


text:
Council Committee Recommends Making Video “Hybrid” Meetings Permanent – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 25, 2021
If approved by Council in two weeks, video conferencing will supercede in-person meetings after COVID
Hamilton city councillors on the Governance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that all future City Council meetings be conducted in a “hybrid” video format to enable members of Council to attend meetings from anywhere, for any reason.
The plan comes with a $124,000 per year additional cost, and an immediate $60,000 capital cost to install high-end tablets in the Council Chamber for any member of Council who wishes to participate in the video meetings while seated in the Council Chamber. Councillors will speak into the tablets during meetings instead of directly to each other in the Council Chamber as in the past.
The City will continue streaming meetings to the internet using its present low-definition video and lower quality audio systems instead of the high-quality streaming system built into WebEx software.
Councils will vote into web-based software instead of using the Council Chamber voting system.
To comply with the Municipal Act, members of the public will be allowed to delegate by video to committee level meetings.
“I personally think it’s it’s important for Council and standing committees to to convene around the horseshoe. However, I’m thinking about ways and means we could perhaps make sitting as an elected representative, more accessible”, says Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson. “If you are, for example, a single parent, and think we need to consider whether the ability to participate virtually, when necessary, could assist us in trying to support people front running for public office and setting as public representatives. I think we all benefit when we have a council that is representative of the of the community”.
The discussion on the change was brief. Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark and Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson both spoke briefly in support.
Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson did not attend the video meeting, and Ward 14 Councillor Terry Whitehead is on Council approved leave.
The recommendation will go to full Council on July 5.


text:
Hamilton Bike Share May Get More Bikes, if Council Approves Shipping from Portland – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 30, 2021
Hamilton Bike Share may get more bicycles to add to the fleet if City Council approves spending $50,000 to ship the bicycles from Portland.
The bikes were used by Portland’s bike share system before an upgrade last year when Portland switched providers and replaced their entire fleet with electric-assist bicycles.
Over the years, Hamilton Bike Share has ordered 900 bicycles, some of which are no longer in the fleet.
The hope is to get 600 of the used bicycles from Portland, and add the best of them to the Hamilton fleet.
“It is a great opportunity for enhancing the system and reducing waste by collaborating with another city,” says Hamilton Bike Share Inc Executive Director Chelsea Cox.
The bikes will need inspection, repairs, and it is expected that some of the bikes will not be fit to return to service. Working parts from those bikes will be used to repair other bikes.
Cox says the “new controllers are on order for the fleet (900 total), so that would cap the maximum number of in-service bikes at this time”.
The expanded fleet will enable Bike Share to provide a better service.
At present, the service area is larger than what is recommended as a best practice for a fleet of the present sizes. During large events, such as Canada Day fireworks at the Bayfront or the Arkells concerts at the civic stadium, the fleet ends up fully used, with large pockets of the city having no bikes remaining in the area.
Based on the timelines for shipping, modification, and repainting, the bicycles will likely enter service in spring 2022.
“Hamilton Bike Share is enthusiastic about growing the service area as we’re able. We currently serve over 25 square kilometers of the city, and plan to expand the service as we’re able to gain the equipment and funding necessary for such growth”, says Cox. “Together with the City, we continue to explore grants, partnerships, and other opportunities to set the operations up for long-term sustainability and growth.”
While Hamilton Bike Share has expressed a desire to expand the service area, an expansion is dependent upon finding new sources of operating funds. The improved density of bikes in the existing area should help to improve membership and decrease the cost of re-balancing the system after events.
Hamilton’s bike share is now operated by Hamilton Bike Share Inc, which is a non-profit corporation.
The bicycles are owned by the City of Hamilton, with the non-profit operator responsible for maintenance, repair, and operations.
Council will decide upon this proposal next week.


text:
Hamilton-born Catherine McKenna Not Seeking Re-election to Parliament: Some Hamilton Thoughts – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 28, 2021
Catherine McKenna is not seeking re-election to Parliament.
At a press conference this morning, she said she plans to spend more time with her children, and will keep working to address climate change.
“When I first asked the people of our community, our awesome community of Ottawa Center to support me, my kids were four, six, and eight.
Now my youngest is 12. He’s kind of really a teen. And my eldest is off to university in a year. I don’t have many years left with them at home. And I want to spend more time with them. They’re pretty awesome”, McKenna said.
I am hard pressed to think of another person made as much of an impact during five years in Parliament.
Speculation about what McKenna will do next reflects her proven abilities, there are plenty of options for her.
Born in Hamilton, McKenna is a champion for her hometown. Rare is a McKenna speech which does not reference her Hamilton roots.
Today was no exception.
“I got into politics because I wanted to help people. It kind of sounds corny and cliche, I know, but I’m still a girl from the Hammer at heart, and the Hamilton my parents raised me in. It taught me that your friends and neighbours matter as much as anyone you’ll ever meet.”
Most recently, working alongside Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas MP Filomena Tassi to secure the approval of an unprecedented deal for Hamilton’s Light Rail Transit project.
Her announcement today should not impact Hamilton’s LRT project. The funding is already approved by both the federal and provincial governments, and while Hamilton City Council still needs to formally sign-off on the Memorandum of Understanding in the next few weeks, the project is going to happen.
[Hamilton City Councillors who wish to oppose LRT know cancelling the project means Hamilton will not get any other infrastructure funding, and they will have to answer to voters for turning down funding which could end up in Waterloo instead.]
Beyond LRT, she’s ensured the Randle Reef containment project’s progress, and enabled municipalities to address climate change with numerous federal funding programs for infrastructure and efficiency improvements.
She loves the Great Lakes, “I’m looking forward to the summer. Lots of time with my kids and all the McKennas. Lots of swimming in the Great Lakes.”
McKenna’s speeches, both as Minister of Environment and Minister of Infrastructure, regularly discuss municipal initiatives to decrease carbon emissions and improve climate resiliency.
Having implemented carbon pricing as Canada’s national Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and implementing funding programs both as Minister of Environment and as Minister of Infrastructure, the real work on climate change now needs to be done at the local level – in cities by municipal governments, the broader public sector, and non-governmental non-profits.
McKenna’s record of achieving results, especially facing significant opposition, and, sadly, harassment and threats to her safety, means she will be sought after by many organizations.
Already, there is talk of McKenna as Mayor of Ottawa, and people want to draft her to the role. Asking if she was thinking about running to be Ottawa’s Mayor, she stated “I am not running in the election in the next mayoral election or ever. Although that’s definitive, that’s not even like possible.
But why not Hamilton? For a fleeting few moments last night, there was the opportunity to muse about McKenna running for mayor in her hometown. The headlines practically write themselves.
Cities are where climate change will be addressed, from the built environment to responding to disasters resulting from climate change.
What better place to address climate change than cities?
Where better for a person committed to addressining climate change to do so? Hamilton is in the centre of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. We are at the intersection of dense urban neighbourhoods, the tender fruit growing micro-climate of Ontario’s wine belt, the farmland of Southern Ontario, the growing urban centres of the Waterloo tri-cities, Guelph, Milton, and a quick train ride into Toronto.
We have it all.
The Mayor of Hamilton can be the leader among the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area mayors, they can leverage the brains of McMaster University, the applied experience and leadership at Mohawk College’s Centre for Climate Change Management.
Cities are where the action is, and McKenna can make Hamilton the centre of the cities in our region.
Anyway, this was a fun idea while it lasted.  We all know Hamilton needs leadership – maybe we can hope in a year that McKenna re-enters politics? Not likely, I know.
No matter what McKenna chooses to do next, she will make a positive difference in the fight to address climate change and its impacts.
Most importantly, she has inspired young women to plan to enter political office, and paved the way for them.


text:
Hamilton City Committee Member Participates in Video Meeting While Driving Home on the QEW – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 29, 2021
Hamilton Veteran’s Committee member Don Jackson stares into his smartphone camera, raises his hand, and confirms his attendance – moments later a highway bridge passes in the background of the driver’s side window of the truck.
Jackson is driving distracted.
The bridge in the background appears to be the Skyway Bridge. It appears Jackson is driving on the QEW Niagara bound.
City of Hamilton staff member Brydie Huffman, the coordinator of the meeting, confirms that Jackson raised his hand during roll call.
“Don raised his hand”, Huffman stated. This confirmed she was seeing his video feed.
For nearly 20 minutes, Jackson participates in the meeting, discussing granting honourariums to local cadet units for supporting Veteran’s commemoration events, how to conduct the City’s ceremony to make the anniversary of the Second World War Dieppe Raid on August 19 in light of continuing COVID restrictions, and some other business.
Eventually, Jackson decides to change his background to a virtual beach. He continues driving home, his seat belt visible.
At one point, the camera is jostled, and Jackson has to put it back in place in his video.
At another point, his mouth is moving indicating he is conversing with someone else – either in the vehicle or electronically.
Nobody on the committee says anything about his distracted driving. Often, they look with concern when something unusual appears to happen in his video feed.
Near the end of the meeting, Jackson briefly disconnects and returns.
He walks into his house, arriving just as the meeting is adjourned.
Committee Chair Mike Rehill called for a motion to adjourn, Jackson seconded it stating “Go figure, I just made it home”.
The Committee members chuckled, and the meeting ended.
Video of the meeting is no longer available on the City of Hamilton’s YouTube page. The Public Record captured the livestream, you can watch the meeting in its entirety on our YouTube page here.
Additional, 2:30pm, June 30
OPP Sergeant Kerry Schmidt of the Highway Safety Division says he was very disappointed upon seeing the video.
“It is not what we want to see”, Sgt. Schmidt says describing the behaviour as endangering everyone on the highway. He says the OPP is seeing a lot of distracted driving, especially at red lights and in stop-and-go traffic.
Schmidt says it is important for people to keep their focus on the roadway when driving. “If you need to focus, it is best not to divide your attention”.
“You are allowed to use a hands-free device”, Sgt. Schmidt says, for voice conversations. If you need to focus upon the device, he says should not be driving.
He says when participating in a meeting held by video conferencing, it is best to turn off your camera and not have the video display towards you while driving because your eyes are drawn to the movement of the video.
Sgt. Schmidt says there has been no complaint filed with the OPP in this instance.


text:
Hamilton City Hall to Announce by July 1st if September Special Events will be Allowed – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 8, 2021
Hamilton City Hall’s Emergency Operations Director Paul Johnson will decide in the next few weeks if September events will be allowed.
An announcement will be made by July 1, a City of Hamilton special events representative told Hamilton’s Business Improvement Areas during a meeting Tuesday morning.
During a later meeting on Tuesday, Councillors approved the Enrichment Grant allocations for 2021.
Councillors approved the usual budget allocations for events
Hamilton City Hall is providing full budget allocations for Hamilton’s many festivals and fairs, giving them the ability to plan for in-person events this fall if public health restrictions are lifted.
Events which are traditionally held in July and August, which have already cancelled, will be provided maintenance grants in place of their full allocation.
“For any cancelled events we provide for unavoidable costs, we do provide some cover and we cover some of the costs according under our guidelines, up to thirty percent”, said Mimi John, Grants & Strategic Partnerships Coordinator.
The maintenance grants assist with fixed annual costs the organizations incur and are designed to keep organizations viable to resume programming in 2022.
City staff emphasized in both meetings today that all groups will be treated as returning events if they existed in 2019, noting that cancellations due to COVID “will not be held against them”.
Officially, City Hall is only planning for one in-person event in 2021, the December Grey Cup championship at the civic stadium. City Hall is not revealing any of the planning, nor how much is budgeted for the event. “I can’t thank the staff enough for thinking outside-the-box and meet the community’s needs with these pandemic rules”, said Ward 11 Councillor Brenda Johnson who is Chair of the Grants Sub-Committee.
Festivals and events are being funded for in-person programming this fall, summer events are receiving budget allocations in the event they move into the fall.
None of the events are commenting about their plans.
Among the higher profile fall events, the Ancaster Fair has cancelled. Both Supercrawl and Rockton World Fair are yet to announce. [Last year, Supercrawl announced their 2020 cancellation on June 17.]
Presently, City Hall is planning for Remembrance Day to be held virtually. None of the usual planning at the Hamilton Veteran’s Committee occurred during the May meeting.
The annual Dieppe memorial service on August 19 will be broadcast by the City. The memorial will be closed to the public on this date.
City staff did not reveal how they plan to make the fall announcement. City Hall usually makes COVID announcements on Monday’s at 3:00pm.
June 28 is the Monday prior to Canada Day.


text:
Hamilton’s LRT: Death by a Thousand Tablings – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 14, 2021
Hamilton City Council is feeling the heat of having to do their job.
A different kind of heat is being felt on Parliament Hill – election fever.
Minority Parliaments have an average life span of two years, and this one is quickly approaching its two year life expectancy.
Once the election writ is dropped, the money for Hamilton’s LRT is gone, never to return. Full stop.
The agreements for the other Greater Toronto Area priority transit projects are being signed, and those shovels will be going into the ground. Toronto is happy to take yes for n answer.
Where does that leave Hamilton on the eve of yet another City Council debate on LRT?
Council’s phone lines are burning up.
On one side, nearly every Hamilton business leader is telling City Councillors to get on with the job at hand – after all it was Hamilton City Council that asked for LRT funding.
Hamilton expats working around both Queen’s Park and Parliament Hill are telling Council to take yes for an answer and stop being a national embarrassment.
Meanwhile, Hamilton East – Stoney Creek MP Bob Bratina is making phone calls telling them to stop the train and join his outrage over the federal government offering Hamilton 100% capital funding with no municipal contribution.
Hamilton Mountain MPP Donna Skelly is keeping quiet.
City Councillors are scrambling for a way out of doing their jobs as the politics of division instead of vision are catching up with them – they have to do their job and make a decision.
The LRT has served to be a great wedge issue for the past decade, why talk about sewers when you talk about something else. Now, higher levels of government have surprised everyone by saying yes to City Council’s demands for special treatment.
Division is meeting multiplication. LRT is an economic multiplier. It drives investment, drives density, and creates a tax-efficient corridor which serves as a tax positive area filling municipal coffers.
Waterloo is already planning to expand its LRT beyond the existing 19 kilometre line – which local taxpayers paid for a third of the capital cost. Their LRT is generating economic uplift.
Two weeks ago, Council tabled making a decision. Going into Wednesday’s vote, tabling seems the likely outcome again.
A vote to table is as same as voting no.
Hamilton that will lose the $3.4-billion if the federal election arrives before Council makes a decision.
It was forty years ago that Hamilton City Council turned down a fully-funded rapid transit system, that opportunity went to Vancouver and we all know it as the Skytrain today. We are unlikely to get a third chance.
Milton has a velodrome and York University has a track facility, all because Council would not get its act together during the Pan Am Games debates. In the end, we were left with a poorly built problem plagued stadium.
If Council repeats its stadium dithering, we will have Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Council, as they say, you have one job. Get on with the vote.


text:
Scott Duvall Gives Final Speech in Parliament – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 26, 2021
With a federal election expected later this summer or in early fall, retiring Members of Parliament delivered their final addresses before the House of Commons adjourned for the summer.
Hamilton Mountain MP Scott Duvall (NDP) gave his final address, closing out 15 years in elected politics – nice as Ward 7 City Councillor and the past six years as Member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain.
Duvall’s final speech is a perfect nine minute encapsulation of his politics and personality.
He pulls no punches in his final speech, attacking the Liberals for the shortcomings he sees in their decisions, sharing the stories of what brought him into politics, and wraps up by thanking many people while struggling to hide his emotions at ending this chapter of his life.
He is the tough steelworker who continues to hold dear his working class humility.
Duvall began by thanking residents of Hamilton Mountain for the “immense privilege and honour to serve my constituents over the past six years as their MP, and for nine years before that as their city councillor for Ward 7”.
Duvall says he looks forward to spending time with his family, volunteering with seniors, and working “with my grandchildren in my shop to help them build things”. He slammed the Liberal government for “several efforts by the government to legislate striking workers back to work and damage their ability to bargain for a fair deal”, “refusing to act on scab labour”, and “refusing to protect the pensions of workers during bankruptcy and insolvency”.
“I went through the bankruptcy at Stelco back in the day, and I will never forget Judge Farley’s advice … “I don’t like doing this, Mr. Duvall, and if you want to change it, go to Ottawa and change the legislation”, Duvall says.
The toll of public service upon the families of politicians is “immense”.
“Our families and loved ones make just as many sacrifices as we do, if not more, to allow us to serve our community. We miss a lot of important moments in their lives while we serve, and when we leave public service, it is my belief that we owe it to them to make up for that lost time and to cherish our families”.
With his voice trembling, Duvall begins his closing, losing a few words as he tries to contain his emotions while thanking his wife and Hamiltonians one last time before his final bow.
“I want to thank the people of Hamilton. Without them and their support, I would not have had the honour of sitting in the House of Commons or the important duty of fighting for all of them. Every day that I spent serving the people of Hamilton was a privilege, and I was humbled by the trust they put in me to represent them.
I again want to thank my wife Sherry of 47 years. I am going to be home this time.
Mr. Speaker, it has been my greatest honour to be a member of Parliament. I thank you and I respect you.
I want to thank all the people in the House and I want to thank all the members. I have become friends with many of them. I really appreciate it. I have had a great time and I am going to miss a lot of people”.
Watch the full video on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SZ40eFSi2I


text:
The City Urban Boundary Survey Is Not Slanted, It Is Bland – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 26, 2021
Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson attacks citizen survey in a pre-emptive strike against freezing urban boundary
Hamiltonians received a survey this week in their mailboxes asking them to choose between expanding the urban boundary onto greenfield lands or freezing the urban boundary. [PDF scan of the survey]
The one-page front-and-back returned postage flyer drew the ire of Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson who claims the survey is, as he put it, “I’m trying to find the right word, it’s probably going to be slanted a certain way because of the way it was asked. It’s like the Quebec referendum to support resolution numbers such as such, and without having an explanation of what it means”.
“When I read it [the survey], oh my goodness, this thing is going to be overwhelmingly in favour of intensification, which will be very sensitive to my community”, Ferguson says.
Ferguson is in favour of expanding the urban boundary and absented himself from the vote to engage the public by survey. The March vote to send the survey was unanimous with Ward 5 Councillor Chad Collins also absent.
The survey’s question is not leading or vague – unlike the Quebec referendum question.
It is overtly neutral asking “Which Option Do You Prefer” with three choices:
Option 1: “Ambitious Density” Scenario
Option 2: “No Urban Boundary Expansion” Scenario
Option 3: Other Suggestions – inviting people to submit their own ideas.
The flyer contains no leading information, actually, it may be flawed in not providing information to inform residents about the options presented.
On the front, it simply states “Hamilton is growing. The Province of Ontario requires Hamilton to plan to accommodate 236,000 more people by 2051” [emphasis in the survey] with basic definitions.
Below is the statement “if the City plans for more intensification and higher density development within our existing neighbourhoods in the urban area, it will reduce the amount of new greenfield lands outside of the existing boundary needed to 2051”.
On the back, it states “There are 2 key choices the City must make:  <1> How much of the population and housing growth should be planned for within the city’s existing urban boundary through intensification and redevelopment in existing neighbourhoods and communities? <2> How much of the population and housing growth should be planned in new greenfield neighbourhoods and communities located beyond our current urban boundary? The addition of new greenfield lands to the urban area is called urban boundary expansion”.
Councillor Ferguson’s complaints are based on his desire to see greenfield development.
As Hamilton Conservation Authority Chair, he most recently pushed for the paving of a wetland. The Conservative Authority Board voted against paving the wetland, following an outpouring of community opposition.
Ferguson knows the public overwhelmingly supports the Greenbelt, as Ontario Premier Doug Ford has repeatedly learned each time he muses about encroaching upon or modifying the boundaries to allow developers to build within the existing protected area.
Greenfield is synonymous to the Greenbelt for most people.
Thus, the root of Ferguson’s complaint – he knows the public will overwhelmingly oppose building on greenfield lands.
It is understandable that City of Hamilton planning staff kept the survey simple and did not present arguments for or against the options.
Ferguson’s developer allies have not put forth a concerted campaign to argue what they see as the merits to the “Ambitious Density” plan to push Hamilton’s urban boundary to include nearly all Hamilton’s remaining greenfield lands not already in the Greenbelt.
Nor has anyone (including myself) put together a good site with arguments for and against the two options. In this regard, we have fallen short of ensuring that we fulfill the deliberative part of our democracy.
I will note The Hamilton Spectator ran good op-ed pieces in late March regarding the proposals and presenting those side-by-side is a good option for those seeking to deliberate.
Ultimately, the survey’s primary purpose is to challenge Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark’s declaration that if Hamilton City Council refuses to expand the urban boundary, he and local MPP Donna Skelly will expand the boundary by provincial order.
With thousands, potentially tens of thousands, of Hamiltonians having stated they do not want a boundary expansion (and tactility engaged in democracy), the Tories will face a risky political cost in overriding public opinion to pave over greenfield.
Ferguson is foreshadowing the challenges which will follow a boundary freeze – while people may say they want intensification, they often want new development elsewhere in the city.


text:
2021 Hamilton Dieppe Commemoration Limited to 100 Invited Guests due to COVID – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

July 28, 2021
COVID restrictions limited outdoor gatherings to 100 people mean Hamilton’s annual commemoration of the Dieppe Raid will be invitation-only again this year.
One hundred ninety-seven members of the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry died during the August 19, 1942 raid against the Nazis-occupied Dieppe in France.
Nine hundred seven Canadians died in the raid, 2,460 were wounded, and 1,946 became prisoners of war.
It remains the bloodiest day in Canadian military history.
The raid is commemorated each year on August 19 at Hamilton’s Dieppe Veterans’ Memorial Park. Hundreds of people usually attend.
Due to COVID, last year’s ceremony was minimal with only a wreath-laying party.
This year’s ceremony will include an honour guard from the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry.
Canadian Forces bands are not presently performing in public due to COVID. The RHLI band will provide recorded musical accompaniment for the ceremony. A bugler will participate in the ceremony.
The City of Hamilton is paying for Cable 14 to broadcast live at 11 am on August 19.
The City will have security on-site to ensure only invitees are in attendance.
Separately, the Veterans’ Committee is planning for a COVID-dependent return of the annual Garrison Parade on the Sunday preceding November 11.
Planning is for both the Garrison Parade and Remembrance Day ceremony to be public events.